Balance vs Positive

Here's a fairly abstract topic:

In the battle between positive and negative, is “balance” or “positive” the ultimate answer?

The meaning of “ultimate answer” is of course ambiguous, but I'm especially concerned with emotions here. Should negative emotions really be eliminated? Or are both positive and negative emotions necessary? The answer, I suspect, deals with many larger topics such as the battle between good and evil, the meaning of it all, and the God question. Is the universe ultimately neutral, or ultimately good? Where are we going?

Personally, I tend to think that the universe overall is positive. But with the question of emotion, I'm a bit torn. The simplicity of the idea that both positive and negative are necessary attracts me. But it does seem that negative emotions can be more damaging. On the other hand, positive ones can sometimes be wrong, too… so: what?

Re: Balance vs Positive

Philosophy is not about reality.  Philosophy is about language.  Physics is about reality.

The universe is what it is.  “Positive” and “negative” are not properties of the universe, they are labels that we apply to things that we like or dislike.

Instead of “balance”, think “tradeoff”.  “Balance” suggests 50-50, “tradeoff” could be 60-40 or 80-20.

Your mileage may vary.

Re: Balance vs Positive

Hi Booner,

Actually, philosophy is about things so real they are eternal… Physics is about the ephemeral stuff of the universe.

Love,

Nicole

Re: Balance vs Positive

Great! Another quite interesting and philosophical question!

I would like to toss in Choice into this discussion. May I?

Recent explorations into my own and near friend's minds show a pattern of “negative” and “positive” feelings and the balancing thereof. It also looks more and more obvious to us, that we actually choose what we feel, and thus experience. That is an old “thruth”, I know, but knowledge doesn't become wisdom before it has been digested by the heart.

What if life simply means what we put into it, what we bring ourselves. If we bring the concept of Balance, then life will be an act of balancing things. If we put into it the belief that everything is fine whatever happens - I'm learning, that's all there is to it - then I'll be learning, etc. So, we choose how to exerience occurrences.

Of course, I put no value in the choice. It's as if life is a long Walkabout and if we make it fast and do all the “right” choices, we go on to the next level of play faster. But if we saunter and lead a meandering life, we learn and experience more and are better prepared for the next level when we finally arrive. Somebody has already said that, no? That we are the sum of our choices.

I don't know if I added something of value to this discussion, or if I just stirred the pot. Neither do I know if there is an answer. Somewhere I heard that according to psychology, every (sane) person is born with four basic emotions; fear, sorrow, anger and joy. * From these we evolve our own quilt of emotions. The more different emotions we encounter and make our own, the more we learn. (This is not really what I inteded to write after the *, but my keyboard is FU and I can't write the letter to the right of “o” any longer…)

I'll be back!

Fixie

Re: Balance vs Positive

To me, “The universe is essentially positive” and “the universe is essentially neutral” do have fairly concrete meanings (in a way). If the universe is neutral, then there is no “meaning”, meaning that we can decide what to make of life and there's no right answer. This is connected with the idea that the universe just happens, that life just is– meaning that the universe doesn't prefer one possible reality over another, and has no general tendancy as far as realities go.

If the universe is positive, on the other hand, then it prefers some realities over others, and there is some central thing these realities tend towards, as if there's something the universe is driving at. We're still free to give the universe what meaning we want (because our emotions are our own, as was mentioned), but there's now an obvious choice to think of as correct. Also, it doesn't matter how strong this tendancy is; 60-40 or 80-20 or 90-10. If it's there, no matter how weak, it will assert itself over time.

The universe being essentially negative would mean that everything is driving away from everything else. It seems to me that this is probably not the way of things. We'd all be dead by now.

Also, I doubt that there are two opposite centers towards which things draw, or three, or multitudes.

Re: Balance vs Positive

I think you're on the right track, looking for concrete meanings.  Can you express your “positive” and “neutral” as a testable hypothesis?  Or even something that lends itself to a thought experiment?

We know that the universe tends towards greater entropy.  This means that the universe prefers some realities over others, that some kinds of machines are possible and some aren't.  I'd call entropy a “negative”.

There also seems to be a tendency towards spontaneous complexity.  This is less well understood, but I'd call it a “positive”.  The complexity arises along entropy gradients, so in a way, one is the flip side of the other. 

Re: Balance vs Positive

so if spontaneous complexity is linked to entropy, is entropy really a negative?

unless we can ever really develop a true theory of everything, we're still stumbling in the dark with these kinds of assertions. the blind men and the elephant.

namaste,

nicole

Re: Balance vs Positive

Even if there are local areas of spontaneous complexity, the total entropy increases.  That's the physics part of this, and it can be verified experimentally.

The philosophy part is whether to apply the label “negative” to this.  We can disagree about that, and there's no way to resolve the question experimentally.

My interpretation of the Blind Men and the Elephant is that the blind men rushed to apply labels to the elephant and the labels got in the way of their understanding.

Re: Balance vs Positive

Ah, yes. The law of increasing entropy. This almost definitely fits what I would mean by “the universe is essentially negative”.

As I said, I highly doubt it.

If entropy always increases, where'd the universe come from in the first place? I know that's not exactly a logical uestion, but I think it's important. If the universe tends towards entropy, then any pockets of order that occur will go away in time. So how can we be here? Science has to assume that we start out in a state of tremendous nonentropy– all energy concentrated in a single point.

The law of increasing entropy only holds for closed systems– systems that get no new energy (or matter). There is no way to experimentally prove that the universe as a whole is a closed system.

Re: Balance vs Positive

You're looking for a loophole, arguing technicalities.  As if you can ignore the law of increasing entropy until someone proves that the universe is a closed system.

I say “Follow the Evidence.”  Expect entropy to increase, unless: you can locate the influx of mass/energy that would make the universe an open system, or: you can demonstrate that the universe's total entropy is not increasing.

Re: Balance vs Positive

Do you think that the energy for the big bang came from somewhere, or that it just was there?

Of course, no matter what explanation for the universe we use, we've got to eventually arrive at some basic thing that “just was” or “just is” to cause everything else. But I prefer a “just is” explanation to a “just was” explanation– in other words, I tend to assume that the process of creation is continuing, rather than being a past event. This tends to mean either an open system that continues to increase in complexity, or a  neutral system that maintains a fairly steady amount of complexity and has done so for an infinite amount of time.

This doesn't particularly conflict with the scientific establishment– for example, there's the idea that universes are like bubbles in some substance that spontaneously forms such bubbles- so a big bang is a spontaneously occuring event in this larger substance. Also there's the idea that a big bang occurs when two universes collide, which does follow conservation of energy as far as I'm aware, but not within a single universe.

So, in short, any “explanation” of the big bang requires the universe to be an open system– at least initially. Though scientists tend to then postulate larger systems around the universe that are closed.

Perhaps more importantly, if we assume that the universe is closed, there can't be much basis for ethical action, because in the end we accomplish nothing. So, no matter how small the probability that the system we currently  see as largest (be it the universe or the multiverse or whatever) is an open system, we've got to keep it in mind, because the potential payoffs are arbitrarily large, whereas the payoffs within the closed system have a limit.

Re: Balance vs Positive

I don't know, I think the heat death is kind of beautiful, I think we should suspect it's a human prejudice to be anxious about entropy.

Re: Balance vs Positive

Do you think that the energy for the big bang came from somewhere, or that it just was there?

I have no evidence for either position.

Perhaps more importantly, if we assume that the universe is closed, there can't be much basis for ethical action, because in the end we accomplish nothing.

You seem to be arguing that ethical considerations should drive our assumptions about the universe.  I think this is backwards; I think that physics is logically prior to ethics. 

Re: Balance vs Positive

Well, I was trying to make a probabilistic argument. When trying to maximize in an uncertain domain, a particular action's consequences aren't entirely certain. All we can do is assign certain probabilities to certain outcomes. To estimate the payoff of a particular act, we're supposed to multiply the payoff of each possible result by the probability of that result, and add all of those together. The result is the average expected payoff for the action. When making a decision, we're supposed to calculate the expected payoff for each possible action, and pick the largest. If we give some small probability to the chance that our particular system is open, then we still get arbitrarily large payoffs for actions that take that chance, because there is no cap on that particular payoff, while there is a cap on all others. More mathematically, if we take the limit as the amount of time we're looking at approaches infinity, all other values vanish. This has the following intuitive meaning: assuming a closed system, the payoff processes we're examining will eventually come to an end, so as time approaches infinity, the total payoff approaches some fixed value. Given an open system, total payoff increases without bounds. Therefore, no matter how small a probability is given to the system being open, the payoffs for this possibility will eventually exceed the payoffs of the possible closed universe, if we look far ahead enough in time.

So the question becomes: do you assign the possibility of an open universe some very small probability? Or absolutely zero? Obviously, if you assign it zero probability, then your argument holds instead of mine. But how can you scientifically argue it? Remember, we're not supposed to pick the result with the highest probability. We're supposed to take each into account in proportion to it's probability. So saying that a closed universe is by far the most probable situation isn't relevant.

But, none of this adresses my stronger claim: that the universe actually is open. Your point is a good one: there's no evidence for where the big bang came from. In fact, I suppose the evidence for the big bang in the first place is fairly shaky. We can't see it or touch it or study it. It's an extrapolation based on the idea that laws of physics hold absolutely, not only in the here and now, but in the ancient and far away. The assumption that everything follows the same rules. If we apply this assumption to the big bang itself, I guess we're forced to conclude that it did indeed come from somewhere, because everything comes from somewhere. But the assumption tells us near to nothing about where it came from.

Re: Balance vs Positive

You've made a very interesting argument.  It's almost a secular version of Pascal's Wager.

However, you're not discounting the payoffs for time.  I can put a dollar in a money market account, and thanks to compound interest, the value of that dollar will approach infinity over time.  Does that mean that a dollar is infinitely valuable?  No, of course not.  The Net Present Value is still only a dollar.  So even if you have a small probability of an infinite payoff, the expected value can still be finite.

Finally, on the “everything follows the same rules” point, I would challenge the premise.  We know that subatomic particles don't follow the same rules as billiard balls, so we should allow for the possibility that infinitely dense singularities have their own rules as well.

Re: Balance vs Positive

When I say “everything follows the same rules”, I mean that everything follows the same set of natural laws. If things are different for singularities, we would say it's because of a natural law. So what I'm saying there is really just a tautology:

“Everything follows the same rules.”
=
“Everything follows the laws of nature.”
=
“Everything acts according with the universal description of how things act.”
=
“Everything does what it does.”

But, anyway. When deciding what to do, we don't usually look at present value of actions (though I'm sure we sometimes do). More often, we look at the value at some point in the future. If we looked at present value, we wouldn't put the dollar in the bank account at all. We'd want the dollar now. My argument rests on the idea that we should look as far ahead as possible. Some people would obviously disagree with this; many might say we should look only to the point of our death, after which we wouldn't care, for example. But people often look beyond the time of their death to further consequences– particularly those that sacrifice their life for some cause. I would argue that the further ahead we look, the better. This also means that the value we're trying to maximize can't be our own pleasure, since we can't maximize that past our dying.

Does that adress what you're saying?

Re: Balance vs Positive

My argument rests on the idea that we should look as far ahead as possible.

And how far ahead is that?  The farther out you look, the more the uncertainties pile up.  To make decisions today based on the uncertainty of an infinite payoff infinitely far out into the future… well, let's just say it's too many words and not enough data.

You'll notice I said “uncertainty” instead of “probability”.  If you tested a random sample of a thousand universes and found that X percent of them were open, you could talk about the probability that this one is open.  Of course, if you had a test for openness, you could test this one and you wouldn't need to talk about probabilities.

I'd make a similar argument with respect to the Big Bang.  Yes, natural laws are natural laws, but our understanding is incomplete and due to the difficulty of conducting the experiments, it is uncertain whether singularities obey the natural laws as we understand them today.

But back to decision-making: I'd argue that uncertainty puts an upper limit on our time horizon.

Re: Balance vs Positive

“As far ahead as possible” means that we do the best we can, despite the uncertainty. I like to say that we take the widest context availiable to us, and assume it's positive. If we later discover a wider context, in which our old context was actually negative, then we change.

For example, if we're working for some big company, then by default we should do whatever we can to ensure that comany's sucess. We do the best we can with what we have, and for the moment that means being the best employee possible. Later, though, we may find out that in the larger context of the nation, this corperation we're working for is actually quite negative, and it would be best for everyone if it were wiped off of the face of the earth. Now, we should reverse our behavior, doing everything we can to undermine the evil aspects of this corperation (while, of course, trying to preserve any good that's in the thing).

Returning to the idea of present ethics given potential infinite payoffs: since we are looking for those infinite payoffs that may occur if the universe is open, we are trying to (1) optomiize our ability to use new resources that come our way, even if it takes an extremely long time to get here, and (2) optomize what we have to offer for any sentient beings that come our way, even if it takes them an extremely long time to get here. Both of these mean trying to survive for as long as possible, and also trying to spread. However, in the case of very very long times, the two goals start to become a bit contradictory: if we follow the first to the utmost, we'd be setting up mechanisms that could lie dormant until anything sufficiently non-entropic came along, plunder that thing for energy, and start trying to re-seed humanity with the energy. If we follow number 2, we'd be more likely to try to leave large amounts of information (science, technology) and possibly some material resources behind once we're gone, for other sentien species to find. Both of these end states I like to call “seed societies” (as analogy to plants that make seeds and then die). However, they are very different; the first is quite dangerous for an alien race to find, as it will try to eat them, and the second is quite good.

Anyway, that's very scifi, and I guess it has nothing to do with my point.

Re: Balance vs Positive

Do you ever indulge yourself?  Maybe spend a little more for extra cheese on a pizza?  Money that you could have used to stockpile resources in a time capsule for some alien race to find in the infinitely distant future?

Re: Balance vs Positive

Are you arguing that people SHOULD self-indulge, or just that they do? I would argue, of course, that any real benefits of self-indulgement (of which there are many) must be measured in terms of long-term payoffs (what else?). Self-indulgement first off will make you happier, which has a definite positive effect on your behavior (as long as you don't self-indulge overmuch). Second, more complicated forms of self-indulgement (more complicated than food/drugs/candy) often are actually forms of self-development in disguise– for example, playing computer games has been shown to develop the mind (not just hand-eye coordination, but also speedy visual recognition, and a few other factors).

Anyway, I now realize that I didn't adress your concern at all. Instead of coming up with a new post, you could have copied and pasted!

What allows us to take the limit at infinite time, rather than just looking ahead a finite amount until uncertainties grow too large, is an assumption that uncertainties are distributed in a particular way. This has a bit to do with the “widest context is positive” argument, but is more mathematical: unless more information is known, we must assume that a larger payoff in one amount of time will on average be a larger payoff in a longer amount of time. If I know that choosing X will get me twenty dollars right now, and that choosing Y will get me ten, but know nothing else about the possible consequences, I should still choose X, even though the potential long-term payoffs are unknown, because I do know that twenty dollars now is better than ten, and looking at the long-term, I know that in most cases that's still true.

So in cases of such extreme uncertainty, the limit at infinity makes no difference. However, take a different example:

X results in $20 now
Y results in you and all your descendants getting 1 cent a day for the rest of your lives

Now, of course, the long-term payoffs are potentially arbitrarily large, while the current payoffs are $20. In some cases, the first choice is still justified: if you are more likely to die without children, or may die with less children, or children that are somewhat worse off, if you don't get that $20 now (which may be the case more often then it might sound) then don't do it. However, if you are in a fairly stable state, in which the $20 now has no chance of being converted into a payoff equal to that arbitrarily large multigenerational sum, then take Y. (Actually, if you spend the $20 well at all, I suppose 1 cent a day benefit isn't hard to beat. So the $20 may be the right choice in a good number of cases.)

Anyway, the point isn't the result of the math– the point is how I'm doing the math, by assuming that short-term benefits have long-term benefits that are about proportional, given no other information. (I suppose I shouldn't call this “doing math”, though. Not quite formal enough.)

Re: Balance vs Positive

I am a little confused. Maybe it's an apples/oranges thing. But if entropy rules, how can money accrue interest to begin with? How could mind have organized enough to conceive of money to begin with?

I personally see a constant flux and flow between order and chaos. And that each is necessary to balance the other. Order always emerging from chaos and chaos always emerging from order. In physical terms, both appear to be features of the same field. Perhaps they configure in bandwidths or as shells of nested phenomenon. Just noodling. But I like the image of a “breathing” multiverse, although science scoffs at my prefererence as a basis for inquiry.

And that's okay!

Also given that we don't know and if we must assume, to assume that emerging order is an enduring phenomenon seems the more productive choice. At least for me, if that is relevant.

But in terms of emotion: I think of emotion as part of a natural navigation system. We really do need a full range of responses. What we don't need to do is to indulge in our emotions. They are information and require accurate interpretation to inform effective action. If we force a false positive, then we will not end up where we thought we would…

Which, entropy or no, is a real pain in the neck.

Re: Balance vs Positive

I am a little confused. Maybe it's an apples/oranges thing. But if entropy rules, how can money accrue interest to begin with? How could mind have organized enough to conceive of money to begin with?

Entropy rules for closed systems.  The Earth is not a closed system, because it gets energy from the Sun.  For a while, anyway, until the Sun burns out.

Also given that we don't know and if we must assume, to assume that emerging order is an enduring phenomenon seems the more productive choice.

Is it productive to assume that our physical bodies will endure forever?

This thread has drifted a bit.  It is fun to speculate about the Really Big Questions, like whether the Universe is open or closed, but we should remember that we live in the Here and Now, and have much smaller problems to solve.  One of the Green principles is Human Scale, and maybe it should apply to philosophy and cosmology.

Re: Balance vs Positive

Why would I assume our bodies endure forever? Why would I assume anything? Perhaps where this conversation has drifted is in the introduction of entropy and closed systems in the first place. The original question was about positive and negative emotion, which I think is a wonderful inquiry, and which I addressed in my previous post, having just come into this dialogue.

I personally enjoy spelunking into the deeps of mind, and noticing how internal dynamics so often mirror external dynamics. But to preserve sanity, it is important for me to remember that nothing is fundamentally proven.

Obviously, or we would have a deafening absence of this sort of dialogue. And we would all be the poorer for it.

Re: Balance vs Positive

Hi Mary,

I'm afraid we have gone a long way from the original intention of the pod planter. Here it is, to refresh our memory:

“We are taught many things that we take for granted. Some are true, but some may not be true. However, when something is repeated enough times, it often becomes a meme and becomes “truth” by default. But is it really?

“The purpose of this pod is to take a critical look at some of the memes are told to buy into. Some might pass muster…and some may not.

“We will also explore creating new, more positive memes and disseminating these ideas to the world.”

I was enjoying discussing these before the dialogue veered into something else.

So, let's bring it back. What memes need busting or creating and promoting?

Love,

Nicole

Re: Balance vs Positive

Diving in here.

'Im afraid we have gone a long way from the original intention of the pod planter.”

Reading Mary, I got that she was addressing the original question of this thread, which I think, forgive me if I'm wrong, Abram, was more or less “is positive better than negative” particularly regarding emotions. I agree with Mary, it's a wonderful inquiry.

This is a meme, I believe: “good emotions” are preferable  to “bad” ones. I'm with Booner on this: “Positive” and “negative” are not properties of the universe, they are labels that we apply to things that we like or dislike.

Take fear for example. Is it any different to excitement? Think about it. Feel into it. I suspect there is no difference at all, other than the label we choose to put upon it. I have experienced  anger as a sensation, rather a fine one in fact, by placing my attention on the actual, here and now, physical sensations that were occurring in my body.  As Mary said, we don't have to indulge our feelings. Feeling them is one thing, doing something with them is another.

Sandra

Re: Balance vs Positive

Thank you Sandra. I agree that we define emotions superficialy through a filter of positive or negative. But I also see that there is a shrinking and closing with fear, and an opening and acceptance with compassion. These actions open profoundly different lines of probability.

In this sense, the emotional experience is good information about what course corrections need to be made in order to function more effectively. Unfortunately, there is a stong inborn drive to seek pleasure and avoid pain, and we define “pain” as “negative.” But if we avoid painful emotions, we fail to extract the essential information, and tend to mindlessly recoil and drive ourselves into more pleasurable experiences.

This is where we lose our balance…

Re: Balance vs Positive

The “problem” with negative emotions is that they negate. A person obviously cannot do much good with only negative emotions, while there is not such on obvious limitation with having only positive emotions. For example, we do not really need fear to keep us from doing dangerous things– all we need is the knowledge of the results of our actions. In fact, giving up fears often helps. Love, however (or at least some weaker positive emotion) is absolutely needed in order for us to take positive actions of our own free will.

So would an ideal person need any negative emotions? For what reason?

I suppose the ideal person would need no negative emotion partly because the “ideal person” would have nothing left to learn. But I'm not sure that's the whole picture.

Another factor: it seems like it's important to not hold on to negative emotions after they have passed; but the opposite seems true for positive emotions. Why are we encouraged to give up negative emotions and hold on to positive ones? Is this a “balanced” way of going about it?

Re: Balance vs Positive

I personally think that holding on to any emotion is folly. Emotions have a purpose. They are wonderful indicators of the state of our personal union.

I agree with you about being encouraged to hang onto positive emotions. I think it is a dangerous meme that has people pursuing and clinging to good feelings. It is not how we feel that matters: it is how we are.

Emotions are like the wind. They are not value-laden, in terms of good or bad.  Like the wind, hey blow the way they blow. But also like the wind, there is a reason they blow as they do. It is up to us to understand our emotions and to utilize them effectively.

Re: Balance vs Positive

Well I'll go out on a limb here.

What are emotions? Why are some 'negative' and some 'positive'?
I'm with U.G. Krishnamurti here - it is thought that gives importance to emotions. If the mind is still, emotions dissolve. What is left?

Let us find out, when the mind is still.

What is love? Do you know? I can't go into it better than the other Krishnamurt, so it's here:
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/kr/love.html

It is my experience that there is a useful distinction  between emotions and feelings.

Emotions are what we 'do' with certain thoughts. The thoughts arise because of the mechanics of the mind - it looks into the past and forms an opinion about the present, and about the future. If you had an invasive mother, you will probably have certain emotions towards 'invasive' women in your life, that may have nothing to do with what is actually happening in the present.

It is my experience that emotions can be watched  - they have very physical manifestations. Heart beating, that kind of thing. If they are watched - not divided into positive or negative, that is just the mind doing that. Just watched. You think you feel love? Or is it lust, desire, a need for safety? You think you feel compassion? Or is it just a projection onto someone, a projection of yourself? Anger? Feel into it. Do nothing with it. If you do not name the emotion, it usually dissolves, and underneath… is feeling.

By allowing all emotions to be, to simply be, and not 'do' anything with them, it is sometimes possible to drop into a deeper layer, which I call feeling. Rarely are thoughts involved in this space. There is not a lot of physical activity, a general warmth perhaps, a sensation of expansion and presence.

I've seen people think they are 'balanced'  - choosing not having strong emotions. They think they are 'past' that. In my experience, this generally happens when emotion is denied. These people are simply numb.

Have you ever watched the Dalai Lama? He is full of passion, feeling, emotions - all of it. And there is something else, a deep peace. I suspect this is because he seems to let  it all flow through, not choosing one thing over another - not judging one thing over another. He allows his being the full range, and at the same time he is watching, he is not 'run' by any of it. He is not identifying with what comes up. He just lets it come up, and is totally responsive - which is a mark of feeling. Reaction, I would say, is a mark of emotion.

So I would say it is neither balance nor positive we are looking for. But perhaps a deeper 'truth', if there is such a thing. A deeper understanding of self,  a deeper melting into the present moment - and the truth of that which simply is.

Perhaps the similarity between the word 'positive' and 'position' is something to consider.

Any 'position' towards the present moment is one of separation, and I would say that any separation is not the truth.

At some point, even asking a question - what or why or where implies an object, and therefore separation. (see Jon David's wonderful What and Where: Notes on the seekers mentality).






 

Re: Balance vs Positive

extremely helpful, sandra! thanks so much,

love,

nicole

Re: Balance vs Positive

Exactly Sandra!

Despite our semantic differences, we are truly onto the same thing. Whether emotions or feelings, the trick is to fully experience but not to indulge or avoid.

Definitely a “flow” thing.

So in my classes I teach that it is just as pathalogical to indulge in either positivity or negativity. That we are fluid processes unfolding, and both sets of “charge” cause perterbations, or eddies, in the field, that “catch” us and “spin” us into delusion…

No value judgment, because delusion appears to be our preferred state, and it certainly livens things up!

But it is reality we seek, and understanding.

In my explorations I am closing in on anxiety as the mediator. The more anxious, the “stickier” we become, and we form delusions by “realizing” either positive or negative imaginings. As we calm, we are more able to yield, release and accept fluidly in the moment, to simply become what we literally are in truth.

To simply breathe.

Love you, Sandra!

Re: Balance vs Positive

The Dalai Lama (in a book he wrote) suggests that everyone try the experiment of fostering the positive thoughts/emotions within oneself.

Hm. I don't think that calling an emotion positive or negative is entirely meaningless. Positive emotion is desore for something, and negative emotion is desire against something. The two are very intertwined, as every positive has a negative; for example, sorrow springs from a desire for something that canot be, but it is negative because it is against the current state of things– we are sorrowful because something is different than we desire, and we are unable to change it, but the sorrow could not be there if no positive emotion was attached to the impossible desire.

Anyway. What you say seems right– don't hold on to or supress, just experience. But… “holding on to” an emotion can simply mean recalling it– when we think of an emotional memory, we automatically cherish, regret, love, hate. This is as natural as breathing. Similarly, we don't necessarily need to supress an emotion to get rid of it– we may simply let our thoughts move on, instead of pausing at the memory. Now: couldn't it be argued that it's better to cherish the positive, and let the negative pass? Happiness has many benefits; the better our mood, the more fun we are to be around, the healthier we are, et cetera. Isn't that worth trying?

One idea I've heard: “If you're not happy, simply pretend that you are– you'll fool yourself into being happy sooner or later.”

But perhaps this isn't really so different from just letting everything pass through you. Different path, same goal: clearness. Acting rightly no matter what. A clear mind leads to a feeling of the infinite rightness of things, and maybe a feeling of the infinite rightness of things can lead to a clear mind.

Re: Balance vs Positive

The Dalai Lama (in a book he wrote) suggests that everyone try the experiment of fostering the positive thoughts/emotions within oneself.

Words are such a pain. They are like diamonds that shift as you turn them on your tongue.

When I think of “positive,” the images evoked are of people clinging to thoughts that are intended to bolster some mythical self-esteem, which in my thinking is an exercise of willful ignorance (is there any other kind?).

If you are good at believing your own bullshit, then this can produce pleasant emotions. But emotions are like the wind. They are responses to our perceptions. They are indicators of what we need.

If we perceive threat, our brain shuts down the interpreter/articulator and diverts physical resources to our lightning-fast autonomic nervous system. This produces powerful emotion: energy-to-motion.

But threat can be imaginary, based on unresolved trauma or faulty learning.. But how is the poor brain to know, when the information bypasses conscious attention and the interpreter is off-line?

To know yourself, to be willing to experience intense emotion and to resolve the triggering issues will bring us to a place where the only emotion experienced is a direct response to the situation at hand. All pools of negative charge stored in our memories have been drained by a tedious and painful process of conscious activation and release.

Once this work is to a certain point,  you then can allow emotions to flow through you and you extract the information like a baluga whale does plankton.

There is no suffering. Sometimes there is pain, but that is an indication that movement is needed. That is what emotions are for.

Most humans, zaadsters excepted, have difficulty with processing their experiences to the depth necessary to resolve the issues, to discharge all the negativity stored in their memories.

These humans tend to frantically attempt to manufacture good feelings by manufacturing positive thoughts. This is a wonderful catalyst for an emotional breakdown, which is what we need, to hit bottom, before we will finally wake up and try something new and different, like facing the truth and working with it with incredible courage and resolve..

The positivity the Dalai Lama speaks of may not be the positivity that most people perceive it to be. The positivity he speaks of is possible only if you are emotionally clean, and you center yourself in the basic goodness of your being. Then all is bliss.

But I can only speak through the fractal of my own mind. And my words can only be perceived through the fractal of yours.

If this communication thing was easy, I guess Jesus wouldn't have thrown in the towel, resorting to BIG ART instead!

Smart man. Great splash.

Re: Balance vs Positive

we don't necessarily need to supress an emotion to get rid of it– we may simply let our thoughts move on, instead of pausing at the memory. Now: couldn't it be argued that it's better to cherish the positive, and let the negative pass? Happiness has many benefits; the better our mood, the more fun we are to be around, the healthier we are, et cetera. Isn't that worth trying?
—-
What comes to me is what is your priority? (the Royal “your”, that is).

Is it to be happy, to feel good?
or,
Is it to be clear?

If it is the first, then I'd say you are in for the ride which includes unhappiness, fear and so on.

If it is the second, then, in my experience, something else entirely is possible.

Of course these two things are not exclusive. However I would say that the latter is likely to bring happiness, but a priority on happiness is not necessarily going to bring clarity.

To cherish clarity, to cherish awareness, means placing more attention on watching your thoughts and your emotions than on the thoughts or emotions themselves.  It means being willing to feel, experience everything, with a view to understanding, rather than to feel good.

You have a thought, a memory, for example.

You have some choices: To believe this thought, (or disbelieve it,  or hold onto it or try to let it go or have any kind of position towards it).

or to simply watch it. Notice what you are thinking. Lightly.

Noticing does not mean judging, it means noticing. Noticing does not mean wallowing. It means noticing. And then noticing what arises next - another thought, a judgment about the memory, perhaps, or an  emotional response to the memory.

And then notice what is next, a thought about that emotional response etc.

Or perhaps simply the wind outside your window, the colour of the sky. The watcher holds no allegiance, has no investment in any outcome. Whatever arises is equal in value.

You can do this right now, while you read what I write. There is always something arising, boredom, a thought that I'm talking rubbish, a need to pee, whatever!

Now I am with the Dalai Lama of course.

Much of what he writes is for  first world westerners. There is a story about him where he first came across the notion of low self esteem. It took him some time to understand what this meant. Not because he didn't have it, but because it was not something that was part of his culture. Once he realised that it was a concept, an experience, in the world, he saw, quite rightly, that it was a devastating thing. Hence a lot of his work  is on supporting positive self-esteem. If you do not have this, it will worm its way into every part of your life. And, if you read some of his work that is not so popular, if you listen to him speak to Tibetans who have just crossed over into India - sometimes with no food or water for days on end, in unspeakable situations, you will see he is not talking about their self-esteem, or feeling good or bad. It is not at issue.

There is a place beyond self-esteem. It is indeed mythical, as Mary says.

There is a place where such a thing is quite irrelevant, because there is no 'self'. 

But you cannot get there if your emotions have so reigned your life that that is all you know of life - if it is the perspective through which you live.

If you are mired down in depression or sadness, or anger, if you have been conditioned by your parents and others to place a priority on emotions ( by any which way, including suppressing them and acting them out) then it is absolutely necessary, I believe, to heal these things, in whatever way works.

It is like the principle that you first need a strong ego to be able to let it go.

So yes, foster 'positive' emotions if you will. Take a look at what really feels good. This is perhaps the question to ask, what actually is a positive feeling?

Does it arise when walking in the woods? Singing? Is it something that is dependent upon the actions of others ( eg someone acknowledging you, falling in love with you,) ? You can look deeply in to this 'feeling good' - is it 'good', or just feeling secure?

Or is it a sense of one-ness, a sense of actually not being so self-involved?

Is it a place where 'good' and 'bad' are somewhat irrelevant?

Re: Balance vs Positive

beautiful, and most helpful! thanks so much.

perhaps this that i have just posted in a philosophy pod may be useful as a complementary reflection here:

here is the full article in context if you're interested

“Harry Frankfurt, … (in)
his recent book, The Reasons of Love… explcitly addresses the “nagging anxiety” and “unease” we so often
experience in our lives that makes us feel “troubled, restless, and dissatisfied with ourselves”.
Frankfurt addresses the question of what makes for a satisfying life, and he sets about trying to
answer it by considering some of the varieties of normativity that are grounded in neither moral
not egoistic considerations. “Morality,” as he rightly says, “can provide at most only a severely
limited and insufficient answer to the question of how a person should live.” In considering
evaluative norms that are more comprehensive and more ultimate than the norms of morality,
Frankfurt focuses on what we care about, on what we regard as important to ourselves, and
especially on what we love. He argues that the key to a fulfilled life is to pursue wholeheartedly
what one cares about and that it is through caring that we infuse the world and our own lives
with meaning. He goes on to argue that the most authoritative and important form of caring is
love—a nonvoluntary, disinterested concern for the flourishing of what is loved. Love is so
important, he suggests, because meaningful practical reasoning must be grounded in ends that we
do not seek only in order to attain other ends, and because in loving we become bound to final
ends desired for their own sakes.
The Reasons of Love is a beautiful little book, just 100 pages long. It shows how rational
reflection on the structure of our aims and desires and on what we ultimately want out of life can
help us live more fulfilled and meaningful lives. It shows that it is still possible to find in
philosophy what so many others seek to find in the mystical suicide of reason or in the psychbabble
nonsense of the self-help gurus. It shows, finally, that philosophy—some philosophy, at
least—is still the love of wisdom.

Re: Balance vs Positive

Couldn't agree more! Thank you for this valuable contribution, Nicole. You too, Sandra!

Re: Balance vs Positive

ss doesn't require All of this helps to answer my wonderings. It's a bit like “the answer is that there is no answer”, I feel now. Worrying about it is the cause of the problem; the problem doesn't exist on it's own.

Really, the specific “problem” I was thinking of was this:

Occasionally, when I find myself happy about something, the idea of the importance of self-awareness comes to mind. Always wanting to be more self-aware, I take a look at why I am happy and ask myself if it's silly. This generally leaves me unhappy, not because I conclude that I really was being happy for no good reason, but just because I asked myself the question, and looking at the thing destroyed it.

Words are like knifes– useful for cutting things open, but dangerous to keep around.

The short answer, I guess, is that self-awarenesss isn't always self-commentary. Awareness doesn't require words.

Re: Balance vs Positive

Well said! Your description of your experience reminds me of Heisenberg's “uncertainty principle” in that the very act of observation changes the phenomenon observed. Interesting parallel. I love that you are experimenting with your experience, and discovering some of the contrary aspects of mind. What an exciting time, a true adventure in consciousness!

And there is nothing wrong with feeling good. It just doesn't need to define your existence, any more than feeling bad does. It is the lclinging to any state that hinders our ability to allow things to be as they are. So what do we see then? An example of how things are not.

Truth be told, we have emotions and feelings for very good reasons. It is up to us to learn how to deal with them. If we don't manage them, they manage us.  And the effects of that are fairly obvious.

Re: Balance vs Positive

we know that the “under-examined life is not worth living” but it is also true as a speaker at a convocation i once attended asserted that the “overly-examined life is not worth living”…

sometimes, often i think actually, we have to embrace the moment, truly live it rather than dissect it…

save the knives for the negative feelings mostly…

i watched Peter Pan, the live action one, again last night. Toward the end Peter says wistfully, looking in the window at his Lost Boys and the Darling children all in group hugs with their family, “To live would be an awfully big adventure…”

He seems like such a vividly alive boy but at that moment he recognises he is not really living because of his choice of eternal boyhood…

i also remember the moment in “Our Town” by Thornton Wilder also toward the end when Emily cries out passionately, asking “if any living person ever truly notices everything as he or she lives it. The Stage Manager responds saying “Saints and poets, maybe; they do some.”“  see the full wiki article on Our Town

love,

nicole

Re: Balance vs Positive

Balancing imagination and reality, hmmm.

To me, thinking is as natural as walking or breathing. There's really no harm in it if one keeps it light and playful and stays very mindful of it's behavior, much like monitoring a child. If opinion is seen as the oxymoron of truth, then what is won, what is lost? Mind loves to frolic! And who needs to be right, anyway? It is all really just a lot of expelled air and fractal reconfigurations. Fabulous playground! Nobody dies!

Imagination and reality: there is room in a lifetime for both. And who is judging?

Balance is always key.

Re: Balance vs Positive

I forgot to turn on my notices for new posts to this pod thread… but it seems to be going along very nicely without me! Lovely posts, all.

I take a look at why I am happy and ask myself if it's silly. This
generally leaves me unhappy, not because I conclude that I really was
being happy for no good reason, but just because I asked myself the
question, and looking at the thing destroyed it.

Yes, beautiful, Abram.

The thing is, who is this “I” that is looking? Who is this “I” that is asking?

This “I” usually has so many filters that it is impossible to simply look or question or answer without judgment. 

The 'eye' without an “I” has no judgment. It has no need for safety or conclusions.

I do believe, and actually experience, that the more I become aware of my filters, my conditioning, my programming (parental, societal etc- ALL our 'memes' ); if I encourage myself to become aware of the  'lens' through which I perceive life, then something softens, melts, and there is a kind of simplicity of experience, a 'withness' - no matter what the experience.

The experience unfolds, all by itself, and I don't have to exhaust  or question myself by trying to 'direct traffic'.

So there could be physical pain, or emotional pain, and it doesn't matter - there is always this 'withness', a gentle eye, watching, not judging, not fighting or trying to change the experience into a 'better' one.

In this place, all experience is just that - experience.

The watching eye -  and it is always caring, in my experience - not sentimental, but caring -  is what matters, and in this place all is perfectly fine. This doesn't mean a kind of passive acceptance of a situation,  rather a full-on engagement with it, but without judgment or identification.

And there is nothing wrong with feeling good. It just doesn't need to define your existence, any more than feeling bad does.

Yes, yes dear Mary :-)

If you feel unhappy - it is not who you are, it is simply an experience you are having.
If you are in physical pain - it is not who you are, it is an experience you are having.
The same goes for happiness - it is not who you are, it is an experience you are having.

Some experiences are more preferable to others, but no experience is less valuable than another.

The image of a young child comes to mind - if we approach our emotional bodies ( and indeed our physical bodies) as if they were our children - how could we be with them?

Available, interested, caring,  encouraging, non-judgmental, totally loving, yes?

sometimes, often i think actually, we have to embrace the moment, truly live it rather than dissect it…

Absolutely yes.

And how do we truly live it?

Perhaps by being available, interested, caring,  encouraging, non-judgmental, totally loving :-)

Often I'm 'fighting' the moment -  I'm pushing it away somehow, wanting it to change, or holding on to it, trying to nail it down so it doesn't change…  if I bring my awareness to what I'm 'doing' with the moment, then something seems to shift. Simply through awareness.

Awareness seems to support me to dive right in, fully - this diving in is actually a kind of letting go. It's saying: okay, I'm going to be here now, with what is, no matter what. It's happening -  there is nothing I can do about that anyway, I actually don't have that kind of control (much as my mind thinks it does!), but I can be here, now.

save the knives for the negative feelings mostly…

Well I like the image of the sword  - the sword of clarity - for all experiences, for all that is.

It is the watching eye, seeing all, judging nothing, but absolutely clear: if I'm wallowing in self-pity, that eye sees. If I'm in a true state of unity with self and others, that eye sees. If I'm disconnected and not being loving with myself, that eye sees. If I'm not being anything in particular, that eye sees.


Well that is it for now,
Love
Sandra

Oh, and  thank you so much Nicole for the Harry Frankfurt The Reasons of Love synopsis, I've put some of it on my profile page (and a link to the video of him 'on Bullshit'. )

I love it so much I'm going to re-quote you here again!

The key to a fulfilled life is to pursue wholeheartedly what one cares about and that it is through caring that we infuse the world and our own lives with meaning. He goes on to argue  that the most authoritative and important form of caring is love—a nonvoluntary, disinterested concern for the flourishing of what is loved. Love is so important, he suggests, because meaningful practical reasoning must be grounded in ends that we do not seek only in order to attain other ends, and because in loving we become bound to final ends desired for their own sakes.

Re: Balance vs Positive

i would add this into the mix…the notion of contentment. Contentment is not an emotion but is often mistaken for emotion. Emotions often rise to levels that evoke judgment of negative or positive states when contentment is neglected.

Contentment is not happiness but happiness can often come out of contentment. Contentment does not seek a balance. It does not seek the positive, or the negative. It does not believe that one is intrinsically better than the other.

Contentment is examining what is making you happy and choosing to accept yourself as happy. It is examining the thing that is making you sad without fighting or judging and may even embrace the experience. Contentment crushes nothing.

The contented may still seek change for contentment does not connote stagnancy. Contentment is a conscious state of mind. It is a still, quiet place free from judgment.

Then this (admittedly redundant) question regarding emotional states; is expression / repression of something like anger / fear really the expression of any specific feeling (be it negative or positive)? Or is it a mechanism built of oft used (and perhaps strong) cognitive patterns? Is not the physiological response a conditioned reaction like salivation at the ringing of the bell? We usually call the emotion negative when the body response is overall detrimental and positive when the same physiological response on a different level suggests overall good, or we determine the state from external perspective and connote the +- aspect with internalized expressions. Thus it is possible to condition much confusion regarding emotions into the psyche–too much adrenalin released into the blood stream and the most pleasurable experience quickly becomes disabling. Do this multiple times and the mind may associates negative value with the formerly positive emotion–resulting in apparent dysfunction. Similarly an expression that annoys or embarrasses may be declared negative. Now the ringing of the bell may trigger anxiety.