Opinions, beliefs, normality and reactive contamination

[Cheese Consumer]

So I wanted to write some thoughts on one of the more unpopular topics.

How many people would defend another persons right to express their opinion? This would certainly be one of the goals of modern society where democracy, freedom of expression/religion/sexuality, the right to be heard and protest peacefully etc all encompass that basic concept.

What if the very concept of having 'your own' opinion was invalidated by the fact we are all contaminated by our upbringing. If we stand back one level and look at what is happening we can see that our opinions and beliefs are formed over many years and are therefore not ours but belong to some degree to the environment and the people around us during our formative years. We can also observe that an individuals opinion belongs to his/her 'I' or ego and that is as much a part of the subconscious as the mechanisms that form the opinion.

Part of the enlightenment process is to lose the 'I' and hence lose our opinions and beliefs. Without opinion and belief we can be an inclusive society as the only reason we exclude others is based on whether we like or dislike them. Like/dislike is reinforced by what happens when we are taken outside our comfortable zone. The subconscious is very cleverly designed to reinforce the safe zone we create and we will go through the dislike>annoyed>really pissed off>angry>violent (or similar) process in order that the discussion stays within the safe zone. I refer to this mechanism as the Standard Response- everyone has it in one form or another. Understanding and then breaking this process was exactly what led me to understand the mechanics of enlightenment.

A secondary part of the enlightenment phase is letting go of all the years of accepted practice that have formed around what we like and dislike. We have developed these over hundreds of years to deal with -among other things, other peoples inability to manage themselves.
Democracy- without reactive control we can exist as an autonomous society relying only on internal regulation within each individual
Policing- as an inclusive society we can repair less fortunate people so there is no need for courts, police, prisons, rehabilitation and so on
Religion- without belief there is no need for religion
Conflict- without belief there is no need to fight for what we believe is 'right'
<this list is quite long>

The hard part of getting out of the reactive control trap is being able to stand back from oneself and look at what are our actions and what aren't. For me it was easier because I have one of those conditions that makes it quite obvious which of my actions happen without my involvement and which are at least mostly my own. Every single person on earth is controlled by their subconscious and if nothing appears abnormal then we consider ourselves and our group to be normal. Normal is liking and disliking others based on what we know of them. Normal is being nice to others we have not formed an opinion of. Normal is not rocking the boat in order to avoid conflict. Normal is getting pissed off when others 'piss us off'. Normal is believing in and defending our culture and lifestyle. Of course most people 'want' to be normal. Not me.

OK so how many people managed to read this far without having some sort of emotional feeling turn on? If you did get an "oh god no, its too early in the morning for this crap" or "oh, yeah, this twit again" sort of feeling then congratulations, your standard response is functioning correctly.

CC

[Albalida]

"If you can't defend your opinion, you don't have one-- you have somebody else's." I forgot where I first read that, but I liked it, and not because I can apply it to people who hate what I'm saying so much that they run off in tears and I can smugly dismiss with they're just in denial of how wrong they are. It's something I applied to myself, to examine my own biases so that I would have the courage to speak up, to listen and chew on what I hear. None of the information that I process is strictly my own, but my opinion is mine.

I expect that goodwill from everyone I communicate with, not just the neuro-atypical snowflakes. The loss of opinions and beliefs must be an absolute collective decision, otherwise it's "I have no opinion and have therefore transcended the 'I'... oops." No, opinions and beliefs, or the difference of, are necessary because the collective consciousness has not got it all figured out quite yet. In my humble, yet-to-be-fully-formed, opinion.

[Apopohis Reject]

Hey cheesy. Voltair said "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death your right to say it", which for mine presents as one of the nobler quotes to which one can aspire.

Now whilst I concur that generally speaking our 'opinions' are very much influenced by our environment and also maybe our 'ego, yet in the real sense, none of that invalidates any of it, for they will remain our opinions regardless. Moreover, we will always retain the authority to override any and all of these influences in the process of a formation of new opinions/beliefs. Any other conclusion is for mine; fatalistic, or at least an abdication of our responsibility to search for reality on our own behalf.

On the other hand, I'm really not sure how anyone can have no opinions or beliefs at all. Indeed we can and would do well to relax our grip on any sense of need to wield them all about us in the vain and empty hope they will somehow provide us with relevance if only we find someone else that accepts them. Yet are you, can you really give away all need for money (for instance) because you no longer believe in it? Or cease living in a house because you no longer have any need to believe in such manufactured structures?

Also whilst you are quite right that we often do everything we can in order to remain steadfastly in our 'safe zone, yet you say "the only reason we exclude others is based on whether we like or dislike them", yet this is a (very common) misinterpretation. The way it actually works, is we 'dislike' or 'exclude' anyone because they present to 'me' for some reason, as not liking 'me', or more specifically as a threat of some variety to 'my' physicality, or ego.

Ultimately however, I will never regard anyone who seeks to genuinely investigate into the true reality of themself, and existence as a whole, as anything like a twit by any means.

[Cheese Consumer]

Originally Posted by Albalida

"None of the information that I process is strictly my own, but my opinion is mine."

This is exactly the correct answer. An individuals opinion belongs to their I or ego and nothing can take that away. This is also the conundrum we face- how to give people the understanding that this is a fairly low form of intellect compared to what is available. It is perhaps something like proudly having the best horse for high speed transport, when the option of taking an aeroplane is available. OK that isn't the best example.

Originally Posted by Albalida

"The loss of opinions and beliefs must be an absolute collective decision, otherwise it's "I have no opinion and have therefore transcended the 'I'... oops." No, opinions and beliefs, or the difference of, are necessary because the collective consciousness has not got it all figured out quite yet.

Yes absolutely but it isn't a decision, it is a process. It isn't so much a matter of removing a persons opinon/beliefs but upgrading their intellect so that they can let go of the idea that their opinion is important.

Our collective consciousness is not functioning very well right now because we are reactively controlled. Part of the enlightenment process is to renovate the collective and this process has a lot to do with the seventh sense- although I don't really understand how this works right now. There are a lot more functions available too such as the shared knowledge bank that holds the information of how more advanced societies exist and how ours can too . We aren't ready for that part yet.

CC

[Cheese Consumer]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Indeed we can and would do well to relax our grip on any sense of need to wield them all about us in the vain and empty hope they will somehow provide us with relevance if only we find someone else that accepts them.

Happy existence is promoted as maintaining an arbitrary point somewhere between two defined ends. You can safely have an opinion as long as it isn't too strong or too weak. You can have a belief system as long as you don't force it upon others or blow stuff up because of it. This is the big failing of reactive existence, that arbitrary point is defined by the sum total of forces in each direction. It moves towards the extremes in environments where the extremist view is the norm. Turn on any TV and you'll see lots of people busily pushing this arbitrary point up and down the scale until hopefully a point is reached where everyone disagrees the least. This is the whole safe-zone thing happening. It is very inefficient.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Yet are you, can you really give away all need for money (for instance) because you no longer believe in it?

Further understanding of what and why money exists is required to answer this properly. Money is a liquid form of value and value is a commodity based mostly on the difficulty to perform a task. It is difficult to invent useful things so they command a high value. It is easy to clean toilets so cleaners aren't paid very much. We developed this system over thousands of years to enable some sort of fairness in society. What if everyone was approximately equal and able to perform tasks without having to feel they are difficult or require remuneration? What if there were no greedy people around because greed is entirely a product of the reactive subconscious? Then we have no need for money. The enlightened being has no need for money.

That isn't a matter of belief, but part of a much bigger process that will almost certainly happen in our lifetimes.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

The way it actually works, is we 'dislike' or 'exclude' anyone because they present to 'me' for some reason, as not liking 'me', or more specifically as a threat of some variety to 'my' physicality, or ego.

100% correct. Fear drives like/dislike and we only ever fear things that threaten our ego. There is many thousands of hours work right there in debugging the mechanisms that won't let us differentiate between something that threatened us in our past and something that represents a threat in our present. The subconscious mind has no timebase- a fact that is completely overlooked in conventional understanding. When something is written (or hardwired) into the subconscious, it acts as if every day is identical to the day it was written. you can pull apart every single like and dislike into its basic components through this method. They are all reactive and all must go if one is to achieve an enlightened state.

CC

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Cheese Consumer

This is exactly the correct answer. An individuals opinion belongs to their I or ego and nothing can take that away.

How about this then; is it also 'ego' if I have a belief in something I do not like, or does nothing to support my ego as such??? Take for instance; I may believe I will die some day. I most certainly wouldn't enjoy this belief, nor have any sense it supports my ego in any way. So does any of that invalidate my opinion/belief due to it's not being ego-based?

Originally Posted by Cheese Consumer

Yes absolutely but it isn't a decision, it is a process. It isn't so much a matter of removing a persons opinon/beliefs but upgrading their intellect so that they can let go of the idea that their opinion is important.

You are referencing two quite separate aspects here;

1. The belief itself, and
2. The perceived importance in holding on to the belief against all odds.

As (I believe) you've noted previously in this thread, the belief (whether correct or otherwise) isn't any real problem for us. It is the demand upon us from our ego to fight to the death for it's (supposed) honour, which is itself at the core of all our personal and communal dilemmas.

Once we release such grip, our Intelligence, subsequently without hindrance will take care of the rest for us. If it's shown incorrect, we will be happy to permit it to go in order to take up a more reasonable belief. If it needs tweaking to derive a more appropriate perspective, that will be just as simple.

Originally Posted by Cheese Consumer

Our collective consciousness is not functioning very well right now because we are reactively controlled. Part of the enlightenment process is to renovate the collective and this process has a lot to do with the seventh sense- although I don't really understand how this works right now. There are a lot more functions available too such as the shared knowledge bank that holds the information of how more advanced societies exist and how ours can too . We aren't ready for that part yet.

Both your ability to express your concepts with clarity, and your courage to openly, honestly acknowledge any questions or doubts you have, are immensely appreciated, and will be a great asset to this forum.

[raykilleen]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

How about this then; is it also 'ego' if I have a belief in something I do not like, or does nothing to support my ego as such??? Take for instance; I may believe I will die some day. I most certainly wouldn't enjoy this belief, nor have any sense it supports my ego in any way. So does any of that invalidate my opinion/belief due to it's not being ego-based?

This may not be a helpful example for what you are proposing since human existence is finite; it’s not a belief, it’s a fact, our direct experience is that every human who has walked this earth eventually gets old, sick and dies.

[Chris_1977]

A game is the illusion that for now we have to play by certain rules. A game can be enjoyable, though. Deciding to check out of it may not have been the response you had in mind when starting the game....

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by raykilleen

This may not be a helpful example for what you are proposing since human existence is finite; it’s not a belief, it’s a fact, our direct experience is that every human who has walked this earth eventually gets old, sick and dies.

Whilst it's certainly true that most folk accept death, as do you; a fact, yet I'm sorry but I do NOT. Nor do I accept human existence as being finite. Therefore I maintain it as a belief - a very convincing one it must be said, yet still a belief.

There are many accounts (Biblical for starters) that would suggest, indeed explain that death is most certainly NOT the end as such. Yet virtually all of us have become mesmerised by our fear to the point of surrender. Well Ray, I most certainly DO NOT surrender to fear nor death, for I'm assured of an awesome, powerful alternative.

If you're now thinking the above is based upon some airy fairy religionistic doctrine, you'd best think again, my friend.

[raykilleen]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Whilst it's certainly true that most folk accept death, as do you; a fact, yet I'm sorry but I do NOT. Nor do I accept human existence as being finite. Therefore I maintain it as a belief - a very convincing one it must be said, yet still a belief.

There are many accounts (Biblical for starters) that would suggest, indeed explain that death is most certainly NOT the end as such. Yet virtually all of us have become mesmerised by our fear to the point of surrender. Well Ray, I most certainly DO NOT surrender to fear nor death, for I'm assured of an awesome, powerful alternative.

If you're now thinking the above is based upon some airy fairy religionistic doctrine, you'd best think again, my friend.

I don’t know what happens when we die, since it has not happen to me yet, but the human shell will eventually cease, spiritually it sure seems like we will collapse back into the absolute.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by raykilleen

I don’t know what happens when we die, since it has not happen to me yet, but the human shell will eventually cease, spiritually it sure seems like we will collapse back into the absolute.

I agree the physical human shell - the corruptible as we know it, will eventually cease. Yet I'm absolutely convinced it will be restored with another - an entirely incorruptible version this time around.

When we make the connection that we are effectually the express physicality of the Universal CREATOR within, who in fact has no physicality apart from that which HE has created - with of course man being HIS ultimate expression (of Himself), then we begin to recognise that death was NEVER a part of His plan for Himself - or us, again being his very physicality.

It's been noted before, that death really makes no sense at all. Yet until we recognise that our life is ultimately about our deriving the realisation of who we in fact are - THE CREATOR HIMSELF, and suddenly the awesome, limitless possibilities that await begin to open up for us - including eternity.