UnbornTao

Amen!

Yep. And Microsoft is supposedly "removing" some of its AI from Windows.

Not shit - invented, complementary, ultimately disconnected from the actuality of things. Extraneous. Like eating a picture of food when hungry. You can of course get angry at that. The main point is that the circumstances are not the deciding factor. The mere objective obstruction does nothing more than physically prevent you from moving forward. Why would this event by itself have to generate anger - or any other reaction, for that matter? What else occurs *within you* such that this reactivity can show up in the first place? You do see and interpret the situation a certain way relative to your concerns and wants. You likely had a desire or expectation that was thwarted - to which your response is reacting in an angry way. Yeah, I mostly agree. We ourselves are the main anger-inducing factor, though. If we see it as an obstruction, it may well be relative to some concern, expectation, or goal of ours that we're failing (being unable to) to fulfill. This is related to our agenda and desires. A circumstance or an object themselves don't care, warrant, or demand a fixed reaction from us. I claim that we don't really know what either anger or pain are, intrinsically. We just think (believe) we do due to their familiarity, and our natural arrogance. This kind of mental "knowing" can actually take the form of ignorance and prevent us from observing what's really taking place as the emotion. Explaining it is one thing; being aware of its nature is another. Consider that to the degree we realize its nature is the degree of freedom we're allowed to generate it or not. (Not as a pretension but as a real ability to willfully experience it or not.) Not saying this is necessarily easy or commonplace, but it's possible. We could see the emotion as having certain components that occur regardless of the possible causes ascribed to it. For example, anger is always related to a past event. It's about something that's already passed, even if just a millisecond ago. The first paragraph sounds reasonable. What underlies the emotion, though? Obstruction of movement is again a simple physical act that by itself doesn't have to induce anger. Something additional has to occur. What do we do when we get angry? Regarding your second paragraph, the difference is that anger is based on a past imagination, while anxiety is a form of fear - both of these are based on a future. A bit all over the place.

Let me shoehorn this now:

Goone, but not forgotten.

Got it. Neither was I.

Thanks for the recommendation. Just so you know, I was quite clear on my view of these worlds: there might be a real principle underlying the expression, but it is woo-woo - the show and presentation, and how it is pictured. There's a reason why the positive thinking movement is so popular, easy to consume, and entertaining. It makes people feel that wishing for something is more significant than what it really is. Go for what's real, not for what merely sounds good or is just self-affirming. We might sometimes have a hard time discerning which is which but it is worthwhile to recognize this.

Sure. Just saying that this kind of entertainment tends to end up becoming a form of pretension. But if you can make it work, it works. If it's useful, then that's that. It's more about assessing the purpose of the so-called communication.

But this kind of 'spiritual' resources is what I mean by wishful thinking. It sounds good and profound but what is the video doing? There could be a principle behind it. That could be useful. Educating people on how to access that would take a different form than giving a set of claims that are implicitly made to be believed. In the end what it does is filling people's heads with good-sounding ideas. It's entertainment.

This does nothing other than providing you with a fun time for as long as the video lasts. Also, it gives the vibes of AI voice over. Stinks of BS mostly. We all love a good fortune cookie once in a while.

@Cathy92506 Weren't you a duplicate account?

Too maverick to be nonconformist. 🐠😎

Having it known, so to speak, tends to undermine our experience of the emotion. It makes us feel like we know what we're talking about, while in truth a lot of that is disguised ignorance in the form of a "map." Yeah, my gripe is with getting lost in the mapping and not really recognizing the difference between these two domains. This sounds like a basic point, and yet it's easily missed. Also, it's real. Look into it: Why would the physical act of obstruction necessarily ignite or inspire anger in oneself? You can be walking beside a construction site and be met with a bunch of bricks falling just in front of you, making you pause. Not only will you not be angry, you'll be glad that you stopped in your tracks. Notice that you can not get angry when merely physically obstructed. If you get angry as a result of that, it suggests you wanted to do something but didn't get your way, and so you felt hurt, which the anger is trying to manage. I claim this is inextricably linked to a feeling of incapacity. Hurt is core to anger. It is something to look into. Pain's contribution to life is huge. Hierarchies are fine, and yet they are not necessary and are hearsay when it comes to one's experience of the emotion. I find such pursuits tend to distract us and keep us stuck in intellectual considerations, and so are superficial in this case. Not saying such overlays can't be useful - they just have very little to do with the actuality and presence of the thing itself. What actually occurs so that that emotion arises?

The point of competition is usually winning. Especially in a professional setting, that's what the team effort is about.