30 Jul 2007, 7:48 am
30 Jul 2007, 7:54 am
MrMark wrote:
TheMachine1 wrote:
You need a neutral option. I am rarely sad or happy. Mood is very stable now. (20 mg prozac , 6000 mg fish oil, 50 mcg levothyroxine 
).
).I'm really more interested in what people see as the cause of their feelings, if it's something they feel they have any control over. You don't count; you're on drugs.
Half of us claim to be happy and say the cause is internal. Three quarters of those who claim to be unhappy believe the cause is outside of them. May be we have a correlation, or maybe those three individuals are experiencing "failure to thrive" due to not getting the physical or psychological nurturing they need. If no one's providing you with the physical or pshchological nurturing you need, then you'll have to provide it for yourself.
30 Jul 2007, 8:09 am
MrMark wrote:
Deus_ex_machina wrote:
MrMark wrote:
My personal experience has been that having or not having what I want (external) has no effect on my happiness. I can have what I want and be unhappy, and not have what I want and be happy. Not having what I need is a different story.
My personal experience is that I tend to radiate whatever I have going on inside. Hence the expression, "If you want to change the world, change yourself."
My personal experience is that I tend to radiate whatever I have going on inside. Hence the expression, "If you want to change the world, change yourself."
When you say external are you talk about things outside of your body, outside of your control, or just things you don't need for survival?
I have an external and an internal environment. The boundry between the two is hard to define. My skin? No, I think of my muscles, blood, bones, etc. as part of my external environment. My body is temporary housing. I think my internal environment is created by my mind using stimuli from the external environment and... something(s) from my internal environment. That supports my argument that there is a creator god and it is a part of us, not separate from us. Most of us live in the world created by our mind most of the time. It seems to be one of those things that I can talk about but not clearly define. I can tell you this. I don't travel much. I've always been more interested in exploring my internal environment than the external one. It's a vast as the cosmos and much more accessable.
Your internal environment is partly created by itself? Weird.
How does that support anything? Am I missing something here, are you really saying that the existence of your mind proves God exists?
30 Jul 2007, 9:25 am
Deus_ex_machina wrote:
MrMark wrote:
Deus_ex_machina wrote:
MrMark wrote:
My personal experience has been that having or not having what I want (external) has no effect on my happiness. I can have what I want and be unhappy, and not have what I want and be happy. Not having what I need is a different story.
My personal experience is that I tend to radiate whatever I have going on inside. Hence the expression, "If you want to change the world, change yourself."
My personal experience is that I tend to radiate whatever I have going on inside. Hence the expression, "If you want to change the world, change yourself."
When you say external are you talk about things outside of your body, outside of your control, or just things you don't need for survival?
I have an external and an internal environment. The boundry between the two is hard to define. My skin? No, I think of my muscles, blood, bones, etc. as part of my external environment. My body is temporary housing. I think my internal environment is created by my mind using stimuli from the external environment and... something(s) from my internal environment. That supports my argument that there is a creator god and it is a part of us, not separate from us. Most of us live in the world created by our mind most of the time. It seems to be one of those things that I can talk about but not clearly define. I can tell you this. I don't travel much. I've always been more interested in exploring my internal environment than the external one. It's a vast as the cosmos and much more accessable.
Your internal environment is partly created by itself? Weird.
How does that support anything? Am I missing something here, are you really saying that the existence of your mind proves God exists?
My internal environment is partly created by whoever this "I" person is (possibly another mental construct.) The existence in the belief in god(s) proves that God exists, if nothing more than as a mental construct. I've always said that the debate about the existence of god(s) was ridiculous. It's the nature of such existence that's worthy of debate.
30 Jul 2007, 10:06 am
30 Jul 2007, 10:10 am
04 Aug 2007, 3:04 am
04 Aug 2007, 4:38 am
04 Aug 2007, 7:27 am
04 Aug 2007, 7:51 am
04 Aug 2007, 11:09 am
04 Aug 2007, 4:47 pm
08 Aug 2007, 12:28 pm
MrMark wrote:
Deus_ex_machina wrote:
MrMark wrote:
Deus_ex_machina wrote:
MrMark wrote:
My personal experience has been that having or not having what I want (external) has no effect on my happiness. I can have what I want and be unhappy, and not have what I want and be happy. Not having what I need is a different story.
My personal experience is that I tend to radiate whatever I have going on inside. Hence the expression, "If you want to change the world, change yourself."
My personal experience is that I tend to radiate whatever I have going on inside. Hence the expression, "If you want to change the world, change yourself."
When you say external are you talk about things outside of your body, outside of your control, or just things you don't need for survival?
I have an external and an internal environment. The boundry between the two is hard to define. My skin? No, I think of my muscles, blood, bones, etc. as part of my external environment. My body is temporary housing. I think my internal environment is created by my mind using stimuli from the external environment and... something(s) from my internal environment. That supports my argument that there is a creator god and it is a part of us, not separate from us. Most of us live in the world created by our mind most of the time. It seems to be one of those things that I can talk about but not clearly define. I can tell you this. I don't travel much. I've always been more interested in exploring my internal environment than the external one. It's a vast as the cosmos and much more accessable.
Your internal environment is partly created by itself? Weird.
How does that support anything? Am I missing something here, are you really saying that the existence of your mind proves God exists?
My internal environment is partly created by whoever this "I" person is (possibly another mental construct.) The existence in the belief in god(s) proves that God exists, if nothing more than as a mental construct. I've always said that the debate about the existence of god(s) was ridiculous. It's the nature of such existence that's worthy of debate.
That sounds kind of like this "According to the legend, whenever an agent does anything intelligently, his act is preceded and steered by another internal act of considering a regulative proposition appropriate to his practical problem. . . . Must we then say that for the agent's . . . reflections how to act to be intelligent he must first reflect how best to reflect how to act? The endlessness of this implied regress shows that the application of the appropriateness does not entail the occurrence of a process of considering this criterion."
Ha the debate of the nature of such an existence and the debate over his existence are one and the same, ridiculous.
08 Aug 2007, 1:10 pm
Deus_ex_machina wrote:
Ha the debate of the nature of such an existence and the debate over his existence are one and the same, ridiculous.
Not at all. God(s) exist(s), even if as nothing more than (a) mental construct(s). He/they exist(s) in the minds of millions of people. This is self-evident. The appropriate debate is whether He/they exist(s) as anything more substantial than that. (Not that there's anything insubstantial about mental constructs.
)
08 Aug 2007, 11:44 pm
MrMark wrote:
Deus_ex_machina wrote:
Ha the debate of the nature of such an existence and the debate over his existence are one and the same, ridiculous.
Not at all. God(s) exist(s), even if as nothing more than (a) mental construct(s). He/they exist(s) in the minds of millions of people. This is self-evident. The appropriate debate is whether He/they exist(s) as anything more substantial than that. (Not that there's anything insubstantial about mental constructs.
)I never doubted his existence as a mental construct, that goes without saying, I simply took what you said as meaning debated about what he is like as you saying it is absured so I went a little further.
08 Aug 2007, 11:49 pm
