* focus on the anti-negative

relocated to: https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/reverse-psychology-101-focus-on-the-anti-negative-the-language-of-taboos/

Advertisements

2 Responses to “* focus on the anti-negative”

  1. jrfibonacci Says:

    Hope replies:

    Positive focus feels good, and negative focus feels bad. Our feelings about what we are focused upon are projected into the universe. Those feelings energetically attract circumstances that evoke like feelings.

    This is not to say that anything is ever wrong with reality. But it’s simply honest to acknowledge that we are not always joyful when we focus on what IS. That less than joyful feeling is the catalyst for our creativity.

    From reading your blog post, I get that you don’t believe in free will, that God is working through us, and that we are only part of God in the sense that we are a tool of God.

    I see it much differently. I see everything as being a conscious part of God with humans having substantial influence over circumstances, events, and situations because of our ability to imagine different possibilities.

    As for cycles of the sun and our genetics, that’s consciousness too – but those are largely created by conscious energy that is not being influenced by the human experience. While we do have the power to change them (fingernails much more so than the sun), most of us just accept what is already created as the only possibility.

    Economic cycles on the other hand are created by focus which is very much influenced by having a human experience. Indeed, humans overall spend a lot more time thinking and planning about economic conditions than about the cycles of the sun or their fingernails.

    Your economic predictions are based on specific outcomes which you must have already determined to be the will of God. As I see it, the will of God shifts with feeling based on focus, which is why all possibilities are always possible.

    It’s not necessary to try really hard, but feeling good does inspire our efforts toward the creation of what we desire. If you are denying that you have feelings that can be quantified as good or bad; or that it is sinful to judge your own feelings as such that’s fine, and I love you just the same. But for me, that would be denying that I am having a human experience – which is what I came here to do.

  2. jrfibonacci Says:

    JR replies to Hope’s reply:

    That is a lot of thoughts about feelings. Let’s say that someone feels sexual arousal physically. Is that a good feeling or a bad feeling?

    For some, they experience shame. For others, there is a simple, innocent pleasure without shaming it or rebelling against the shame and indulging in it. The shame and the indulgence/greed are not from the physical feeling. We tend to call shame or greed “emotional” (and “bad”). In that case, consider the following sequence of thoughts:

    Life happens. We feel things like physical sensations. We may have thoughts about a few of them: this one is good, that one is bad, and those are just whatever they are without any need to label them.

    The thoughts are reactions to the feeling- the physical sensations- as filtered through or interpreted by models of language and social conditioning. Emotions are the reactions to those thoughts.

    So, it makes sense to call emotions negative or positive in a way, because emotions are rooted in dualistic thinking. However, physical sensation is just physical sensation. Varying forms of stimulation are not negative or positive. That is, hearing is not negative and smelling positive. That is silly.

    However, ultimately, calling shame negative is just as silly. Shame is just the natural consequence of some physical sensations of life happening and then some thoughts about that- which is still just life happening. All language is silly. I am not saying that it’s not important- it’s just that it is no more important than anything else, no matter if it says so.

    As for freewill, it is not an essential premise of certain models, such as mathematics. The PERCEPTION of freewill may be quite independent of any reality to it. Generally, people who “worship” freewill do not reject the idea that their holy freewill only extends so far. So, whether or not there is any freewill or even perception of freewill (which is just a linguistic model of “personal volition”), there is still language and so on. Some models of language use the term freewill. That’s fine.

    Obviously, lots of content of mine uses that language: “Choose this. Allow yourself to be informed by that. Are you willing to ask yourself how much you can profit from change?”

    I often use the term willingness. I rarely use the term willfulness.

    My experience is that as I recognize (choicelessly?) the intelligence of Life flowing through me, including in to words, then I direct the attention of others, instruct their focus, inform their models of language… their experience of freewill. The wind carries the seeds far and wide. Some germinate and some do not.

    Some people accept the words I share instantly and completely. Some question intrigued. Some resist moderately. Some may even counter-attack. All of that, by the way, is also the intelligence of life informing me, flowing back through me, as I keep learning… willing to serve, willing to conform, willing to lead, willing to explore, willing to question, willing even to resist and counter-attack- yet not willful to focus away from particular action and only on to others. That willfulness is also called (by me) unwillingness. They could not be less similar.

    I do not have any issues with the will of god or my predictions being “right” because they are mine (or God’s). Certain models have been consistently accurate. I have been aware of that in the past, and I integrated those models and applied them to make predictions that have been consistently accurate.

    Scientists who discarded the geocentric model of the solar system and adopted the heliocentric did not need to argue that theirs was right because it was God’s will. That is what the people say who are willfully resisting observable patterns. Those who are confident do not need to resort to claims of a monopoly on divinity. We tend to say things like “do the math.”

    One may take the idea of freewill and then project it on to God. That is taking one’s image of humanity and then imposing it on some personalized Creator identity. God, as I use the term, does not refer to an identity. God is the Great Mystery, The Tao, the Holy One, Life itself, the eternal language that cannot be spoken, but is always “felt.” I do not mean “just emotionally,” I mean intuitively, intrinsically, innately, holistically, holographically, completely, with all of one’s being: body, mind, and spirit.

    I’m not saying that it is sinful to judge. I am saying that sinning is judging is sinning. Yes, that is a possible part of human experience, but also optional.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: