HSPs, Resolutions, Plans... and Letting Go

Another new blog from Denmarkguy; this one was interesting for this point:

It's not always an easy process to let go. Often we have strong attachments to our "involvements" and setting them free tends to feel like we are "failing," somehow. But we must consider that what we "cling to" sometimes is directly in the way of our own progress. And-- if the "letting go" impacts people-- we must find ways to accept that we "can't make everyone happy, all the time." Alas, sometimes the only way forward... is to leave something behind!

HSPs, Resolutions, Plans... and Letting Go

From a friend of mine: All the stuff people normally call "personality" is ways of being limited. It's better to be good and capable at everything. Or at least everything you care about with no hesitation to add to the list if you run into something else. But instead most people think they can only do their current "personality" and not any others, they don't realize a lot of it is just some learnable skills (like telling jokes, having charisma, being shy, being crude, being a prude, being excitable, being weepy or emo, being enthusiastic, all of these are very changeable or learnable).

Another thing he said: It's better to think of yourself as a malleable thing pursuing the truth. Don't have some fixed self image you're attached to -- that just means you're attached to whatever mistakes your current ideas have -- it gets in the way of progress.

When we don't invest in just one possible outcome being the only acceptable one, many doors may open along the way. Even failures just means you've gotten to a place where new opportunities and paths open that weren't there before you tried. Good point Peter.

Yes sometimes we can forget about attachement at every level of this reality...it works for every area of ones life...not just one or two..somethings we are attached to are obvious...others not so...because of how we define it...in our mind..

We can make the attachement ok in our mind and see that it might serve us in some way..but when you look at all attachements as coming from the mind..you learn what true freedom is about...

If by "attachment" you mean unwillingness to change one's mind (aka idea), then yes attachment is bad.

Other terms for that is stubborn, hard-headed, closed-minded.

Denmarkguy wrote:When I "let go" of something, I'm not saying "I don't care," I'm just letting going of my attachment that a specific outcome MUST happen, or else my life will be "less," or "miserable" or some other less-than-ideal state.

There's nothing wrong with "wanting" or "wishing." Where we get in trouble and end up getting hurt is when can't accept ANY outcomes aside from our specific one.

Sometimes there's something which is special to us, something which is irreplaceable. Not getting attached to the idea of having it… doesn't sound very easy. At least, not for me.

rombomb wrote:If by "attachment" you mean unwillingness to change one's mind (aka idea), then yes attachment is bad.

Other terms for that is stubborn, hard-headed, closed-minded.

Having an open mind and heart...

If your closed off in your conditioned beliefs and ideas..that mindset, can rule new ideas coming in....being open minded open hearted, you can listen to the ideas and hearts of others..and still make room for the new to build new awarness without projecting and holding onto,what your attached too, in your mind and knowledge already.....if you want to grow and expand that is...

And of course many are unaware of what lies in that conditioned space in the mind...lots of times its subconscious stuff affecting our conscious mind..if you delve into the subconcious mind and see how rigid, and firm its hold can be on the conscious mind, then you might see how at times our own saboutaging self can be at play...

You may *think* you are aware of it..but it isnt until you see or feel it at play that you begin to see your playing games with yourself..

Alethia wrote:

rombomb wrote:If by "attachment" you mean unwillingness to change one's mind (aka idea), then yes attachment is bad.

Other terms for that is stubborn, hard-headed, closed-minded.

Having an open mind and heart...

If your closed off in your conditioned beliefs and ideas..that mindset, can rule new ideas coming in....being open minded open hearted, you can listen to the ideas and hearts of others..and still make room for the new to build new awarness without projecting and holding onto,what your attached too, in your mind and knowledge already.....if you want to grow and expand that is...

And of course many are unaware of what lies in that conditioned space in the mind...lots of times its subconscious stuff affecting our conscious mind..if you delve into the subconcious mind and see how rigid, and firm its hold can be on the conscious mind, then you might see how at times our own saboutaging self can be at play...

You may *think* you are aware of it..but it isnt until you see or feel it at play that you begin to see your playing games with yourself..

I really like this latest turn of discussion.

We're talking about an interesting problem here. I'd like to rephrase the problem and I'm asking for you to confirm whether or not I've understood the problem the way you understand the problem.

The problem is that its impossible to infallibly know that one is not rationalizing reasons for a specific situation which means that its possible that one is rationalizing reasons for any given situation. The existence of this possibility is problematic. So how do I know whether or not I'm rationalizing in a specific situation?

Have I characterized the problem as you understand it?

rombomb wrote:

Alethia wrote:

rombomb wrote:If by "attachment" you mean unwillingness to change one's mind (aka idea), then yes attachment is bad.

Other terms for that is stubborn, hard-headed, closed-minded.

Having an open mind and heart...

If your closed off in your conditioned beliefs and ideas..that mindset, can rule new ideas coming in....being open minded open hearted, you can listen to the ideas and hearts of others..and still make room for the new to build new awarness without projecting and holding onto,what your attached too, in your mind and knowledge already.....if you want to grow and expand that is...

And of course many are unaware of what lies in that conditioned space in the mind...lots of times its subconscious stuff affecting our conscious mind..if you delve into the subconcious mind and see how rigid, and firm its hold can be on the conscious mind, then you might see how at times our own saboutaging self can be at play...

You may *think* you are aware of it..but it isnt until you see or feel it at play that you begin to see your playing games with yourself..

I really like this latest turn of discussion.

We're talking about an interesting problem here. I'd like to rephrase the problem and I'm asking for you to confirm whether or not I've understood the problem the way you understand the problem.

The problem is that its impossible to infallibly know that one is not rationalizing reasons for a specific situation which means that its possible that one is rationalizing reasons for any given situation. The existence of this possibility is problematic. So how do I know whether or not I'm rationalizing in a specific situation?

Have I characterized the problem as you understand it?

Unless of course one is conscious of one subconscious conditioning how would you know?...and even trying to rationalize that is part of your mind trying to grasp something that requires more than just rationlization...it requires the ability to suspend beyond the minds conditioning...and how do you know your there?

Yes how do you know? Ask yourself that question each and every time you respond to another in your responses. You may think your clear sighted but are you?

Do you know the answer to your question?

Yes your understanding it at one level...but if you look further into this level I am presenting to you..see what you see in that space and what it brings for YOU..no one else.....YOU...

Alethia wrote:

rombomb wrote:

Alethia wrote:

rombomb wrote:If by "attachment" you mean unwillingness to change one's mind (aka idea), then yes attachment is bad.

Other terms for that is stubborn, hard-headed, closed-minded.

Having an open mind and heart...

If your closed off in your conditioned beliefs and ideas..that mindset, can rule new ideas coming in....being open minded open hearted, you can listen to the ideas and hearts of others..and still make room for the new to build new awarness without projecting and holding onto,what your attached too, in your mind and knowledge already.....if you want to grow and expand that is...

And of course many are unaware of what lies in that conditioned space in the mind...lots of times its subconscious stuff affecting our conscious mind..if you delve into the subconcious mind and see how rigid, and firm its hold can be on the conscious mind, then you might see how at times our own saboutaging self can be at play...

You may *think* you are aware of it..but it isnt until you see or feel it at play that you begin to see your playing games with yourself..

I really like this latest turn of discussion.

We're talking about an interesting problem here. I'd like to rephrase the problem and I'm asking for you to confirm whether or not I've understood the problem the way you understand the problem.

The problem is that its impossible to infallibly know that one is not rationalizing reasons for a specific situation which means that its possible that one is rationalizing reasons for any given situation. The existence of this possibility is problematic. So how do I know whether or not I'm rationalizing in a specific situation?

Have I characterized the problem as you understand it?

Unless of course one is conscious of one subconscious conditioning how would you know?

What you said there is part of the solution to the problem I described. See below.

Alethia wrote:
...and even trying to rationalize that is part of your mind trying to grasp something that requires more than just rationlization...it requires the ability to suspend beyond the minds conditioning...and how do you know your there?

How do you "suspend beyond the minds conditioning"? What is the process? Can you describe it?

Alethia wrote:
Yes how do you know? Ask yourself that question each and every time you respond to another in your responses.

Yes but that is only part of it. This should be done with every idea -- that includes the dozens of ideas in each response. And not in just responses, but also each thought and each behavior and each emotion and each everything. Of course there are too many things to do this all at once -- so it should be prioritized. Things that you find most problematic, are the ones to work on first. Work on the less problematic one's later. And then do this asynchronously for all of one's problems.

Alethia wrote:
You may think your clear sighted but are you?

How can we know?

Alethia wrote:
Do you know the answer to your question?

I know fallibly. I can't know infallibly. And thats true for you and everybody else too.

Alethia wrote:
Yes your understanding it at one level...but if you look further into this level I am presenting to you..see what you see in that space and what it brings for YOU..no one else.....YOU...

Yes, only me, because I know things about myself that no one else knows, things that I'll keep private, things that are needed to figure out stuff about me. And each of us has that about ourselves, things that no one else knows.


All of what you said is consistent with the problem I described. Just for completeness, lets add the last 2 posts of content as part of the problem (which is all quoted in this one post). So whats the solution?


In other words, how can I know whether or not I am rationalizing in a given situation? Its impossible to know infallibly. But I can have fallible knowledge -- which is knowledge that I have no criticism of. So how does one do it? And what are some typical problems that one should look for?

The process is the same as how all knowledge is created -- by guesses and criticism.

To start, we have two rival theories (aka ideas or guesses): (1) I'm not rationalizing (aka not fooling myself), (2) I am rationalizing (aka fooling myself).

We criticize each of these two theories -- and criticize the criticisms -- and criticize the criticisms of the criticisms -- and so on. If anything at all is wrong with any idea, that's grounds for criticism. A criticism is an explanation of a flaw in an idea, and we want to be merciless here and find every flaw we can.

Every time you criticize an idea, you have created a new problem: how could that idea be improved not to have the flaw criticized? And you've also created a new idea (the criticism itself) which can be exposed to criticism.


So, criticism drives the process. Criticism identifies new problems we can try to solve, must be criticized itself in case it's mistaken, and sends me back to brainstorming (aka guessing) as ideas are rejected.

The goal is to come up with a single theory which I have no criticisms of. When I reach that point, I'm done. Everything I learned along the way, and this final result, are knowledge I've created -- knowledge that can be reused in future knowledge-creating sessions of determining whether or not I rationalized.


But, what about external criticism? Should I enlist help? Sure. Other people will have other criticism that I can feed into my own knowledge-creating process. In a sense, we all have blind spots, that we don't share, so when we share external criticism, we cover each other's blind spots. We're also sharing each other's guesses (aka brainstorming).


Note that I haven't answered this question that I asked 2 posts ago in the original version of the problem: "What are some typical problems that one should look for?"

All of us have found some of our own problems that we've solved. Most of us have discovered other people's problems, some of which have gone further to help them solve their problems. Many of these problems are common among us. What are these common problems? What solutions worked for you?

Alethia wrote:
...and even trying to rationalize that is part of your mind trying to grasp something that requires more than just rationlization...it requires the ability to suspend beyond the minds conditioning...and how do you know your there?

How do you "suspend beyond the minds conditioning"? What is the process? Can you describe it?

OK, I think I see the problem here. The easiest way to suspend the mind's conditioning is to listen without preconceptions, leaving them behind and considering what people are saying on their own merits. Don't try to plug it into your internal logic system but consider what you're hearing as a totally separate one that may have as much validity and perhaps more. As you do this, you'll find your conditioned paths of thinking changing and growing, as well as many of your conditioned emotional responses.

Conditioned essentially means an ingrained habit that is no longer noticed but ingrained and influencing most areas of your life. Your explanation of processes is a conditioned one, limited and missing pieces. I do not need to tell you exactly how, everyone has in most of their posts. Just put aside your preconceptions and read them again.

melodiccolor wrote:

Alethia wrote:
...and even trying to rationalize that is part of your mind trying to grasp something that requires more than just rationlization...it requires the ability to suspend beyond the minds conditioning...and how do you know your there?

How do you "suspend beyond the minds conditioning"? What is the process? Can you describe it?

OK, I think I see the problem here.

What problem do you mean?

melodiccolor wrote:
The easiest way to suspend the mind's conditioning is to listen without preconceptions, leaving them behind and considering what people are saying on their own merits. Don't try to plug it into your internal logic system but consider what you're hearing as a totally separate one that may have as much validity and perhaps more. As you do this, you'll find your conditioned paths of thinking changing and growing, as well as many of your conditioned emotional responses.

In other words, your saying to "here somebody out" as the idiom goes. Right?

melodiccolor wrote:
Conditioned essentially means an ingrained habit

Right.

melodiccolor wrote:
that is no longer noticed

Most habits have this quality, yes. Sometimes the cause is that the person was very young when it happened and doesn't recall having created the habit. Other times its because the person consciously buried it, in an attempt to preserve his self-image, either for himself, or others, or both.

What are some other ways that people stop noticing their habits?

melodiccolor wrote:
but ingrained

Habits, by definition, are ingrained. Fortunately, they are changeable.

melodiccolor wrote:
and influencing most areas of your life.

Some habits do have that quality. Some habits are tiny and affect very little of one's life.

One reason that habits can do some major harm is in the fact that they can be "passed on" from generation to generation (habits are memes).

melodiccolor wrote:
Your explanation of processes is a conditioned one, limited and missing pieces. I do not need to tell you exactly how, everyone has in most of their posts. Just put aside your preconceptions and read them again.

I read posts many many many times. Each time looking for flaws in my thinking. I even keep a list of open problems -- problems that cause mistakes in my thinking. And I reference this open problems list as I'm responding to posts. And I get external criticism pointing out my thinking mistakes helping me find my problems.


Here's an explanation of habits in the limited context of abuse and anger:

An abusive act is one that can be expected to hurt someone (physically and/or psychologically). The abuser could be doing it consciously or subconsciously, and so he might not know that his act is hurting someone. The other person may or may not get hurt depending on his interpretation of the abusive behavior and depending on the contextual details of the specific situation. Interestingly, for situations where the abuser is doing it consciously, if the intended victim doesn’t get hurt, then the abuser may try to find other ways to hurt him until he succeeds (and even that might not stop him from searching for more ways to hurt the victim).

People usually learn these abusive ways (aka habits) from their parents. They experienced abusive behavior as victims and now they commit the behavior as abusers, but this is not automatic, by that I mean that not every child of abusive parents becomes abusive. Often children experience abusive behavior and reject it as immoral and so they don’t do that sort of behavior to *their* children. This happens on a case by case basis, so a kid might learn some specific abusive behaviors but not others. Sometimes a child is abused at such a young age while he didn’t have enough rational sophistication to know to reject the behavior as immoral, in which case he could make it a habit, and he may never criticize that habit. And so he'll do it to his kids, and his kids may learn it, and the cycle continues.

Another way people learn abusive behavior is by using their own creativity to design new ways of abusing with the intention of hurting someone. In these cases it’s definitely a conscious thinking process.


Abusive behavior is closely associated with the emotion of anger. In most situations, if a person isn’t angry, then he won’t be abusive (that’s not to say that every case of anger towards someone is abuse).

In most situations of anger, the person wants to hurt someone. Sometimes the person is angry at a situation, rather than a person, in which case they say things like, “I’m not angry at you, just my situation,” and “I’m just venting.” But sometimes even in these situations, he’s *also* angry at the victim. An example of this is where a parent is angry about something that happened at work, and he comes home wanting to relax and wind down, and immediately his child makes a request, and parent snaps at him saying, “I just got home!” Then afterwards he might say to his child that he wasn’t angry at his child but actually he was. He’s angry at his child for not allowing him to relax and wind down. But he fools himself into believing that he wasn't angry at his child -- he's shifting responsibility.


So how does someone improve himself so that he stops hurting people? He must realize that abuse and anger can be expected to cause hurt. That abuse and anger are habits that we learned. And that we all have the capacity to change our habits.

Then, we must accept responsibility for our habits, and other problems in general -- not necessarily that we are at fault for learning our habits or causing our problems, but that we are at fault for not working to change them now. If we deny responsibility, then we are living passively, allowing our habits to control us, and allowing our problems to cause hurt on ourselves and on others. Instead, if we accept responsibility, then we are actively trying to change our habits and to solve our problems. Now there's a lot of bad ideas out there that explain that we are not responsible for some things, and then people use these ideas as rationalizations to deny responsibility (aka subconscously fooling themselves). Sometimes they do it because it’s easier than accepting responsibility. Sometimes they do it because it helps them feel better that they are not to blame. But the reality is that by accepting responsibility, we are giving ourselves the opportunity to correct our mistakes, and without that, then we are allowing our mistakes to continue to hurt ourselves and others.

Another necessary component to changing our habits is knowledge of how to change habits. It requires noticing problems in our actions, thoughts, and emotions. And the only reliable way to notice problems is to reflect on our actions, thoughts, and emotions. This act of reflecting is itself a habit. It’s something that we have to learn. It’s something that will take a lot of effort and a long time before we get good at it. Each time we do it, we are solving a problem. And with each solution, we are incrementally improving our ability to change our habits.

If we don’t learn this habit of reflection, then we won’t notice a lot of our problems, problems that are causing hurt on ourselves and others.

So the most important thing is the right attitude. The wrong attitude gives people the motivation to fool themselves. The right attitude gives people the motivation for finding their flaws so that they can improve themselves, continuously. This adds a layer of error-correction against fooling ourselves.

Rombom, you are just repeating the same things with each post. You miss my point.

I read posts many many many times. Each time looking for flaws in my thinking. I even keep a list of open problems -- problems that cause mistakes in my thinking. And I reference this open problems list as I'm responding to posts. And I get external criticism pointing out my thinking mistakes helping me find my problems.

Don't reference your system at all, don't compare others against it. Just listen to what they are saying as if it's something brand new and unconnected to how you see things.

melodiccolor wrote:Rombom, you are just repeating the same things with each post. You miss my point.

I read posts many many many times. Each time looking for flaws in my thinking. I even keep a list of open problems -- problems that cause mistakes in my thinking. And I reference this open problems list as I'm responding to posts. And I get external criticism pointing out my thinking mistakes helping me find my problems.

Don't reference your system at all, don't compare others against it. Just listen to what they are saying as if it's something brand new and unconnected to how you see things.

Do you think that works in science? If no, then why would it work in any other sphere of knowledge?

rombomb wrote:

melodiccolor wrote:Rombom, you are just repeating the same things with each post. You miss my point.

I read posts many many many times. Each time looking for flaws in my thinking. I even keep a list of open problems -- problems that cause mistakes in my thinking. And I reference this open problems list as I'm responding to posts. And I get external criticism pointing out my thinking mistakes helping me find my problems.

Don't reference your system at all, don't compare others against it. Just listen to what they are saying as if it's something brand new and unconnected to how you see things.

Do you think that works in science? If no, then why would it work in any other sphere of knowledge?

Yes, actually it does work in science. The brilliant flash, the idea out of no where that pans out, leaps of knowledge come this way.

melodiccolor wrote:

rombomb wrote:

melodiccolor wrote:Rombom, you are just repeating the same things with each post. You miss my point.

I read posts many many many times. Each time looking for flaws in my thinking. I even keep a list of open problems -- problems that cause mistakes in my thinking. And I reference this open problems list as I'm responding to posts. And I get external criticism pointing out my thinking mistakes helping me find my problems.

Don't reference your system at all, don't compare others against it. Just listen to what they are saying as if it's something brand new and unconnected to how you see things.

Do you think that works in science? If no, then why would it work in any other sphere of knowledge?

Yes, actually it does work in science. The brilliant flash, the idea out of no where that pans out, leaps of knowledge come this way.

No, it doesn't work in science. Science works by the scientific method, which is:

(1) Hypothesize a theory, that can be falsified by experiment.

(2) Design and execute an experiment that could possibly falsify the theory.

[Note that theoretical physicists leave the execution of experiments to the experimental physicists.]

What also happens is that scientists criticizes his own theory and the design of the experiment. He's also brainstorming new ideas, which are often variations of previous ideas. And continues to brainstorm and criticize until he's satisfied with his theory and the design of the experiment that could falsify it. By "satisfied" I mean that he has no criticisms of his theory and experiment design.

Then he publishes a paper, which others read. They too look for flaws. When they find them, they publish criticisms of the theory and of the experiment design.

After this, if the theory has survived criticism, someone might do an actual experiment on it. And when he does, now we have a result (assuming the experiment was successful). If the result is positive, that means it successfully falsifies (aka refutes) the theory. If the result is negative, then the theory is not falsified, its not refuted, its considered true, for now.

In the future, someone can design a new experiment that could possibly falsify the theory, and the cycle continues.

rombomb wrote:

melodiccolor wrote:

rombomb wrote:

melodiccolor wrote:Rombom, you are just repeating the same things with each post. You miss my point.

I read posts many many many times. Each time looking for flaws in my thinking. I even keep a list of open problems -- problems that cause mistakes in my thinking. And I reference this open problems list as I'm responding to posts. And I get external criticism pointing out my thinking mistakes helping me find my problems.

Don't reference your system at all, don't compare others against it. Just listen to what they are saying as if it's something brand new and unconnected to how you see things.

Do you think that works in science? If no, then why would it work in any other sphere of knowledge?

Yes, actually it does work in science. The brilliant flash, the idea out of no where that pans out, leaps of knowledge come this way.

No, it doesn't work in science. Science works by the scientific method, which is:

(1) Hypothesize a theory, that can be falsified by experiment.

(2) Design and execute an experiment that could possibly falsify the theory.

[Note that theoretical physicists leave the execution of experiments to the experimental physicists.]

What also happens is that scientists criticizes his own theory and the design of the experiment. He's also brainstorming new ideas, which are often variations of previous ideas. And continues to brainstorm and criticize until he's satisfied with his theory and the design of the experiment that could falsify it. By "satisfied" I mean that he has no criticisms of his theory and experiment design.

Then he publishes a paper, which others read. They too look for flaws. When they find them, they publish criticisms of the theory and of the experiment design.

After this, if the theory has survived criticism, someone might do an actual experiment on it. And when he does, now we have a result (assuming the experiment was successful). If the result is positive, that means it successfully falsifies (aka refutes) the theory. If the result is negative, then the theory is not falsified, its not refuted, its considered true, for now.

In the future, someone can design a new experiment that could possibly falsify the theory, and the cycle continues.

The process starts with the theory itself. The rest is testing it's validity. The flashes of insight, the leaps forward start at the beginning. Then there is life experience, people post of that directly, insights they've learned directly.

Life is not a science experiment, that is a limited structure for concrete things.

melodiccolor wrote:

rombomb wrote:

melodiccolor wrote:

rombomb wrote:

melodiccolor wrote:Rombom, you are just repeating the same things with each post. You miss my point.

I read posts many many many times. Each time looking for flaws in my thinking. I even keep a list of open problems -- problems that cause mistakes in my thinking. And I reference this open problems list as I'm responding to posts. And I get external criticism pointing out my thinking mistakes helping me find my problems.

Don't reference your system at all, don't compare others against it. Just listen to what they are saying as if it's something brand new and unconnected to how you see things.

Do you think that works in science? If no, then why would it work in any other sphere of knowledge?

Yes, actually it does work in science. The brilliant flash, the idea out of no where that pans out, leaps of knowledge come this way.

No, it doesn't work in science. Science works by the scientific method, which is:

(1) Hypothesize a theory, that can be falsified by experiment.

(2) Design and execute an experiment that could possibly falsify the theory.

[Note that theoretical physicists leave the execution of experiments to the experimental physicists.]

What also happens is that scientists criticizes his own theory and the design of the experiment. He's also brainstorming new ideas, which are often variations of previous ideas. And continues to brainstorm and criticize until he's satisfied with his theory and the design of the experiment that could falsify it. By "satisfied" I mean that he has no criticisms of his theory and experiment design.

Then he publishes a paper, which others read. They too look for flaws. When they find them, they publish criticisms of the theory and of the experiment design.

After this, if the theory has survived criticism, someone might do an actual experiment on it. And when he does, now we have a result (assuming the experiment was successful). If the result is positive, that means it successfully falsifies (aka refutes) the theory. If the result is negative, then the theory is not falsified, its not refuted, its considered true, for now.

In the future, someone can design a new experiment that could possibly falsify the theory, and the cycle continues.

The process starts with the theory itself.

Right, that is a guess.

melodiccolor wrote:
The rest is testing it's validity.

And that is criticism.

melodiccolor wrote:
The flashes of insight, the leaps forward start at the beginning.

Some of the flashes of insight are at the beginning. Some are later. History is full of examples of both.

melodiccolor wrote:
Then there is life experience, people post of that directly, insights they've learned directly.

All of that knowledge (that you're saying people gain "by experience") is actually gained by guesses and criticism. Its not learned directly. All learning is theory-laden, by that I mean that one's ideas affect the way he learns. So its his ideas that are causing the knowledge creation. He uses his experience in his guessing and criticizing.

The idea that knowledge is created by experience is known as Empiricism. Its been refuted.

Consider the way that babies learn to speak English. Do they learn it by experience? No. They learn it like this:

http://fallibleideas.com/communication-is-hard

melodiccolor wrote:
Life is not a science experiment, that is a limited structure for concrete things.

No. *All knowledge is created by guesses and criticism*, science and all other spheres of knowledge.

And that is where you disagree with everyone else essentially.

melodiccolor wrote:And that is where you disagree with everyone else essentially.

Everyone essentially? No. These are some others Critical Rationalists that I know of:

Popper, Einstein, Medawar, Eccles, Monod, Deutsch, Hans Albert, Rafe Champion, Elliot Temple, Alan Forrester, Erin Riopel, Lulie Tanett, Justin Mallone, Richard Fine, Kristen Eli, and more I don't recall right now.

not Einstein.

As great as critical rationalism is or denouncing inductive reasoning, I'm not sure how this pertains to the subject of letting go.

Rombomb, if you have critical rationalism on your mind recently because you just got done reading a book or watching a documentary about it or whatever, rather than attempting to apply it in a way which derails a conversation, make a thread dedicated to the subject.

Dreamspace wrote:As great as critical rationalism is or denouncing inductive reasoning, I'm not sure how this pertains to the subject of letting go.

Reasoning is needed to "let go". In other words, reasoning is needed in order to stop being closed-minded/hard-headed/stubborn about a particular idea).

Dreamspace wrote:
Rombomb, if you have critical rationalism on your mind recently because you just got done reading a book or watching a documentary about it or whatever,

I did read a book, but most of what I learned was by discussion on the BoI list: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/beginning-of-infinity

Dreamspace wrote:
rather than attempting to apply it in a way which derails a conversation,

That was not my intention.

Dreamspace wrote:
make a thread dedicated to the subject.

You're right that I should have started a new thread, since we took a tangent.

rombomb wrote:Reasoning is needed to "let go". In other words, reasoning is needed in order to stop being closed-minded/hard-headed/stubborn about a particular idea).

They're talking about emotional investments and letting go of those. This is a matter of emotion, the heart, not reason. You can understand quite well it is irrational to be so heavily invested in something, emotionally, but be unable to reason away the feelings. It's disturbing to think you can use reason to solve even matters of the heart. You should probably listen to the touchy-feely guys on this one.

While there may be some similarities, if you are confusing attachment to a certain idea or philosophy with the type of attachment you may feel to another human being… I'm afraid you may not understand emotional attachment very well. The way you may feel when your personal theories or dogma don't pan out is nowhere near as painful as when you experience loss in an interpersonal situation where you have grown attached. I'm talking a firecrackers versus nuclear weaponry disparity.

This is covering attachments to ideas or activities, as well, but this has nothing to do with deeming things 'illogical' as most of this would fall in the realm of alogical life choices about personal meaning and value.

Dreamspace wrote:

rombomb wrote:Reasoning is needed to "let go". In other words, reasoning is needed in order to stop being closed-minded/hard-headed/stubborn about a particular idea).

They're talking about emotional investments and letting go of those. This is a matter of emotion, the heart, not reason. You can understand quite well it is irrational to be so heavily invested in something, emotionally, but be unable to reason away the feelings.

But all of one's feelings arise from one's ideas. So what you said there means that a person is unable (so far) to reason away an idea.

Dreamspace wrote:
It's disturbing to think you can use reason to solve even matters of the heart. You should probably listen to the touchy-feely guys on this one.

Why is it disturbing?

Dreamspace wrote:
While there may be some similarities, if you are confusing attachment to a certain idea or philosophy with the type of attachment you may feel to another human being… I'm afraid you may not understand emotional attachment very well. The way you may feel when your personal theories or dogma don't pan out is nowhere near as painful as when you experience loss in an interpersonal situation where you have grown attached. I'm talking a firecrackers versus nuclear weaponry disparity.

This is covering attachments to ideas or activities, as well, but this has nothing to do with deeming things 'illogical' as most of this would fall in the realm of alogical life choices about personal meaning and value.

If you're talking about things like letting go of attachment to a loved one that has recently died, ya I'm not talking about that. Unless...

What about things like this?

Every time someone sees an image of his mother, who died 3 years ago, he cries.

Every time someone hears a certain song, he gets anxiety really bad.

Are these examples of attachment and needing to "let go"?

Do you believe you are a spirit in a physical body...and if no then where does your connection to all that is lay?

Here is a little experiement for you rombomb...sit quitely, close your eyes and breath in and out deeply. If thoughts come into your mind, just let them go..and focus on your breath. As you sit there in stillness eventually your mind will empty in that stillness and your focus will be on your breath.

After you sit in this space for around twenty minutes or as long as it takes to still your mind. What is left for you to connect with in that space.? The thoughts have stopped, the mind is still...if you were to carry this over into waking life and speak.... what speaks then?

Alethia wrote:Do you believe you are a spirit in a physical body...

No. I believe that the mind emerges from the brain.

Alethia wrote:
and if no then where does your connection to all that is lay?

I don't understand the question. Could you rephrase?