Origins

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    1,395

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Origins

  4. Posted

    @Leo Gura Maybe run an experiment for yourself, test how not watching porn or imagining women as they're portrayed there in a similar way affects your perception of them over say a month, especially in potentially more intimate relationships. Of course, you'd also need to cut out potentially other activities that may indirectly still reinforce any underlying undesirable outcomes that may be created from porn, i.e. things like Tinder, etc, not that I'd have any idea if you'd use a platform like that, I don't. Just an idea.

  5. Posted · Edited by Origins

    @Leo Gura I agree with Evil Racoon in a way, I don't buy it (even if I wouldn't phrase it like that). I mean, you can't deny it doesn't affect your perceptions of women and people in general, etc, all our behaviours do (not a porn watcher myself). We've gotta look at this stuff honestly. We shouldn't try to defend behaviours that may negatively impact our relationships, especially if we at all have any weaknesses in the areas in which said behaviours may impact those related weak (at the very least weaker) areas.

  6. Posted · Edited by Origins

    @assx95

    16 hours ago, assx95 said:

    I can see through my own attraction as well- I don't see beyond looks: The visuals. 

    Bro start right there, you should read @Preety_India's post about being objectified like that it feels fucking horrible when its turned against them (https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/61072-i-dont-wish-to-be-attractive-to-men/). Becoming "more attractive" etc should be a liberating explorative experience that isn't solely or nearly at all bound by the perceptions of the opposite sex.

    I only search for depth (so you can just imagine how many people not just women I screen out based on this). Sex is a part of that of course but its purely a layer of a multiplicity of geometric layers.

    Remove all behaviours that you have which may indirectly lead you to objectify women like that. Sure make a girl know that she's pretty if she wants that, but its like not even in the ballpark of what it means to be interacting with a woman. She's just a dude without a dick, a hole instead and different hormones. Seek soul connections.

    At the moment it sounds like you're soulless in your view of women, so start with yourself and what kind of relationship with reality you have on a soul level then incrementally move out from there on a value based level, etc.

  7. Posted

    More on attachment style (solutions)

    This method can likely be utilised across a range of different situations. Feel free to try it out once you understand the fundamentals.

    A visualisation method I've just started experimenting (which is working by the way) with a new way of modifying my attachment style, firstly my basic reasoning:

    • I feel this pain in my heart
    • I know that is just a repeating emotional pattern with no intrinsic significance outside of being a pattern itself
    • I know that this pattern emerged as a consequence of my relationship with my siblings and parents growing up
    • I know that this pattern was triggered just recently in a relationship dynamic that must have exhibited similar behaviour that conditioned this response in early childhood
    • In all likelihood I know that this emotional pattern must have somehow served a function in childhood otherwise I wouldn't have generated the pattern 

    The visualisation method is extremely simple so far (still in its preliminary stages):

    1. Imagine that I'm an infant, baby, toddler and that I'm experiencing the pain that I'm experiencing now or any kind of emotional pain I've experienced. Further, imagine that the same relationship dynamics that may have created that kind of attachment style are playing out, I'm just choosing a different reaction and subsequent response.

    2. Imagine that the pain disappears and I'm able to exhibit the attachment style that I truly want to exhibit in life and relationships at this young age

    3. Feel free to test this slowly up the spiral of ages all the way up to adulthood till now to discover other kinds of nuanced results for yourself

    Theory as to why this works:

    • Perhaps on some level because the subconscious is trying to figure out how to respond to every situation I'm a part of in life its only natural its going to load the patterns that have "worked in the past", by repeating the same kind of scenario that shows the same kind of dynamics and emotional response side by side with a different emotional response I"m choosing to exhibit and choice I subsequently take I'm retraining the subconscious mind to execute different patterns in response to the situation. Moreover, the more effectively you in my case visually show the subconscious mind that the new response is the better pattern to entrain in itself, the more effectively the subconscious will adopt this behaviour in the present and adapt with this new behaviour in the future. 

      Furthermore, because the fundamentals of this mechanism are (1) subconscious (2) situation (3) emotional experience (4) emotional response, this method of visualisation will likely work for a whole range of growth scenarios where you'd like to improve your emotional adaptation to a situation, or just adaptivity in general. The outer layer of this working though I believe is via the safety net of theoretical understanding of what you're attempting to change and or augment, for example, I have confidence in my knowledge about parental and human behaviour enough to know that the choice I'm making towards deciding that this is an improvement in my attachment style is a good one. If you don't have this for whatever scenario you're looking to adapt this to I think this method likely has a much lower chance of working. Another situation I can imagine this working in is from various phobias to sporting preparations to even personality changes from improving organisation and planning to openness to experience. The core fundamentals here are, "what are the related emotional responses that are likely more ideal here and what emotional responses am I exhibiting that I can maybe adapt to something better?", if you don't have this understood then basically no matter how good your knowledge is outside of this you're just not going to pull any gears there.
       

    Based on my realisations of the above method I just created its my contention that there's truly many, many more variations of say a secure attachment style than what's actually covered in the literature.

    This is based on the understanding that because:

    (1) our responses when were younger were comparatively limited because our knowledge was limited

    (2) our relationships and emotional reactions to others was more or less unidirectional 

    We as a human species never thought of our attachment style as any more complex than what is expressed in the standard modes (i.e. avoidant, anxious, secure / basic variations therein) simply because of its salience across time and secondly because we never projected how the negation of understanding this relationship between lower development and what we can do emotionally when we're more developed. When we are more developed, to the extent of that development and the knowledge of how to influence our development, we can naturally be more creative and innovative with not only our attachment style but in many areas of development that are seen through similar limited and myopic scopes as attachment style. In order to comprehend the limitations of our understanding what you need to do is make sure you don't see any theory as certain, solid, absolute and so on, especially psychological theories like these that are based on averages, thus statistical probabilities, which is based on what has happened and has nothing to do with what could happen. These theories do not at all take into consideration possible change and creative augmentation simply because we don't have enough statistics on humans being able to creatively exploit potentials here. 

    This will now be the preliminary building blocks for how I will theorise on attachment styles (both real and potential) that ultimately have yet to be adequately covered by the literature because the people in the field are simply not creative enough to do so one, and two because models in all scientific fields including psychology take a long time to properly update. And yes, it is my belief that with said visualization method alone combined with other methods as well if they're workable that one can adapt to novel attachment styles that are say nuanced versions of an ideal secure attachment style that wouldn't ever likely see the light of day in the scientific literature, and if ever only remotely. I already have distinct relationships in mind that speak to this reality (including of course nuanced versions of all the other standard attachment styles) already present in the human population I just don't want to explicitly refer to them on this forum or this journal at present.

  8. Posted

    Most people don't have a very visceral understanding regarding the relationship between internal stimulus (i.e. negative emotion), source and adaptation. It's a really bad idea to continue this pattern of behaviour in human nature, it in large part explains why humanity holds itself back. When you master this, you master a kind of body-mind enlightenment.

    Keep pushing humanity forward with your personal insights.

    Here's a simple diagram I created very quickly and haphazardly (time constraints - just looking to get ideas across: not final):

    INTEGRATION.png

    Furthermore, I've realised that attachment style is not just a personal-emotional gestalt that operates in human relationships, it is an existential gestalt that therefore affects all emotional relationships a person has with reality, thus making it of extreme importance to differentiate the full details of so we can learn from the insights available to this truth. The basic contention is heal/grow the attachment style and you heal/grow your relationship with reality first and foremost which as a byproduct heals/grows your relationships with other people.  This is the basis for including attachment style in the above diagram that I may add to and or refine at a later date. Furthermore, I will be developing my insights much further from here into a more complete theory that I'll share in the days to weeks to come, this is of course a detailed process that requires looking at many contradictory outcomes (i.e. how can someone feel totally connected to everything around them and yet not at all connected to people, what other variables play a part here? Are the variables still primarily attachment based / connection boundaries?) that'll force me to be more innovative in my approach.

  9. Posted · Edited by Origins

    Term created to elaborate on more later perhaps:

    Reflective Projective Energetic Interpersonal Mirrors

    • You must be hyper observant of your own state in relation to the way another person is influencing your state, not at all times of course, but just during peak times of your own development or the development you must be a part of, stay concentrated on the state you must create and be responsible to bringing into fruition in this existence. This is the balance. Energies move to and from, other energies can be hypnotic, and this can be very positive but in the case of a certain development you must be a part of in order to properly execute it in reality, for the positive ones, keep it in the harmonic balance, tend to it later, and for the ones you don't wish to entertain, be resolute in the transmutation. Some people will affect you more than others, sometimes this is simply because by various degrees you've allowed them to be more connected to you and they you, other times their may just be other kinds of energetic relationships occurring, subjects that relate to resonance, strength and frequency.

     

    Further - Reflective Projective Energetic Interpersonal Mirrors - expanding to deeper fundamentals (meaning this will now just be a connected concept to a deeper core truth):

    On a deeper level of this concept is essentially a core, a core which describes your energetic theory of existence versus non-existence regarding what you give power to and what you don't give power to which describes the circumference of that concept that we're now going to go to another level with. In the centre we have power, which defines the energetic parameters of our consciousness, we can give power to the past, the future, any thought, any feeling, what I will further derive is an appropriate term that captures the essence of staying focused on bringing something into creation at the cost of all else, this is your gravity field, you are a gravity field, your atmospheric pressure (i.e. discussion on your energy here), boundaries and zones are an important discussion in the context of what comes in and what goes out in lieu of your priorities for this existence.

    This aligns with other thoughts I've had about pretending that the only thing that exists is the task you're focusing on until you've completed it. But this is a rigid oversimplification though with layer's that speaks to a deeper truth at work as it concerns energy transmission, transduction and what we expand it towards versus what we don't in the extension of potential and what we decide to do with ours while alive. There is an energetic epicentre, which is you and this is the beginning and end to the parameters that must exist in your determination of where you extend your potential and where you don't. Remember your loved ones but remember your truths, this is the ideal intersection, and if not there, to incrementally move towards as you expand in your individual power.

  10. Posted · Edited by Origins

    quick reminder to myself:

    - Terms I created - 

    * bound time

    * unbound time

    = I created them a few years ago now, unknowingly it was the case that this was actually the trend I was meant to be continuing to follow, synthesise realities trends for myself and then create a language to describe those patterns and trends I uniquely noticed so that I had my own unique pathways to follow and create from

    = thus the above two terms are an example of what I'm meant to continue doing, keep creating a language for myself and then follow the implications to that languages right to the end

    ---- in this case the relationship between the two overlaps with the highest level of sophistication that can be achieved in the context of mind and reality, or at the very least, descriptors of completion in this sense at various intervals of that accomplishment 

     

    ============

     

    needless to say i entirely underestimated just how far behind the human species was in abstracting about reality that I underestimated both my own capabilities and how much work I needed to do there in order to further my own potential from a mind to reality sense

  13. Posted · Edited by Origins

    To create patterns… (is to perceive the world -- and vice versa (to create worlds))

    122333444455555________

    122333444455555________

    1A22B333C4444D55555E________

    1Al22BR333CB4444DP55555EG________

    Parallels the capacity to create worlds that did not exist before.

    And to perceive worlds, that always existed, but were not perceived before.

    The differentiation of our understanding of patterns in the context of our cognition forms the basis for understanding our ability to understand and in doing so, our ability to understand how to live, why to live and what to live for. All of these answers of which are merely patterns we’ve (or have been) followed in the past, can construct in the present and live in the future.

    Patterns fall on the spectrum of logical to intuitive, intuitive to tangential, tangential to linear and back to logical again. 

    This forms the basis for understanding our ability to understand and in doing so, our ability to understand how to live.

    In so saying as much, each has a unique verification process when stringing together ones own discerned patterns about existence, human behaviour and synthesising those in such a way as to instruct the ethos of the word virtue we’ve coined that is a by-product of philosophical reasoning and social custom. Like the word wisdom however, we will deconstruct our comprehension of the term virtue through the lens of ideal adaptive patterns accomplished through right thought rather than conduct that is right because its merely intersubjectively agreed upon. Not to strive for any more uniqueness other than towards something more reflective of the truth.

    To understand our reasoning about worlds in this way is foundational to grappling with one of the main problems of existence, the relationship between awareness and awareness of the world, which through this lens is merely a cognitive binding problem in the context of what patterns are perceived correctly and what patterns are not via sense perception. Secondly, through that virtue, this relationship combined with the relationship between awareness of cognitions capacity to construct worlds and to construct worlds that creatively overlap with the perception of the sense world inhabited. The byproduct of which is something often associate with simulation, which is the bedrock of contemplation for without which, contemplation is not possible, secondly then, the capacities for simulation speak in large part but are not equal to the capacities for contemplation (i.e. there are of course tangential aspects of cognition, lateral thinking for example which falls outside the scope of the pure capacity of simulation).

    So far we have the following discernments based on the above stated very straightforwardly:

    1. Patterns are very important for understanding life, therefore we should make them the focus of our enquiry when we discriminate between what is real versus what is false, what could be versus what could not be
    2. Patterns are the foundation to both perceiving life and creating life in the imagination, thus if we focus on our ability to perceive and create patterns our ability to generate creative patterns in the real world will improve
    3. The more creative patterns we can generate, the more highly sophisticated our response becomes and the less work we need to put into life 
    4. When you are contemplating existence, remember that those contents in your imagination are merely strings of patterns together contained and or separated by various categories you’ve assigned among other relationships you may have to those contents (i.e. emotional relationships), the higher awareness you have here the more objective you can be in your discernments thus increasing the likelihood you’ll generate more adaptive patterns for living this existence, thus, higher virtue relative to the essence of the meaning of the word as opposed to any intersubjective interpretations of said proclamation of virtue

    Furthermore, it can be stated that of course this encompasses the basis for what is involved in any kind of reasoning at all, differences between the two being relatively trivial, from induction to deduction, where the former relates more to patterns which is the more fluid aspect to intelligence and the latter the capacity for simulation which is the more attentional aspect of intelligence by comparison.

    This forms the basis for how we will go into our lived experiences and ongoing research (can even include films, anything really, just so long as you’re able to at the very least creatively relate it to life and behaviour) to generate data on to shift from the physical to the abstract. 

    This shift is the relationship between moving from sense data and the perception of patterns therein (the physical) to performing various simulations on said data to move to increasingly higher levels of abstraction that instruct better perception and subsequent behaviour in the present moment.

    Underpinned by this is the understanding that the minds orderliness relative to the capacities of the mental universe is essentially bound up by the contents that makeup its inner reality and its relationship to them. Thus, the higher the level of sophistication in the patterns we discern in our minds about reality the more orderliness we will bring to our mind and subsequent behaviour by instructing our actions through subsequent higher order behaviour.

    In short:

    • Physical sense data —> Abstraction —> More sophisticated behaviour —> More ordered mind (which then naturally creates a positive feedback loop)

    Orderliness shouldn’t be equated to ordinariness of course, the universe itself is highly orderly but we do a rather poor time of comprehending its vast intricate beauties, so moving to higher orderliness here is an ongoing natural creative expansion of being through the continual reinvention of mind.

    Further, let’s have a brief conversation about spectrums. When we wish to contemplate anything there is of course a spectrum to it, to contemplate anything well we need enough vastness in scope and breadth, the same too when we’re contemplating the highest patterns we can instruct for our behaviour while alive. So travel far and white, into your memories and into the history of humans and the universe at large from hundreds to thousands to millions of years back and bring this intelligent research to the forefront of your discovery process when you’re determining and creating patterns for yourself here.

    Lastly, higher sophisticated patterns of behaviour is of course not merely restricted to nor absent of physical movements, say overseas travel to gain experience in a different environment, more to the point actually is to the pattens of the mind first and foremost, simply because this will better be the catalyst for any corresponding physical patterns you carry out in the real world.

  15. Posted

    @benny Well that's because you need to step back and think a little more before making judgements about things, aka my posts.

    "You're assuming I'm struggling with my inferences. What makes you think that?"

    You've just answered your own question with your first statement of your last paragraph "as far as the infant..."

    Stop fooling around here please. I don't like my time wasted just as much as anyone else.

    Go build a skyscraper and let me know if both contemplation or field testing was more useful. I'm done with your nonsense now. Eat that for vague and verbose. 

  16. Posted · Edited by Origins

    @benny See right now you're not differentiating the fact that perception, instinct, thinking and awareness are entirely different things.

    Can you please elaborate on what you think an infants sense of knowing is?

    Infants don't think "that's just obvious" nor do birds solely walk on the ground or purely land animals approach water and say "its self-evident I'm not meant for water (/ only meant to walk on the ground)" (aka the traditional domesticated cat). Field testing has multiple components, you have to test and then you have to infer. If you're inferring the wrong things from accurate measurements how useful are  the accurate measurements? If I correctly organise the right medication in the precise way but give it to the wrong patient, they'll die (depending on lethality relative to their makeup). The same too for scientific journals when there's accurate measurements but incorrect inferences. 

    Sir, if our best scientists struggle with field testing and inferences together and you're struggling with your own inferences here I think you ought to take a step back and examine things a little more reflectively, minus the assumptions or a need to be right outside of trying to see things clearly (outside of the psychological structures of the mind that try to make a personal endeavour out of this thus having reality masked from them more than they otherwise would).

  17. Posted · Edited by Origins

    @benny Think of the mic as your brain, you can only field test what your mic is designed to pick up, secondly, you'll have to rely on the small pocket of reality that actually taps against you the mic. If you want to produce sound that is more than just a reflection of what's directly coming into the mic and out the speakers, something creative, you'll need an imagination. Testing, imagination and simulation go hand in hand. Testing is where we derive ground principles, imagination is where we abstract out and simulation is where we compare those abstractions with initial testing which may or may not be able to be produced.

    Artist music production and non-fiction in general is a great example of the double edged sword of both testing and imagination. There are worlds that exist that don't exist which we first need an imagination for, there are worlds that exist which we don't need to test the implications for just have an imagination for, there are worlds that exist which exist which we can see but have not experienced nor derive merely through imagination that we require testing for.

    The latter is purely the outcome of pattern recognition. How many rocks do you need to turn over to figure out that underneath is just dirt and no bugs? What bugs are likely there if there are some? Is it just going to be the same bugs underneath the previous rock if there were some? And if you've never experienced bugs or the potential living habitat of flying insects is it possible that you might misconstrue the living space of underneath a rock as that of a butterfly, a bee or a wasp? You could analyse the structural constituents of a bug to conclude that it would be far too unsafe for most flying insects, but what's this? You've found a queen of an ants nest underneath a rock. But that's merely because you haven't noticed that the rock itself was actually thrown on top of the ants nest a little earlier before. Be aware of assumptions, generalisations and a lack of differentiation. That's one of the pitfalls of simulation, a lack of imagination (aka simulation) for these things.

    Field testing only gets us so far... Obviously. A monkey can field test. It can't interpret or extrapolate on results though. Field testers need imagination to know they're not being imaginative enough when examining life, its the same as being aware enough that you're not being aware enough to know that you should follow the ant trail of seeking conclusions that lead you to higher awareness.

    Thanks @Danioover9000

    Testing, testing, mic... Check... 1, 2... Feedback from reality please!

    giphy.gif

  18. Posted · Edited by Origins

    @benny to add to what Leo said, imagine you’ve got a perfect model of yourself that you can seamlessly contemplate in your mind, you can skip over a lot of experience that way allowing you to just move to those experiences that are more suited to you. This starts and ends with field testing of course, however you should remember to exhaust your capacities for simulation which comes after you’ve had an experience. That’s where the gems of wisdom come that no one else sees as they’re too busy repeating the same uncreative patterns they did yesterday.

  19. Posted

    This is a journal dedicated to thinking about the patterns of humans since the dawn of time as much as I can fathom it and simply moving towards those patterns that work and moving away from those patterns that don’t. You could characterise this as a kind of “wisdom”, even it’s strictest definition, however at present I’m conceptualising such through the lens of its functional elements, that is, the overlap between this particular reality, our capacity to comprehend it and the way to live it relative to the structure of our beings.

    Moreover, the connotation of “wisdom” is an outcome of the “minds behaviour” which can be sorted into a sociocultural lens that turns wisdom into a culture of “wise truths” rather than a genuine discernment and acting on truth relative to ones best intent.

    By sorting mental experience relative to its essence, which is via patterns, identifications and subsequent categories of comparison, I have a better chance at separating “what’s mine from what’s yours”, and avoiding many other kinds of social biases that corrupt my own thinking about life and how to move forward with it, or in this case, look back and derive patterns with a discerning eye about what tends to work for us humans, what doesn’t, replicating and then using that as a platform to be creative from to start inventing more of my own increasingly more nuanced behaviours from there. Originality in a crowded room is a pattern that’s reflected one of mans greatest fears, thus it in part must be his greatest triumph to standout in such a way, a rebellion which is to the sophisticated extension of his ancestors as well, one which aims to do right by his culture weighed against the avoidance of what wrong one knows their fellow species can do. Both behaviours, the extension of creative behaviours and the discernment and avoidance of uncreative behaviours relative to the larger creation of the universe is at the centre and end of this inquiry here.

  21. Posted · Edited by Origins

    @soos_mite_ah it seems like you have a life filed with chasing content as opposed to personally deriving truths in a sophisticated manner and creating, so your problem is not actually addiction, that’s just a consequence of not yet learning how to move to self truth and life lived around your creative productions. Ask yourself instead of anyone telling you, what are are the patterns that I need to discern in order to move to that kind of way of life?

    This forum for example is a hub of advice asking and giving, but how much do people actually act from a place of self truth? Is this forum everyone’s “self truth”, really? Your (mostly everyone) content doesn’t come across that way. I think most people need to have more honest conversations with themselves, put their own simple lives in contrast with the trillions of lives that have come before them, will come after them and the centuries of time and change humanity has gone through to reach this point. Who lives this way? Only self actualised people. How many people on this site live that way? I’d say the number needs to increase a lot.

    So I hope that many people read your post @soos_mite_ah are honest with themselves and come to terms with avoiding the same problem.

    We have to evolve culture @soos_mite_ah and we need all people taking a serious perspective on how they can play their part. 

    (starting to sound like a cult leader now so I’ll just slide off into the distance)

    Seek higher sophistication and less effort, not more effort and less sophistication.

    And the best way to do that is to follow what you intrinsically are, which is your awareness, and very slowly putting together existence yourself taking the worlds ideas as things that can help that process and then slowly actualising that understanding a little bit more each day.

    You have to organise all that content in your mind though, like an encyclopaedia. For this we have memory techniques that the wisest people grew up using. 

    Start listening to yourself @soos_mite_ah but start doing it from the smartest lens from the ground up.

    (1) expand your perception

    (2) differentiate the vital ingredients that make up your existence then slowly further out from there

    (3) avoid making assumptions, assumptions can destroy a human beings life in 2 seconds flat 

  24. Posted · Edited by Origins

    @Hardkill Projection is a bitch. I wouldn’t project an external socialised image of right and wrong to workout whether what another person has done is right or wrong. If you solve projection here, you hit many birds with one stone. How you resolve projection is through actual social negotiation and understanding the personal individual, avoid assumptions based on cultural values, although in general they can often be a useful frame for understanding others, but for you properly making sense of the world, they’re not, just something to pay respect to when it’s right to do so, which is something you determine with your personal conscience.