Does Human Existence = Human Expression?

[xxxx]

Is the core of human existence centered around its need to express itself, through the various emotions?

Does human existence = human expression? 

Is it that we are a lonely species, with a strong need for survival, with expression as its only tool? If this were to stop, would they cease to exist, altogether? 

Are human emotions just a selfish tool for survival? 

Example: If most of the people in the world really do get truly enlightened, does that mean that the population would be bare minimum - because they have transcended the need to express themselves, through these human emotions?

 

[mmKay]

Check maslows hierarchy of needs for a reference for what is the " core of  human existance ". Understand why it's shaped like a pyramid. 

Expression in your case is a mental concept with an arbitrary meaning that creates a false duallity between "this is expression" and " that is not expression".

What I'm trying to make you see here is that everything is "expression" to some degree. 

You creating this post is a kind of expression. 

You asking this question is a kind of expression. 

You having some kinds of foods over others is a kind of expression. 

You blinking is a kind of expression. 

So for expression not to happen is imposible. 

For your current perspective, consider this general rule of thumb : the more developed and conscious, the less neurotic and exponentially more expressive and creative. 

Edited December 10, 2020 by mmKay

[Megan Alecia]

Invariably yea. We are consciousness expressing itself as human as certain spiritual teachers and philosophers have said alike. 

As for emotions I don't think emotions are enough. There has to be a rapid shift in consciousness, something like... maybe the Internet revolution. Stuff that reaches mountains and father. 

[Origins]

@xxxx Expression is just one action of the causal loop we're all on, although it depends on the flexibility by which one is using that term, indirectly or directly, implicitly or explicitly, if its just meant directly and explicitly then no, the accumulation and storing of wisdom for example runs contrary to sheer explicit and direct expression, but not in an indirect and implicit way, and even if you interpret the storing and accumulation of wisdom as an action, then expression is still an implicit and indirect expression compared to say painting, but explicit and direct unto itself relative to the neural action of accumulating and storing. Another example can be as it pertains to the feeling of an experience, or even the sensing of an experience, these two, of which are examples of being "acted upon", still "act within" and consequentially lead to direct and explicit forms of expression but they too, inside the scope of indirect and implicit expression fall inside the broader framework of expression in the same way as it was described that say a neural action or neural firing does.

So if we include indirect and implicit means, I would say yes, but its a very broad way to encapsulate it don't you think? Expression of what exactly? The expression of consciousness potential? We'd need to categorise the various forms of expression together with potential to understand the larger framework of expression and the smaller frames that fit within it in order to separate human expression from say life expression. Because if all life is doing is expressing itself through various ongoing developmental changes overtime, how are we separate to this exactly? 

What other tools does life have other than expression, if these other tools exist, how do they fit in context with their use for humans outside of expression? Life seems very much a doing. 

Why are we a lonely species? Are we a lonely planet then too? From one perspective. We could easily switch emotional lenses to something else though.

I don't believe selfishness is really a word, its merely describing a pattern within nature from the perspective of someones emotional reference frames in the same way that one might equate the human species as a lonely one; an act within the loop of consciousness; defense, protection, attack, absorb, etc. Felt impressions are quite distinct from life expressions in the context of knowing and describing the action of what something is outside the subjective reference frame.

Is a spider selfish for making a web to catch prey? Not really, at least we often don't think so. Is a cross country runner selfish for illegally taking steroids? From the perspective of the other runners absolutely, he's being unfair right, but from the perspective of the spider, he's just spinning his own kind of web to get bugs caught in his net so that he can have his feed, in this case, a medal, trophy, social status and maybe a blowjob from his wife for winning / or a reconsideration of the divorce, could be any number of scenarios you wish to come up with, perhaps his trainer is not his married wife and because he's a numb-skull his winning leads to a sexual opportunity with her which leads to cheating his wife finds out and so she goes through with the divorce. But where was the selfishness here? Selfish to his wife yes, but then maybe the wife wants his money, not selfish to his trainer because she wants the sex.

Selfishness then is a subject of interpersonal ethics between the relevant parties. Intelligent fairness determinations are then the result of what terms and conditions were communicated between the parties. We have inherent biological ethics and we have pseudo biological ethics where the latter is a consequence of changing perspectives through a change in the agreed upon narrative between the parties. So from the perspective of the competition, yes he was indeed selfish by their terms, but nature says he's just following his nature, otherwise he never would have done it, the same too for organisations that create said competitions under the assumption that they know its within peoples natures to not only wish to compete, even if only for entertainment, but also to do so under conditions that are fair more than unfair and that people will be harshly mocked and that its within peoples natures to experience the shame of that enough that they would wish to avoid it (though some don't of course). 

Survival is a funny term that like selfishnes looks blatantly obvious on the surface of things but although survival itself appears to be more relevant to what is happening in peoples actions, has a much richer story than what has so far been discussed in culture. For example, going back to that causal consciousness loop that we're all on, many people commit suicide for many different reasons outside of mere depression and loneliness that it brings into question the nature of the term not just inside the human experience but as a whole in understanding the nature of nature itself in the context of that word. If survival is so fundamental, why on earth would we associate it with the negative connotations that you sometimes see play out, even if this is only emotional? Something tells me this is merely a story about the persons misappropriation of the term and its consequences more than it is something egregious against the term and natural implications. Re-cognitive appraisals are a must in culture. "Oh so its just a survival tendency (meaning "oh its just a blah" as if to be negative)", for me people should look at all forms of survival with the ultimate form of love in light of it being an expression of the true nature of existence at that time. Dissonance is something people struggle most with more than most other aspects of survival.

I wouldn't believe anyone in the world that said they "got rid of their emotions and now they're enlightened", because emotions are the fuel that the engine that is the body needs to do literally anything, which includes talking about ones new state of enlightenment. Enlightenment to me is a case of your relationship with your personal existence more than it is a breaking of relationships with various forms of your existence, in this case, ones emotions. The stronger and more stable the relationship has with all aspects of existence, naturally, the more enlightened they're going to be.

Emotions wouldn't ever stop. Even in a state of dissociation a person is still experiencing emotions of various kinds, they're just not able to notice them. Lastly, even if emotions are a non-event, what happened to the antecedent of emotions themselves? They're not this isolated thing like a species or a lonely planet in the solar system, like the planet and the human species, they're interconnected with a whole host of other phenomena of course that both contribute to the existence of emotions and emotions contribute to the existence of many other things. So if you extracted emotions, there's no telling just how much would change in the pattern of not just the human species, but the entire planet. I sense that many people have this strange desire to be emotionless, which in the end, only equals motionless. The very drive to be emotionless is an emotion of sorts unto itself. 

Edited December 10, 2020 by Origins

[Leo Gura]

14 hours ago, xxxx said:

Example: If most of the people in the world really do get truly enlightened, does that mean that the population would be bare minimum - because they have transcended the need to express themselves, through these human emotions?

You are misunderstanding enlightenment. It doesn't eliminate emotions, it allows you to feel them stronger and deeper, and appreciate them more.

Unenlightened people express themselves in neurotic and dysfunctional ways because they are run unconsciously by based emotions related to fear.

Conscious people express themselves more authentically, functionally, and creatively in alignment with Truth & Love.

Creative expression is going to happen regardless because that's not a human quality, that's God's very nature. God is infinite creative expression. The closer you get to God, the more creative and powerful your expression will be.

You should distinguish low consciousness emotions centered around fear and falsehood vs high consciousness emotions centered around Love & Truth.

[xxxx]

@Leo Gura,

I get what you are saying - and I have one more question:

What about human expression through the means of procreation? Where would we fit that? Isn't procreation somewhere linked to the human desire for symbolic immortality, based on a myriad of emotions? 

How would an enlightened person look at this? Why do most traversing the path towards enlightenment abstain from this - monks, etc.? 

[mmKay]

 

[JosephKnecht]

16 hours ago, xxxx said:

Are human emotions just a selfish tool for survival? 

Human emotions are just motivations for human actions.

We act because we feel. And we feel because we feel that our feelings are real. 

19 minutes ago, xxxx said:

What about human expression through the means of procreation? Where would we fit that? Isn't procreation somewhere linked to the human desire for symbolic immortality, based on a myriad of emotions? 

If you identify with the body, you will seek to "immortalize" your identity. Many parents at some point project their identity to their children and see their children as the ones carrying their torch of immortality. 

But, the identification might not be only materialistic. You might not identify with the body, but rather with beauty, kindness, compassion, love and you might wish to pass these onto your children. Children as seen as a blank canvas onto which you can imprint your identity. 

 

[Gesundheit]

I think humans are more accurately copying machines than survival machines. We copy the behaviour of others, and we do that unconsciously for the most part. For example, if the general trend was to go and jump off of Mountain Everest  once a human reaches 40 years old, we would all be doing that without questioning. Only the minority would be skeptical enough to question the general trends. I know that's a crude example, but then how do you explain smoking, video games addiction, unhealthy diets, and all the other stupid things that humans do that clearly go against survival?

[Origins]

@Gesundheit Copying would be a subset of learning behaviour and learning behaviour a subset of adaptive behaviour, I don't liken ourselves much to machines other than appearing machine like the less creatively and more crudely we want to rigidly view human nature outside the scope of mind blowing philosophical, musical and artistic works. The term machine likened to the human organism is the kind of fallacious pattern detection between object and phenomenon that when it intersects the use of the term is then applied for all other instances, regardless as to how much either object or phenomenon diverges from one another. The perfect example of this kind of fallacious reasoning occurring in the context of this example pertains to human intuition, related persons will go to machine like interpretations to explain intuition even if the reflected intuitive behaviour doesn't seem machine like at all.

Another interpretation I'd like to open your mind to in the context of your example pertains to the limits and dynamics of consciousness itself, your example relating to Mt. Everest reflects lower levels of human consciousness, thus is analogous to judging all humans as cowards simply because cowards happen to be the analysed demographic at the time. Another example relates to rainfall, if it always rains in the wintertime and never snows, we will say that it will in fact never snow when in reality these scales are just relative to the dynamics of the weather system, or in this case, the dynamics of consciousness. When we think from the perspective of underlying dynamics then our correlations are more likely correct, but if we neither understand those dynamics nor apply them, then all we will rely on is what we have experienced which will likely draw incorrect conclusions. A good example pertains to an unhealthy relationship with a parent, if you always perceive them as cruel and harsh because they've always been cruel and harsh you won't expect anything else, however if you understood this parent from a psychological and personal subjective level and got at their core underlying dynamics, you'd have a much higher likelihood at circumventing that narrative where you could leverage their better tendencies over their negative tendencies, sometimes its as easy as distancing (and of course if they're that bad you can just say see you later and not even bother in understanding their dynamics after a certain point, which is what I would do if it were that bad).

So if we go back to copying behaviour, we can look at said relation to existence in the context of unconscious learning that serves some adaptive purpose, wouldn't you say that said adaptivity in the context of your examples would be a reflection of social survival? Secondly, going back to the reflection on lower levels of consciousness wouldn't said copying behaviours be merely compensatory measures for having less capacity to understand and orient oneself in existence? So it's not that humans are copying machines, its that humans resort to copying behaviours when they're unable to cognitively prioritise for alternative behaviours. This is especially the case when we compare demographics i.e. less versus more education in critical thinking, further to, this is even more obvious when we compare periods of history and the trends of the modern era in the western world. Comparatively speaking, people are far less copying orientated compared to where they were in a hunter-gatherer society thousands of years ago, this must mean that by definition, humans are in fact not copying machines, that it is a byproduct of certain compensatory cognitive to environmental dynamics which result in strategies to reduce the energetic load and maximise efficiency. 

[Osaid]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

but then how do you explain smoking, video games addiction, unhealthy diets, and all the other stupid things that humans do that clearly go against survival?

It's actually a virtual identity which is trying to survive, AKA the ego. The ego does not have to pertain itself to just the physical body, people can identify with anything. The body is just a very common and primitive identification. Since the human mind is so complex, our identity can become heavily entangled with our environment and daily activities.

For example, smoking keeps the ego comfortable and satisfied, and so it will do its best to perpetuate the cycle of smoking. The perpetuation of that cycle is survival. In this case, smoking is prioritized over the health of the body, and so the habit of smoking will be perpetuated by the ego.

Ultimately, survival is just the maintenance of a specific form.

Leo has a really good 2 part series on survival which explains this stuff in detail

 

 

Edited December 10, 2020 by Osaid

[seeking_brilliance]

Does existence = expression? 

(there I cleaned it up for you ?) jk

[Gesundheit]

1 hour ago, Osaid said:

For example, smoking keeps the ego comfortable and satisfied, and so it will do its best to perpetuate the cycle of smoking. The perpetuation of that cycle is survival. In this case, smoking is prioritized over the health of the body, and so the habit of smoking will be perpetuated by the ego.

Forget about the addiction. Why would anyone smoke in the first place?

@Origins Dude, that was tough on my mind. It's too abstract even with the examples, I barely understood a few points and now my mind is wrecked, I won't be able to think for a few hours.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Gesundheit

[Origins]

@Gesundheit If we can re-imagine the past, we can re-imagine a future that we might alternatively live, and if we can do this, we can imagine a future outside our preconceptions of what phenomena may be and therefore where they may or may not lead. 

Thank you for adding to the discussion regardless, you allowed me to explore more narratives that are a part of the equation, if any.

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, xxxx said:

@Leo Gura,

I get what you are saying - and I have one more question:

What about human expression through the means of procreation? Where would we fit that? Isn't procreation somewhere linked to the human desire for symbolic immortality, based on a myriad of emotions? 

How would an enlightened person look at this? Why do most traversing the path towards enlightenment abstain from this - monks, etc.? 

Most enlightened people I've met have kids.

In practice, enlightened people fuck just like everyone else.

[Forestluv]

What is the self of expression? What is the human of expression? 

At a very young age, we develop a sense of personal self and desire to express ourselves. Some kids may rebel against anyone repressing their self expression “Your not the boss of me!!”. Others may reprepress self expression because it seems abnormal to society - they don’ want to be seen as weird or be rejected. Societies love to say “follow your heart, follow your passion”. Yet with this come untold rules, restrictions and stigmas. 

Many people have felt the sense of freely expressing ourselves. Perhaps a concert in a forest in which it’s all ok and you can express who you are without judgement and self criticism. To me these have been important experiences of contrast in which I realize “so that’s who I am”. The all the society conditioning is contrasted. All the judgements and critics programmed into the self.

I lived in an isolated village in Belize for a bit. I asked a native woman to tell me about her tribe’s original spirituality and why it is considered taboo. She told me that hundreds of years ago western colonizers entered and told the indigenous people that their ideas of spirits was actually dark energy and demonic. Yet the people didn’t naturally believe it. The colonizers had to keep repeating this “meme” or and over for generations. Then the indigenous people told it to themselves and their children. After a hundred years, colonizers were no longer needed. The country and village is now liberated. The colonizers have left. Yet the meme continues. Most indigenous people saw the native spirituality as taboo, dark and dangerous. They feared expressing it. . . And so it is with a child who leaves the house carrying 20 years of imprinting, such that they no longer need their parents to criticize. They now have their parents / society in their mind self-criticizing and self-judging, thinking it is the self. Thus repressing their true self expression.

And one can go to a transpersonal, transhuman area of Self expression. When I sit and observe the magic of a bumble bee interact with a flower, there is love, awe, appreciation and joy. Yet who is the “self” of expression? If “I” dissolves, “my” expression no longer exists. It would be odd to say “my self expression is observing the bee interact with flower”, since One could just as easily say “My Self expression is the bee interacting with flower”. When the boundaries of separate self dissolves, a new form of transcendent expression arises. And this can later be personified. After the arising of transcendence, the self can take ownership and personify. After the bee flies away, the person may continue e the hike and reflect “I really enjoyed that experience. I’m the type of person that likes to be immersed in nature. Perhaps I should express myself by painting nature or writing about nature”. . . .And then we we a beautiful dance between various characters of “self” within the movie.

[knakoo]

12 hours ago, xxxx said:

@Leo Gura,

I get what you are saying - and I have one more question:

What about human expression through the means of procreation? Where would we fit that? Isn't procreation somewhere linked to the human desire for symbolic immortality, based on a myriad of emotions? 

How would an enlightened person look at this? Why do most traversing the path towards enlightenment abstain from this - monks, etc.? 

 

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Most enlightened people I've met have kids.

In practice, enlightened people fuck just like everyone else.

"Why do most traversing the path towards enlightenment abstain from this"

So first semen retention as tremendous power and will accelerate spiritual development. Read this if you want to know more : https://www.reddit.com/r/NoFap/comments/dqwuat/benefits_after_50_days_of_semen_retention/

Secondly, there is apparently an impact on your system when you have sex, which can make it harder to spiritually awaken. Sadhguru say you take in a lot of "memory" from your sexual partners. He also says "if you pick up enormous amount of memory, it will become later one very difficult to remain peaceful and joyful in your life, simply because there is confusing memories in the system". If you want to learn more watch this video : 

 

 

But of course someone can awaken even with a active or very active sexual life. It is just probably more difficult. 

[Origins]

Oh and just to be clear about my own ethics, if that guy did end up sleeping with the trainer in an otherwise "perfectly healthy" marriage and I was close with the wife in just a friendship capacity, its within the realms of possibility that I may just cut the guys dick off then tell the wife 'see I told you that guy was a moron', though the former is more likely than the latter.

It takes good genetics to be automatically inclined towards the right thing, effort to have true integrity with your word and intelligence to have true ethics, it takes a moron on all three accounts not to. So to the moron I say fuck you (not if they're truly incapacitated though) here's a gun to the head or at least a punch to the face, figuratively speaking (though sometimes literally who knows).

Just to be clear.

Nature is nature but we are human, if you fail here, you've lost an integral part of you that makes you indistinguishable to my decision making around stepping on bugs without remorse if they're truly causing an issue.

That's where the subject of selfishness comes in, which always begins and ends with ethics. For most people its too complicated of a subject to try and understand, in reality, just do your best to be what you think a good person truly is and you'll be fine.

[Osaid]

16 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Forget about the addiction. Why would anyone smoke in the first place?

Maybe they were depressed and sought to cope with it by smoking. Could be anything tbh. Apparently peer pressure also plays a big part.

 

[Gesundheit]

@Osaid What I'm saying is that copying is more fundamental than survival. Survival requires conscious effort and attention. Copying doesn't, it just runs amok.