Get out of the Cave!

[Milo]

I've come to the conclusion based off the implications from Plato's Allegory of the Cave that most of us are all stuck in a rat race, chasing the cheese that society, political figures, the media, and even your own mind has put in front of you. The cheese represents the empty promise of happiness/fulfillment and the cheese is being pulled through all the things you've already found to be unfulfilling. The cheese never stops moving and you keep chasing it through all the things that you expect will make you happy.

If you get out of Plato's cave, you'll realize the cheese is an illusion created by your own mind (probably influenced by what others have told you) and that happiness is only an emotion, not something you can actively acquire. The problem is that people are using their mind to direct them instead of using their mind as a tool for the instinct to direct. They are depressed, angry, alienated by their own failure of achieving happiness all of the time.

There is another thing that your mind does to you. It tells you that what your instincts want are morally wrong and that you should feel guilt for doing or wanting them. You've been indoctrinated since childhood telling you that sex before marriage is wrong, that you shouldn't masturbate, that you should give in to authority because they know more than you (all subjective to each person's life experiences of course). You skip a valuable process of learning which is understanding through experience. You have less confidence because your instinct hasn't been able to learn what your mind has. Your belief system is fragile and anyone who criticizes you makes you feel threatened and you become angry or you stop actually listening to people and just pretend to listen or filter their words and make coping mechanisms to protect your fragile belief system. It is much to complex to handle all in one mind. You must simplify it.

Rely on your instincts to direct you to what you want and use your intellect to help you get those things. These things are very simple and will keep you content. They are:

1. Sexual satisfaction (Masturbation is sufficient) - Only do it when you feel the urge and don't use porn because that can cause mental imbalance from too much dopamine being converted into norepinepherin that can be converted into epinepherin (adrenaline) and increase cortisol which increases stress if there is too much norepinepherin to convert back.

2. Food and water - Duh

3. Excretion - I don't think anyone is avoiding doing this.

4. Sleep - Get enough

5. (Not entirely sure) Some sort of social outlet - From my own experience, too much isolation can be depressing in its own, but again I'm not sure on this one.

Then of course you need the means of obtaining and retaining these things.

And now I've just realized that I've built the base of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs and the means are the second level of the pyramid...Well forgot breathing, but that was too obvious.... haha

ANYWAYS!

Knowing exactly what you want based on what your instinct tells you and not what the media, the church, or any other ideas you've gotten from your own mind about morality have told you. This is your purpose. It's simple and is the base of who you are. It creates an unbreakable belief system because of its simplicity and the solid justification your instincts and your mind can both agree with.


Some of you may already know this, but some people miss it or haven't gotten to this point yet. Don't criticize about how obvious it is because some people weren't as lucky as you to not have a childhood where they weren't indoctrinated by religion or a misleading education system.

 

[snafupants]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(philosophy)

Cynicism is one of the most striking of all the Hellenistic philosophies.[8] It offered people the possibility of happiness and freedom from suffering in an age of uncertainty. Although there was never an official Cynic doctrine, the fundamental principles of Cynicism can be summarised as follows:[9][10]
The goal of life is happiness which is to live in agreement with Nature.
Happiness depends on being self-sufficient, and a master of mental attitude.
Self-sufficiency is achieved by living a life of Arete.
One progresses toward Arete by becoming free from influences – such as wealth, fame, or power – that have no value in Nature.
Suffering is caused by false judgments of value, which cause negative emotions and a vicious character.

 

[Milo]

I agree with the agreement with nature part. But one still has a mind and may want the securities that wealth brings though it is still founded on valuing one's natural tendencies. Sex is optional (I saw on the wiki it also included it). No reliance necessary though. I'm guessing in the wiki it meant that sex was something one should seek out as a means for happiness valuing it falsely over natural tendencies (although it is one in given situations).

I think we finally have the same view as each other. The Allegory of the Cave brought be to understand the difference between knowledge and reality (knowledge of the Forms).

 

[snafupants]

It's the Truth but people will keep chasing tail, the promotion, fame or whatever else hoping it will make them happy. These things can't make you truly content. At best, they provide an ephemeral anesthetic against the pains of life.

All we need to do is give up our habit of regarding as real that which is unreal. All religious practices are meant solely to help us do this. When we stop regarding the unreal as real, then reality alone will remain, and we will be that. -Ramana Maharshi

 

[Milo]

Nice quote. I stole it and put it as a favorite on my facebook page already.

I can say that you actually got me started looking for this, though I was looking way too hard at the time. Thanks. I almost became a master of the cave's shadows there.

 

[nightstreaking]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(philosophy)

Cynicism is one of the most striking of all the Hellenistic philosophies.[8] It offered people the possibility of happiness and freedom from suffering in an age of uncertainty. Although there was never an official Cynic doctrine, the fundamental principles of Cynicism can be summarised as follows:[9][10]
The goal of life is happiness which is to live in agreement with Nature.
Happiness depends on being self-sufficient, and a master of mental attitude.
Self-sufficiency is achieved by living a life of Arete.
One progresses toward Arete by becoming free from influences – such as wealth, fame, or power – that have no value in Nature.
Suffering is caused by false judgments of value, which cause negative emotions and a vicious character.

Awesome quote, but when an entire worldview can be that concisely summarized, it doesn't seem trustworthy. Remember Diogenes!

*(Also, Thoreau's technically a Cynic? lol)

 

[snafupants]

Nice quote. I stole it and put it as a favorite on my facebook page already.

I can say that you actually got me started looking for this, though I was looking way too hard at the time. Thanks. I almost became a master of the cave's shadows there.

Just don't fetishize spirituality and render it a new idol. Ask basic questions - what are the facts?

 

[Milo]

True. I guess I can be misinterpreted by religious fanatics.

@nightstreaking
It's that simple if you can understand it with clarity. You could put a whole worldview into one word if you wanted. Just as long as it is contained in the definition. Words have unlimited potential. They are the means by which people are indoctrinated. Don't believe them, only believe what you've experienced for yourself.

Know that your instincts are your guide and your intellect (using language as a tool for understanding and strategy as well as other properties of the mind) to acquire what your instincts want and securing them.

 

[Milo]

Well I suppose you might need to believe these words to redirect you into not believing any more of them. It's all about what you value. Don't let anyone's words direct you away from your natural tendencies. The ones I've listed in the OP.

 

[nightstreaking]

True. I guess I can be misinterpreted by religious fanatics.

@nightstreaking
It's that simple if you can understand it with clarity. You could put a whole worldview into one word if you wanted. Just as long as it is contained in the definition. Words have unlimited potential. They are the means by which people are indoctrinated. Don't believe them, only believe what you've experienced for yourself.

Know that your instincts are your guide and your intellect (using language as a tool for understanding and strategy as well as other properties of the mind) to acquire what your instincts want and securing them.

You're right, it's just that one can easily fall into dogmatism when contradictory views are completely ignored. I'm not on your spirituality level yet, I suppose. But transcendence is still based on propositions and I've had bad experiences with mystics.

Edit: The colors are weird on this website, but Russell's Conquest of Happiness might be relevant/useful. You mentioned masturbation in the OP; one chapter is dedicated to sin.
Also... fulfilling 'base' needs and pretty much stopping there seems like a dead-end. Unless I've misinterpreted something?

 

[Milo]

Well if you figure out the Truth and are 100% sure, you're probably going to be dogmatic about it. Haha. The truth of this is found inside of you, so if you have clarity you just know it. It's not even a thing where you are supposed to have faith to know it like people try to do with the existence of a god.

This is just you figuring out exactly what you want instinctually to set your values. Then you can use your intellect to acquire these things. It's the purpose that so many people try to find in things outside of themselves.

The purpose of this is for you to know what your instinct values and don't let your intellect change it with its reasoning and from other people trying to convince you.

 

[Milo]

I would define sin as having the wrong values. Valuing pride and wealth instead of just your bodies natural tendencies and urges. Masturbating because you have sexual tension would not be a sin. Eating a lot of food because you were really hungry wouldn't be a sin. Masturbating because you were bored and just wanted to feel really good would be a sin in that sense. Eating without being hungry and only for the taste of the food would be a sin in that sense.

Like snafupants quoted. Religion is meant to rid you of "sin" although most people have used it as a purpose and putting their value in it. They are misguided.

 

[nightstreaking]

Well if you figure out the Truth and are 100% sure, you're probably going to be dogmatic about it. Haha. The truth of this is found inside of you, so if you have clarity you just know it. It's not even a thing where you are supposed to have faith to know it like people try to do with the existence of a god.

This is just you figuring out exactly what you want instinctually to set your values. Then you can use your intellect to acquire these things. It's the purpose that so many people try to find in things outside of themselves.

The purpose of this is for you to know what your instinct values and don't let your intellect change it with its reasoning and from other people trying to convince you.

I see. I have to say that this reminds me of Fi (I envy the trust in one's own instincts).

Edit:

I would define sin as having the wrong values. Valuing pride and wealth instead of just your bodies natural tendencies and urges. Masturbating because you have sexual tension would not be a sin. Eating a lot of food because you were really hungry wouldn't be a sin. Masturbating because you were bored and just wanted to feel really good would be a sin in that sense. Eating without being hungry and only for the taste of the food would be a sin in that sense.

Bolded- Russell would agree with this. Guilt from violating mores instilled in one's childhood is unnecessary (I would think masturbation falls into this category).

Underlined- These are classified by the principle of excess, which is morally condemning. Guilt from both valuations of sin would be considered something to reconcile yourself with. But I guess that doesn't really matter here?

 

[cheese]

I object!

 

[Milo]

It is important to note that Plato's implications for the allegory of the cave were for justice or "The Good" and Diogenes's definition of nature is not the same as what I am implying.

What is natural would be defined as one's natural tendencies to do something. Eat because you are hungry vs. eating for a different reason. Diogenes tried living with his definition of nature which seems to be more like living in the outdoors like some sort of animal. Not exactly sure what his thoughts were.

This is about knowing yourself in order to know what you want to do without letting other people's opinions of what is moral and immoral direct you or your own disillusioned thoughts on that matter (remember that your intellect is only a tool to be directed by instinct, it is bad to let your intellect be the guide because it doesn't really know what it wants and will only lead one to confusion and depression and all sorts of negative feelings).

Just align your values with your instinct which is on the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs then gain security of those things on the next level of the hierarchy, or figure out your own way of going about it (using your intellect to strategize in getting what your instinct wants instead of letting your intellect set your values).

 

[Etheri]

A few thoughts.
A friend and I came to the conclusion that introverts tend to be focussed on forfilling the top part of the pyramid, while extraverts typically focus more on the bottom half. Likewise, we can struggle with or even ignore the bottom until it gets unhealthy, while they'll have difficulties with the top.

(I do not want to imply you're an extravert.) Also notice that, while you're telling us to go for the lower base of the pyramid, you're actually busy with the very top part : Self-actualisation. After all, 'posting on INTP forum and seeing what they think' is the top part of the pyramid. You cannot escape yourself, @Milo.

Spoiler

[BIMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs.png[/BIMG]

.

Well if you figure out the Truth and are 100% sure, you're probably going to be dogmatic about it. Haha. The truth of this is found inside of you, so if you have clarity you just know it. It's not even a thing where you are supposed to have faith to know it like people try to do with the existence of a god.

This is just you figuring out exactly what you want instinctually to set your values. Then you can use your intellect to acquire these things. It's the purpose that so many people try to find in things outside of themselves.

The purpose of this is for you to know what your instinct values and don't let your intellect change it with its reasoning and from other people trying to convince you.

I do not believe in any (absolute) truth... But I don't really see why that part about truth even matters?

You basically propose we go back to our intrinsic needs, see what our body tells us, then use our intelligence in acquiring this. Opposed to using our intelligence to dictate what we want (?). I assume that's a good way of finding out what you truly want, but you're still chasing down desires.

And then there's a this thing that should never be a problem, yet it is : I think i'm pretty set in all of the basic maslow needs. Safe and sound on each level other than the social ones. Yet I cannot be happy all the time (something I believe is impossible, either way!)... So when my 'intrinsic' needs are forfilled, I search for other needs to complete, perhaps to have something to do and increase my quality of life. Or perhaps just as an excuse for my unhappiness, whenever it arises.

I would define sin as having the wrong values. Valuing pride and wealth instead of just your bodies natural tendencies and urges. Masturbating because you have sexual tension would not be a sin. Eating a lot of food because you were really hungry wouldn't be a sin. Masturbating because you were bored and just wanted to feel really good would be a sin in that sense. Eating without being hungry and only for the taste of the food would be a sin in that sense.

Like snafupants quoted. Religion is meant to rid you of "sin" although most people have used it as a purpose and putting their value in it. They are misguided.

Is every value not 'someone their value'? Is there absolute value? If there's no absolute value, does it make sense of saying others are misguided, for convincing people to their morals, when you are technically doing exactly the same through this post?

Also, is pride not a part of your self as much as your body is? Why live upon the urges of your body rather than the urges of your mind? Perhaps it is simply more forfilling for you, and if it is then focussing on this is a fine decision, but no better or worse than me living upon my urges, of mind and body alike.

Edit : I agree with most of the ideas. I'm just nitpicking on the things I think are flawed. I feel my post seems negative, but this is not intentional.

 

[Milo]

The reason for having the things I mentioned in the OP as your core values is because they will allow you to retain homeostasis and have a healthy body and mind as well as healthy expectations to find contentment that aren't false promises believed by your mind.

Also having values of the mind manifest pride, which has no merit in it. Pride is what people are chasing after when they value their mind's goals. Pride in achievement, pride in winning, etc. It does nothing for you, but somehow people keep chasing after it like it's going to make them happy. Also idolization of a specific thing like following a god, or having sex, or obtaining wealth and putting it as your main goal or value will cause suffering as you will not be paying attention to your instinct to give it what it wants. You can't control your instincts desires. The more you ignore it, the more your homeostasis is in danger of imbalance one's health, physical and emotional, can be effected.

The truth is absolute to your own instinct. This is what the people who preach enlightenment are talking about when they say "know yourself."

And if you've found happiness in pride too many times you think that is what happiness is as compared to the content of not being hungry or thirsty or hot or cold or not having sexual tension. Pride isn't real happiness. It's your mind playing tricks on you. It is like in the Allegory of the Cave, you are predicting the shadows for some sort of abstract reward. The puppeteers (the media, morals indoctrinated into you, politicians, constructions of your mind) behind the fire cast the shadows and lead you around chasing what you perceive as happiness.

 

[Milo]

Edit:

Bolded- Russell would agree with this. Guilt from violating mores instilled in one's childhood is unnecessary (I would think masturbation falls into this category).

Underlined- These are classified by the principle of excess, which is morally condemning. Guilt from both valuations of sin would be considered something to reconcile yourself with. But I guess that doesn't really matter here?

I didn't see this edit before. Not sure if I already answered this question but "sinning" would matter because it means one's values are outside of one's instincts and eating or masturbating in excess could mess with one's homeostasis and make them emotionally and or physically unhealthy/unstable.

 

[Milo]

Also, that feeling you get if you win a competition. Yeah, that is your mind playing tricks on you making you think you've gotten an award when you've earned nothing at all. You've been conditioned to think that is another form of happiness, but again it is empty and only makes you idolize victory. The right value for this type of thing would be teamwork and relationships on the third level of Maslow's pyramid once you've established and secured the first two levels.

*Bump*

 

[Duxwing]

Also, that feeling you get if you win a competition. Yeah, that is your mind playing tricks on you making you think you've gotten an award when you've earned nothing at all. You've been conditioned to think that is another form of happiness, but again it is empty and only makes you idolize victory. The right value for this type of thing would be teamwork and relationships on the third level of Maslow's pyramid once you've established and secured the first two levels.

*Bump*

Indeed, victory and defeat are but the accidents of history: The real emotion, the real passions and memories, lie within our actions during the game and the people we meet in play. They will be what we hold onto, they will be what we cherish, they will be what persists long after the game is done and gone.

-Duxwing

 

[Milo]

Indeed, victory and defeat are but the accidents of history: The real emotion, the real passions and memories, lie within our actions during the game and the people we meet in play. They will be what we hold onto, they will be what we cherish, they will be what persists long after the game is done and gone.

-Duxwing

I'm talking about the feeling of victory in pride. Remembering the past to reminisce in fond memories and holding onto them as if they are still real will only hold you back from the present. Keep looking forward and keep your core values as I've posted. Use your memories for facts to help you in the present/future. Don't attach your memories to assumptions of good and bad because this would be you looking at the shadows on the wall of the cave.

 

[Duxwing]

I'm talking about the feeling of victory in pride. Remembering the past to reminisce in fond memories and holding onto them as if they are still real will only hold you back from the present. Keep looking forward and keep your core values as I've posted. Use your memories for facts to help you in the present/future. Don't attach your memories to assumptions of good and bad because this would be you looking at the shadows on the wall of the cave.

Provided that reality exists and that we can observe it through our senses, then our memories are real in the sense that they represent the past form of reality at a given point in time. Ergo, "holding onto [memories] as if they are still real" is a philosophically sound decision. However, you may be referring to living in the past in the form of rumination and excessive reminiscence; in that sense, you are right, for as the Romans said, "All things in moderation".

-Duxwing

 

[Proletar]

I've come to the conclusion based off the implications from Plato's Allegory of the Cave that most of us are all stuck in a rat race, chasing the cheese that society, political figures, the media, and even your own mind has put in front of you. The cheese represents the empty promise of happiness/fulfillment and the cheese is being pulled through all the things you've already found to be unfulfilling. The cheese never stops moving and you keep chasing it through all the things that you expect will make you happy.

If you get out of Plato's cave, you'll realize the cheese is an illusion created by your own mind (probably influenced by what others have told you) and that happiness is only an emotion, not something you can actively acquire. The problem is that people are using their mind to direct them instead of using their mind as a tool for the instinct to direct. They are depressed, angry, alienated by their own failure of achieving happiness all of the time.

There is another thing that your mind does to you. It tells you that what your instincts want are morally wrong and that you should feel guilt for doing or wanting them. You've been indoctrinated since childhood telling you that sex before marriage is wrong, that you shouldn't masturbate, that you should give in to authority because they know more than you (all subjective to each person's life experiences of course). You skip a valuable process of learning which is understanding through experience. You have less confidence because your instinct hasn't been able to learn what your mind has. Your belief system is fragile and anyone who criticizes you makes you feel threatened and you become angry or you stop actually listening to people and just pretend to listen or filter their words and make coping mechanisms to protect your fragile belief system. It is much to complex to handle all in one mind. You must simplify it.

Rely on your instincts to direct you to what you want and use your intellect to help you get those things. These things are very simple and will keep you content. They are:

1. Sexual satisfaction (Masturbation is sufficient) - Only do it when you feel the urge and don't use porn because that can cause mental imbalance from too much dopamine being converted into norepinepherin that can be converted into epinepherin (adrenaline) and increase cortisol which increases stress if there is too much norepinepherin to convert back.

2. Food and water - Duh

3. Excretion - I don't think anyone is avoiding doing this.

4. Sleep - Get enough

5. (Not entirely sure) Some sort of social outlet - From my own experience, too much isolation can be depressing in its own, but again I'm not sure on this one.

Then of course you need the means of obtaining and retaining these things.

And now I've just realized that I've built the base of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs and the means are the second level of the pyramid...Well forgot breathing, but that was too obvious.... haha

ANYWAYS!

Knowing exactly what you want based on what your instinct tells you and not what the media, the church, or any other ideas you've gotten from your own mind about morality have told you. This is your purpose. It's simple and is the base of who you are. It creates an unbreakable belief system because of its simplicity and the solid justification your instincts and your mind can both agree with.


Some of you may already know this, but some people miss it or haven't gotten to this point yet. Don't criticize about how obvious it is because some people weren't as lucky as you to not have a childhood where they weren't indoctrinated by religion or a misleading education system.

Well duh.

(That's as far as comliments go with me. Well written, Milo.)


Everyone is at a different step of this psychological manicipation. Some never even begin to question it. Some even believe in the god of their particuls church for their entire lifes. It's a sad thought seeing a religious person die, having lived his entire life engulfed by a lie. The same goes with people believing in police-men, politicians or authority in general. Some begin to question it far too late, when they have already spent years of their lifes influencing others.

I am proud in being a critical person. But then again, maybe people like me are just filling the role of the glue between the bricks of this society.

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

@OP

If you don't do #3 you will only continue to get bigger like Tetsuo in Akira and it won't matter than you used to have a cool robot arm made out of cables and crap you found lying around. Nobody cares about that when you are a horrid bubbling mass that just squished you chic and the thought of you exploding nastiness all over the place is terrifying.

In my path lately, the cave is a reoccurring element.

 

[Milo]

Provided that reality exists and that we can observe it through our senses, then our memories are real in the sense that they represent the past form of reality at a given point in time. Ergo, "holding onto [memories] as if they are still real" is a philosophically sound decision. However, you may be referring to living in the past in the form of rumination and excessive reminiscence; in that sense, you are right, for as the Romans said, "All things in moderation".

-Duxwing

My main point is that everything above the first level of Maslow's Hierarchy are optional and require you to use your mind. The second level is wise because it helps you secure the first level.

If you didn't choose to even secure the first level, you could just live entirely through instinct. No mind required. But, it is our mind that has given us the survival advantage, so one should use it.

Many people use it as their identity though when it should only be a tool for the instinct. Identity is a construct of the mind and is not something of reality.

This relates to having memories just to remember them, they are ultimately useless and will never truly fulfill one. Chasing experiences for the memories would be a form of idolization. And reminiscing on them requires you using your mind as more than a tool to help you in reality which means you are allowing it to still have it's own identity.

The easy way is to just pay attention to your body's urges and allow them to roam free. Adding your mind into guiding it is optional, but is wise because of the dangers that exist as well as other factors that may come into play. You will find that your emotions will lose hold of you and eventually vanish. You can only have bursts of emotion like animals do when they are being threatened or in the midst of fulfilling one of their bodily urges (sex, eating).

EDIT: Relationships will not fulfill you. They are optional. Mothering a child is a separate matter though and your instincts will help in that situation as well. I am unsure of the exact role of a male in that situation, but I have heard that pregnant women's hormones make them more sexually eager. Perhaps this keeps the male at bay to help the pregnant mother with food supplies etc. And perhaps with multiple sexual encounters with the same mate, oxytocin is increased in both's brain pathways that recognize each other causing them to love each other indefinitely or to some other period in the child's upbringing.

Only a guess based on what I know about brain chemistry (this would be a good example of your use of memory).

 

[Duxwing]

My main point is that everything above the first level of Maslow's Hierarchy are optional and require you to use your mind. The second level is wise because it helps you secure the first level.

If you didn't choose to even secure the first level, you could just live entirely through instinct. No mind required. But, it is our mind that has given us the survival advantage, so one should use it.

Many people use it as their identity though when it should only be a tool for the instinct. Identity is a construct of the mind and is not something of reality.

This relates to having memories just to remember them, they are ultimately useless and will never truly fulfill one. Chasing experiences for the memories would be a form of idolization. And reminiscing on them requires you using your mind as more than a tool to help you in reality which means you are allowing it to still have it's own identity.

The easy way is to just pay attention to your body's urges and allow them to roam free. Adding your mind into guiding it is optional, but is wise because of the dangers that exist as well as other factors that may come into play. You will find that your emotions will lose hold of you and eventually vanish. You can only have bursts of emotion like animals do when they are being threatened or in the midst of fulfilling one of their bodily urges (sex, eating).

EDIT: Relationships will not fulfill you. They are optional. Mothering a child is a separate matter though and your instincts will help in that situation as well. I am unsure of the exact role of a male in that situation, but I have heard that pregnant women's hormones make them more sexually eager. Perhaps this keeps the male at bay to help the pregnant mother with food supplies etc. And perhaps with multiple sexual encounters with the same mate, oxytocin is increased in both's brain pathways that recognize each other causing them to love each other indefinitely or to some other period in the child's upbringing.

Only a guess based on what I know about brain chemistry (this would be a good example of your use of memory).

By your logic, then, fulfillment is an idolization in itself. Furthermore, I hold that if you are an INFJ, then you are in the grip of your inferior Se.

-Duxwing

 

[Milo]

By your logic, then, fulfillment is an idolization in itself. Furthermore, I hold that if you are an INFJ, then you are in the grip of your inferior Se.

-Duxwing

I am an ISTP through further inspection. Possibly IXTP.

EDIT: I am sorry I mixed up two different kinds of love. Let me reexplain.

There are two different kinds of love. The love that you idolize and the love that is instinctual.

The love that is idolized is chasing love because you think it will make you happy. You then fall in love through means of your minds doing which is not True Love per say. Your mind doesn't know what it is doing in this situation unless it knows all the biochemistry of how it works and knows exactly what to do. It is much easier just to love out of instinct.

Love from instinct is what I just described. Intimacy, most likely formed through sexual encounters, multiple times with the same mate which causes a release of oxytocin in the brain. The more oxytocin your brain releases the more oxytocin receptors your brain will create in that pathway it is released. You will then condition yourself to feel love when this pathway is activated by associating things to this pathway which will most likely be the sight of that person and their touch etc.

If you use your memories to remember when you felt good in this way it will cause you to "miss it" or feel deprived of it making you want it and therefor idolize it thinking it will be the thing that will bring you happiness. Don't fall for your mind's tricks.

 

[Duxwing]

I am an ISTP through further inspection. Possibly IXTP.

I'm glad to have a fix on your type, then. Have you considered the idea that you are projecting your own preference for Se onto others? A life focused on sensory and instinctual gratification would hardly be rewarding for the stereotypical Ni-dom, for example; in fact, such a life would be, for them, of the most unpleasant and draining kind.

And no, fulfillment/happiness is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is to set your instincts natural urges as your core values and once you know all of them logically you may choose to secure them by means of becoming rich or by some other means. The next step option is to find love, but through further inspection love of others may be instinctual from constant contact with another person which increases oxytocin and causes you to be instinctual addicted to their presence by means of increased oxytocin receptors in the pathway of the brain that recognizes them.

Idolizing love will only hurt you if you do not have security of the bottom things because they are the root of your body's urges and without them you will lose homeostasis and possibly cause conflict to the relationship bringing the pain that love can also have because either way, losing love is painful because of the biochemistry of it. It might be something that becomes instinctually as important though, so one must prepare for it. Especially in a world like this.

Doing these things will bring fulfillment, but fulfillment as the goal is misguided and your logic will be doing the work instead which will probably cause you to "chase the cheese" instead of following your body's urges naturally.

Hmm, so does this argument boil down to "Know thyself and thereafter act as thou would."? I don't want to minimize the significance of your point; rather, I want to reduce it to its simplest form.

Nevertheless, why are bodily urges the only kind of urges that can be fulfilling? Sex, food, and sleep are certainly enjoyable-- even fulfilling, depending on the person-- but why must the mind and emotions be starved in all cases? One might, as I do, be excited by noticing a new pattern in reality: perhaps one has discovered that a certain car always appears on a certain street at a certain time. Or, perhaps, one might be warmed by hugging one's love. Although the emotions felt as a reaction to one's discovery hugs are not logical, so are all emotions; for that's what they are: alogical reactions to our thoughts.

Typologically, you might be on the long and arduous road to integrating your inferior Fe, so don't be so eager to reject your interpersonal feelings. Clinically, I suspect that you're attempting to intellectualize yourself, and provided that doing so is a purely academic exercise embarked upon to deepen your knowledge, I see no harm in so doing. But don't let your thoughts replace your feelings, as I sometimes do. My psychiatrist warns that doing so is a road to psychological ruin.

-Duxwing

PS I'm glad to see that you've returned to regular posting!

 

[Milo]

Really? Odd.



Hmm, so does this argument boil down to "Know thyself and thereafter act as thou would."? I don't want to minimize the significance of your point; rather, I want to boil it down into its simplest form.

-Duxwing

Sorry, reread what I put. I edited it all. I was unclear the first time.

 

[Milo]

And to answer your question, yes. You can only know yourself and what you want (instinctually). Reality could change at any moment. Societies opinions are constantly changing already, so there's no hope of ever getting that right anyway.

 

[Milo]

Also, I do not agree with Malsow's Hierarchy of Needs other than the bottom row with love being instinctual after sustained sexual intimacy with the same person.

He studied successful people who are only successful because they are motivated by things that are not real (variations of pride). Productive to society nonetheless, but disillusioned.

 

[Duxwing]

Also, I do not agree with Malsow's Hierarchy of Needs other than the bottom row with love being instinctual after sustained sexual intimacy with the same person.

He studied successful people who are only successful because they are motivated by things that are not real (variations of pride). Productive to society nonetheless, but disillusioned.

Due to our inability to know reality, one can view it as the ultimate massively multiplayer game: with mind-boggling graphics, full physics simulation, unbelievable AI, and 24/7 persistence it can keep you hooked forever. What more could a gamer ask for? And of course our goals are "empty". So are the goals in story-books, silly! We just make believe.

-Duxwing

 

[Milo]

Yes you may view reality as such, but doing this indicates that you are still relying on your mind instead of your instincts to act in reality.

One can only sense reality, not know it. Knowledge is of the mind and only comes in the form of memories of reality, we get an idea of what something is, then we label each thing we think in terms of language with a word. Eventually we might create abstractions in our minds and "know them" but we only know them by knowing the idea of them in our heads and they may not even exist in reality. An example would be good and bad. The mind often must identify something from its opposite and in this case where the abstraction of bad is thought of (usually is first because of being punished for something and we don't understand at first). We then try and be good and our mind constructs its own thoughts of good and bad which causes us to have morals or a conscience. But this is only us becoming trapped in the cave early in life by the way we are nurtured. We then believe the things we've manifested in our minds to be things that pertain to reality when they are not. If you realize that things like morals do not pertain to reality and have gotten to the point of self-sufficiency (don't have to act like a trained dog to get your treats), then you can let your instincts be free. Only restrict them if you are avoiding pain, but you'll probably just know when you should and should not partake in things like masturbation.

We can have True beliefs about reality, but we can not know it. And when you are in the cave you are in the realm of mixing your True beliefs and false beliefs together to support each other. You must use your instinct, and then only rely on the knowledge you have that has actual correspondence to reality and is not some mental construct to help your instinct get what it wants.

 

[Duxwing]

Yes you may view reality as such, but doing this indicates that you are still relying on your mind instead of your instincts to act in reality.

One can only sense reality, not know it. Knowledge is of the mind and only comes in the form of memories of reality, we get an idea of what something is, then we label each thing we think in terms of language with a word. Eventually we might create abstractions in our minds and "know them" but we only know them by knowing the idea of them in our heads and they may not even exist in reality. An example would be good and bad. The mind often must identify something from its opposite and in this case where the abstraction of bad is thought of (usually is first because of being punished for something and we don't understand at first). We then try and be good and our mind constructs its own thoughts of good and bad which causes us to have morals or a conscience. But this is only us becoming trapped in the cave early in life by the way we are nurtured. We then believe the things we've manifested in our minds to be things that pertain to reality when they are not. If you realize that things like morals do not pertain to reality and have gotten to the point of self-sufficiency (don't have to act like a trained dog to get your treats), then you can let your instincts be free. Only restrict them if you are avoiding pain, but you'll probably just know when you should and should not partake in things like masturbation.

We can have True beliefs about reality, but we can not know it. And when you are in the cave you are in the realm of mixing your True beliefs and false beliefs together to support each other. You must use your instinct, and then only rely on the knowledge you have that has actual correspondence to reality and is not some mental construct to help your instinct get what it wants.

So is your argument applied hedonism paired with moral, existential, and epistemeological nihilism?

-Duxwing

 

[Milo]

I believe this is the closest philosophy to what I am talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(philosophy)

"Their philosophy was that the purpose of life was to live a life of Virtue in agreement with Nature."

I would define nature as acting in accordance with your instincts and making that one's virtue.

 

[Milo]

Also, don't let your type define you or anything because that is only an abstraction of your mind. You are creating identities that don't actually exist. All you have to do is trust your instincts and use your mind as a tool to secure what your instincts want.

If I ever met a woman and knew (had a true belief + faith that) she understood this and lived by it, I would know that I could trust her to not be side-tracked by any idolizations or any seeking of happiness. If me and that woman both lived according to our nature and not disillusioned by any expectations of others or that happiness is somewhere else, then we could live harmonious lives. Sadly, this understanding is rare among a society so influenced by the media, and religion, and morals indoctrinated into us since childhood that I'm not sure if it will happen any time soon. It is conditional love vs. unconditional love. Of course an attraction must first exist in the first place because instinct controls that immediate attraction. But for me, there cannot be more than an attraction without me knowing (having a true belief + faith) that she understood and lived this.

 

[Duxwing]

I believe this is the closest philosophy to what I am talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(philosophy)

"Their philosophy was that the purpose of life was to live a life of Virtue in agreement with Nature."

I would define nature as acting in accordance with your instincts and making that one's virtue.

I suspect that Virtue extended to traits like Bravery, Compassion, Honesty, and Thoughtfulness, and that Nature referred not only to one's own desires, but to the natural world.

-Duxwing

 

[Duxwing]

Also, don't let your type define you or anything because that is only an abstraction of your mind. You are creating identities that don't actually exist. All you have to do is trust your instincts and use your mind as a tool to secure what your instincts want.

The type derives from the instincts.

If I ever met a woman and knew (had a true belief + faith that) she understood this and lived by it, I would know that I could trust her to not be side-tracked by any idolizations or any seeking of happiness. If me and that woman both lived according to our nature and not disillusioned by any expectations of others or that happiness is somewhere else, then we could live harmonious lives. Sadly, this understanding is rare among a society so influenced by the media, and religion, and morals indoctrinated into us since childhood that I'm not sure if it will happen any time soon. It is conditional love vs. unconditional love. Of course an attraction must first exist in the first place because instinct controls that immediate attraction. But for me, there cannot be more than an attraction without me knowing (having a true belief + faith) that she understood and lived this.

And you just said that love was for saps.

-Duxwing

 

[Milo]

No. Nature = one's instincts.

" A virtue is a positive trait or quality deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being."

If something is morally good, you should do it. So it is morally good to do what you instincts want.

 

[Duxwing]

No. Nature = one's instincts.

" A virtue is a positive trait or quality deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being."

If something is morally good, you should do it. So it is morally good to do what you instincts want.

So you're saying that Man's Nature is virtuous, and that Man should live according to it?

-Duxwing

 

[Milo]

The type derives from the instincts.



And you just said that love was for saps.

-Duxwing

Perhaps the type does, but do not use it to label yourself because it can direct you off your own instinctual path because you have an idea of what that type is supposed to act like.

I didn't say love was for saps. Love is instinctual from multiple intimate encounters with someone. That is instinctual love. You become fond of that person.

If you add the trust in there, then you take actual consideration of what they are telling you. With this philosophy, you become more aware that it is careful to choose who you trust and what you believe. I can't trust those who are disillusioned and who don't trust their own instincts because my instincts are only compatible with their instincts. It is much too hard to use intellect to be compatible with someone.

 

[Milo]

So you're saying that Man's Nature is virtuous, and that Man should live according to it?

-Duxwing

Now I have to describe to you what is right in terms of what is not real (Ideas or "Forms" as Plato described) and is only of your mind. You must understand that these are only ideas of things. I'll quote the things that aren't real.

It is "virtuous" because following one's instincts is what fulfill's one. Fulfillment = "good".

"Morality" is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or "right") and those that are "bad" (or "wrong").

If one is going by what other people say is "good" or "bad" that is "morally wrong".

It is "morally right" to go by your instincts because your body feels positive emotions/sensations when you get or do things that fulfills it. This indicates that it is helping your body in some way. Your instincts are set in stone by your DNA to survive and reproduce. You don't have to reproduce, but as long as you are fulfilling your instinct's desires in some way you will be fulfilled (as long as you don't let your mind think there is something more that will make you happier).

 

[Duxwing]

Now I have to describe to you what is right in terms of what is not real (Ideas or "Forms" as Plato described) and is only of your mind. You must understand that these are only ideas of things. I'll quote the things that aren't real.

Our ideas may not be corporeally manifest, but, via the is-ought rule, their effervescence alone does not necessarily imply that we should ignore them.

It is "virtuous" because following one's instincts is what fulfill's one. Fulfillment = "good".

But one's instincts can direct one toward anything. What if my instinct were to help those who cannot help themselves? Is such an instinct invalid because it does not directly lead to reproduction or euphoric pleasure? Sex and food are fine and dandy, but they get boring after a while-- at least for me.

"Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or "right") and those that are "bad" (or "wrong").

I agree.

If one is going by what other people say is "good" or "bad" that is "morally wrong".

And what if doing so is one's instinct?

It is "morally right" to go by your instincts because your body feels positive emotions/sensations when you get or do things that fulfills it. This that it is helping your body in some way. Your instincts are set in stone by your DNA to survive and reproduce. You don't have to reproduce, but as long as you are fulfilling your instincts desires in some way you will be fulfilled (as long as you don't let your mind think there is something more that will make you happier).

Are we taking "fulfillment is the Form of the Good" as an axiom for the sake of the argument? Furthermore, why must the mind not be enjoyed? It is part of us-- no, it is us. We are naught but the corporeal manifestations of minds and their impacts upon the world.

-Duxwing

 

[Milo]

You must know that your instinct is all that should be followed. It is your motivation, and being directed by it is what will fulfill you. There is nothing else that can make you happy. In knowing this, you can finally be content and once understood, you may be compelled to help other people realize this. But you must be very careful because they might think you are a fool or have become immoral. Make sure you know what you are talking about. Doing it through writing may be the best way or perhaps through illustrations.

As the allegory of the cave describes "the people in the cave may turn on the philosopher and attempt to kill him."

 

[Milo]

But one's instincts can direct one toward anything. What if my instinct were to help those who cannot help themselves? Is such an instinct invalid because it does not directly lead to reproduction or euphoric pleasure? Sex and food are fine and dandy, but they get boring after a while-- at least for me.

Boredom is of the mind. Helping others can be instinctual. We are a social species. You'll find that I'm not talking only of "euphoric pleasure." Helping others has a sort of satisfaction that I could not describe. Probably the same satisfaction I get from trying to help people gain clarity as I have.

And what if doing so is one's instinct?

Do it not because it is "good" by their standards. Do it for the sake of not conflicting your relationship with them. I'm sure that's what you were thinking anyway. You don't change your actual values, which should be changing depending on what your instincts want, you just comply either because it doesn't matter too much or because you would rather that they not know your actual opinions.

Are we taking "fulfillment is the Form of the Good" as an axiom for the sake of the argument?

The "Form of the Good" is Plato's idea for justice to be based off of. Instead of going further into the implications of the Allegory of the Cave he put an ideology as the ultimate goal. "The Good" is the ideal state of civilization. It is not the same as what I have implicated.

Furthermore, why must the mind not be enjoyed? It is part of us-- no, it is us. We are naught but the corporeal manifestations of minds and their impacts upon the world.

Identifying with the mind leads one into disillusionment and more pain than pleasure. The mind is a tool. The instinct was there first and has always been our direction. When the mind evolved into us, we became greedy, vengeful, depressed, devious tricksters who had no direction. The mind feels rewarded by fame, wealth, and an unlimited amount of idols that we might identify ourselves with. The mind wants to win instead of finding the truth, or it idolizes intelligence. It always wants to feel superior.

We must not let the mind take over because it leads us into a life of pain and misery because its undirected and always wants more. You can never satisfy your mind. You must put it in its place, as a tool for the instinct to get what it wants.

The geniuses, the rich, the famous, the divine are all less happy than the one's who live simple lives with only the necessities. They may be happy if they have this clarity, but it is much more likely that they've been motivated by a false promise of happiness.

 

[Milo]

You must understand fully the definition of knowledge and understand that because of the definition, you can't possibly know anything about reality. Knowledge is in your mind and the only bit of reality you can experience is through the senses.

This could be the matrix where anything can change. Because of infinite possibility we can't know reality. We must have faith that this is reality. Furthermore we can't rely on anyone else's judgement, its even less reliable than our knowledge gained from experiencing our limited view of reality.
All you know is what you sense/experience in the here and now, so there is no point in searching for anything. Just do what is natural.

I guess it is also nihilism, but with the objective that you should do what your body urges you to do. Don't let your mind restrict you with its "morals," idolizations (being fixated on one thing bringing you happiness), and/or other irrationalities.

This clarity is meant to free you in the highest sense that freedom can ever be experienced. Probably just like the way you were early on in childhood. Except in childhood you were free out of ignorance, now you can be free with understanding.

 

[Duxwing]

Boredom is of the mind. Helping others can be instinctual. We are a social species. You'll find that I'm not talking only of "euphoric pleasure." Helping others has a sort of satisfaction that I could not describe. Probably the same satisfaction I get from trying to help people gain clarity as I have.

Do it not because it is "good" by their standards. Do it for the sake of not conflicting your relationship with them. I'm sure that's what you were thinking anyway. You don't change your actual values, which should be changing depending on what your instincts want, you just comply either because it doesn't matter too much or because you would rather that they not know your actual opinions.

Don't be so quick to assume. I'm actually trying to amuse myself by finding a contradiction in your argument. Therefore, in the interest of amusement, I ask, what if my instinct is to act against my instincts?

The "Form of the Good" is Plato's idea for justice to be based off of. Instead of going further into the implications of the Allegory of the Cave he put an ideology as the ultimate goal. "The Good" is the ideal state of civilization. It is not the same as what I have implicated.

Details, details. I'll put my point another way. Are we to assume that acting according to one's instincts, whatever those instincts may be, is objectively good?

Identifying with the mind leads one into disillusionment and more pain than pleasure. The mind is a tool. The instinct was there first and has always been our direction. When the mind evolved into us, we became greedy, vengeful, depressed, devious tricksters who had no direction. The mind feels rewarded by fame, wealth, and an unlimited amount of idols that we might identify ourselves with. The mind wants to win instead of finding the truth, or it idolizes intelligence. It always wants to feel superior.

What is the mind? Our ability to reason? Our pride? Our prejudice? What is the thing that you hate so?

We must not let the mind take over because it leads us into a life of pain and misery because its undirected and always wants more. You can never satisfy your mind. You must put it in its place, as a tool for the instinct to get what it wants.

Dude, calm down. You sound like you're about to lead an army that will take over the world. I understand that you see the "mind" as evil, but let us not get carried away on the rising tide of feeling that accompanies such thoughts.

The geniuses, the rich, the famous, the divine are all less happy than the one's who live simple lives with only the necessities. They may be happy if they have this clarity, but it is much more likely that they've been motivated by a false promise of happiness.

Certainly, chasing an ideal that is not absolute but relative to landmarks made by the accidents of history is folly, but why must our lives be "simple"? And what is a "simple" life? Is, for example, my life, that of a student, "simple"? For I debate complex topics every day-- and not because of some deep-rooted Freudian neurosis, but because I genuinely love the feeling of making a discovery or finding a flaw in an argument. It's fulfilling, and, by your logic, I therefore ought to continue doing so.

And yet you say that I shouldn't.

-Duxwing

 

[Milo]

Don't be so quick to assume. I'm actually trying to amuse myself by finding a contradiction in your argument. Therefore, in the interest of amusement, I ask, what if my instinct is to act against my instincts?

That is exactly what I want. Your amusement is working in my interest. I don't want any contradictions here, so perfect.

As for the question, then you'd be acting instinctually. Only you can know your exact instincts in each situation. The one's I've provided are just the common ones that everyone has automatically because if you didn't have them you would be dead and/or infertile. I guess I never emphasized that those aren't the only ones. Just the main ones.

Details, details. I'll put my point another way. Are we to assume that acting according to one's instincts, whatever those instincts may be, is objectively good?

The argument works in a way that allows one to be free from not following one's instincts. One's knowledge is usually automatic. Perhaps when one considers having sex with a random person, they automatically think of diseases because they were educated about them, then they may choose to not do it or take precautions, but they are still directed by their instinct and don't think "that's bad to do that." I'm not saying that education is bad. Only allowing ideas to change one's values (or give them values--instinctual values don't need to be thought of, but I am trying to reintroduced people back into their instinctual ways by showing them examples of what their instinct wants) from what their instincts want.

Education is actually good and naturally occurs through experience. It allows us to make better choices in regards to acquiring what our instinct wants.

What is the mind? Our ability to reason? Our pride? Our prejudice? What is the thing that you hate so?

Your mind is that voice in your head that also can conceptualize things without a voice. It also is your memory and imagination.

I hate it when it takes over and disregards the instinct. The instinct has no voice and reason will take over it and re-prioritize and create goals that have no actual merit for one's fulfillment. It also imagines things and tricks the instinct into believing its imaginations are real. Imagining an attractive mate can make the instinct want sex. Imagining food can make it hungry when it isn't. The media is constantly using your mind against you in order to buy their things. That's why they use sex appeal in adds and make sure that the food they show looks really delicious. Even if it is just in words. If they describe it very well you can imagine it yourself and crave the thing. Or they can even make you want something you would never want by using the way they describe it/depict it. You must gain control of your own mind. Master it.

Dude, calm down. You sound like you're about to lead an army that will take over the world. I understand that you see the "mind" as evil, but let us not get carried away on the rising tide of feeling that accompanies such thoughts.

It is only evil when it is your guide. When you use it and create high expectations for your instinct in the things the mind thinks will make you happy, you will only get disappointment.

Certainly, chasing an ideal that is not absolute but relative to landmarks made by the accidents of history is folly, but why must our lives be "simple"? And what is a "simple" life? Is, for example, my life, that of a student, "simple"? For I debate complex topics every day-- and not because of some deep-rooted Freudian neurosis, but because I genuinely love the feeling of making a discovery or finding a flaw in an argument. It's fulfilling, and, by your logic, I therefore ought to continue doing so.

And yet you say that I shouldn't.

I actually appreciate you doing so.
I would define a "simple life" as one that requires no thinking of what you want. You just know what you want instinctually and just go for it. You don't overthink and complicate things. If you let your mind lead, it has to actually understand and justify what it is doing. It is complex and difficult. You can instead learn with your instinct which is mostly visual and through experience. You can use your mind as a tool to learn as well as the storage area if you visualize it with your mind, using words themselves is very inefficient and would be learning the hard way. Learn the facts, don't change who you are because of them.

 

[Milo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

"Instinct or innate behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular complex behavior.

Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience (that is, in the absence of learning), and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors."

Know what you want and do what you are naturally inclined to do. Shake off what you've been conditioned to do. Now add in your education and knowledge from past experiences in order to help you strategize in getting what you want.

 

[Duxwing]

That is exactly what I want. Your amusement is working in my interest. I don't want any contradictions here, so perfect.

You like it!? All the better!

As for the question, then you'd be acting instinctually. Only you can know your exact instincts in each situation. The one's I've provided are just the common ones that everyone has automatically because if you didn't have them you would be dead and/or infertile. I guess I never emphasized that those aren't the only ones. Just the main ones.

Right, but don't you see how having an instinct to act against your instincts creates a paradox? If you follow your instinct to act against your instincts, then you are acting instinctually and therefore against your instinct to act against your instincts; conversely, if you act against your instinct to act against your instincts, then you are acting against your instinct and therefore acting instinctually. Ergo, the logic of your theory needs to be reworked so that helpful trolls like me can't set off paradoxes in it.

The argument works in a way that allows one to be free from not following one's instincts. One's knowledge is usually automatic. Perhaps when one considers having sex with a random person, they automatically think of diseases because they were educated about them, then they may choose to not do it or take precautions, but they are still directed by their instinct and don't think "that's bad to do that." I'm not saying that education is bad. Only allowing ideas to change one's values (or give them values--instinctual values don't need to be thought of, but I am trying to reintroduced people back into their instinctual ways by showing them examples of what their instinct wants) from what their instincts want.

But do instincts cover every situation? For example, consider the equation:

log (x) = 2, solve for x

One's instincts won't help one solve that problem because man's mind never evolved a specific response to logarithmic equations. Therefore, at least one area of life requires a mind. Of course, one might have an instinct to solve the equation and then employ one's mind as a tool to solve it, and I think that such a use is what you intend.

Education is actually good and naturally occurs through experience. It allows us to make better choices in regards to acquiring what our instinct wants.

One's instincts only cover a small range of behaviors, not all of them particularly fulfilling, and the word itself evokes unnecessary biological meanings. Ergo, I suggest that you replace the phrase "act according to our instinct" with "act according to our nature" because the latter phrasing includes the individual's intrinsic passions for art, sport, and science along with Man's natural inclinations toward friendship and love.

Your mind is that voice in your head that also can conceptualize things without a voice. It also is your memory and imagination.

Anything else? I'm not dismissive, just curious. I'd very much like an exhaustive list with no gestalt "whole>{part(1)+part(2)+part(3)+... part(n)}" fuzziness.

I hate it when it takes over and disregards the instinct. The instinct has no voice and reason will take over it and re-prioritize and create goals that have no actual merit for one's fulfillment. It also imagines things and tricks the instinct into believing its imaginations are real. Imagining an attractive mate can make the instinct want sex. Imagining food can make it hungry when it isn't. The media is constantly using your mind against you in order to buy their things. That's why they use sex appeal in adds and make sure that the food they show looks really delicious. Even if it is just in words. If they describe it very well you can imagine it yourself and crave the thing. Or they can even make you want something you would never want by using the way they describe it/depict it. You must gain control of your own mind. Master it.

It is only evil when it is your guide. When you use it and create high expectations for your instinct in the things the mind thinks will make you happy, you will only get disappointment.

So are you saying that, in the interest of mental health, one should do what one actually wants to do, and not what one thinks that one wants to do? I see the virtue in so doing; however, how would one know when one "actually" wants to do something?

I actually appreciate you doing so.

Aww!

I would define a "simple life" as one that requires no thinking of what you want. You just know what you want instinctually and just go for it. You don't overthink and complicate things. If you let your mind lead, it has to actually understand and justify what it is doing. It is complex and difficult. You can instead learn with your instinct which is mostly visual and through experience. You can use your mind as a tool to learn as well as the storage area if you visualize it with your mind, using words themselves is very inefficient and would be learning the hard way. Learn the facts, don't change who you are because of them.

What happens when one's instincts lead one astray, as they do in, for example addiction? The cold, objective viewpoint of the mind is necessary to dissect the instinct and identify those portions of it that have become diseased. Furthermore, is one not subject to manipulation if one never examines one's motivations?

-Duxwing