Bernackums said:

There often isn't much purpose between bickering with someone over semantic arguements, it doesn't go anywhere productive. My post was just to try and get these guys to stop caring so much about the internet, and stop wasting their efforts on something that would return very little satisfaction beyond the "triumph" of one's own ego.

---

Quote:

So when I see a human telling another human they're "doing a service" by trying to make the other human think right I just see a load of  .

---

Quote:

In all of this, a person should not be confused as ‘being” either the unconscious or conscious mind. To reiterate, mind is a computational tool by which the Self knows and expresses Self in the world of experience. The potential of a tool to create is equivalent to its potential capacity to destroy or oppress: its effects depend on how it is used by the Self. Dynamite can be used for peaceful or violent purposes: a leader can destroy or incredibly enhance a culture (e.g.. hitler vs. Christ). In the same sense, the psychological processes that create pain for an individual can be used to generate satisfaction and creative solutions. This explains in part why the unconscious can be benevolent (the humanistic view) or oppressive (the Freudian view): It depends upon the individuals relation to it and his or her willingness to accept all parts of the self as valid.

A primary factor in all of this is the extent to which the individual equates his or her self-identity with that tool. In other words, a person identifying himself as being (rather than expressing) a particular process will be used by (and thus cannot use) that process. For example, suppose an individual has a strong rule that states that he must be intelligent (and thus cannot be unintelligent). He will thus be highly motivated to exhibit behaviors that support such a claim, while simultaneously avoiding at all costs behaviors that could challenge the validity of such a proposition. As such, he will hesitate to experiment with behaviors that have uncertain outcomes associated with them, and consequently will become entrenched in familiar (habitual) patterns of thinking and behaving that simulate intelligence. This would of course inevitably disallow the expression of intelligence, as such a process requires independence, spontaneity. and creativity. Of course, the individual might act "intellectually”, though at best this would be a painful simulation.

---

Quote:

When I shit on someone, its not for their motivation, its for their content.

---

It is the content I'm discussing, there are pages of semantic arguement in which everyone is trying to make a point and no one is listening. Then people get irritated and pissy. I wonder why people care this much.

This is all. No harm. I merely suggest going for a walk.

zen buddy said:

... then how do you know what you're talking about?

---

Mufungo said:

If people hold something to be true, even while completely in the present moment, they are believing...

If they don't hold something to be true, then how the f@#k do they speak an opinion about anything. Even saying "that's untrue" is holding "that's untrue" to be true. It's inherent in the way language works.

Supreme ignorance of believing is not the same as "not believing". Just saying "I don't believe" or "I don't have any beliefs" doesn't undo that, by even saying "I don't believe" presupposes the the speaker holds that statement to be true, and if they hold it to be true then by definition the very act of saying it is an act of believing.

Now having said this I'm expecting someone to go, "But, but, but, I really don't have beliefs and I don't believe either. Prove it if I do." To which I will answer "sure you do" pat them on the head and let them dwell in their ignorance of how they use language to frame their experience...

---

This is well said and correct. After all, at some point, we do have to accept a truth to stand behind. Whether that's fairly simple and straight-forward truth such as "Shit, I'm falling from an airplane" or "I think lowering taxes helps economy" (I don't personally believe those ones, tho), it's still one alternative picked from countless others. Short offtopic obvious remark:
This format gets extremely interesting under the effect of psychedelicss. 2C-E may allow to see the rapid version of how clouds disappear, a fine and in-detail description of the movement of air currents - Intuition allowed to work directly to visual world to morph the experienced truth match the truth of near-future or the truth normally invisible.

So, even simple things need some consideration when they are being believed in.

Even that word "intelligent" is not exactly correct and a bit loose term for it, I think we're "intelligent" in a sense we can choose the world we live in. And not only our friends, our house, our job - But also our attitude, ideology and in the most extreme sense, our perceived reality.

Whether animals can do that I wouldn't know, but I am sure our dog was smarter than majority of humans.