edit: some of this is coherant, not much is useful. i was trying to pave a trail that would lead to coherancy but need a break way before i get there. basically theres a girl at work who seems intelligent with a decent state 1 , but i a) could be mistaken and she might be in state 2 a lot of the time b) her state 1 is not as intelligent OR perceptive OR rational ETC as (mine) c) her state 1 IS intelligent and perceptive but draws different conclusions (to mine).
this does make sense because my state 1 is constantly considering alternatives.
there is a bit of fluff or tab from one of the pads (nappies) on the floor, at work.
a) you ignore it because you simply cant be arsed/tired/pissed off (warning state 2 influence)
b) you ignore it because the cleaners will do it anyway and no1 actually cares
c) you dont notice it, or are distracted in some way
d) you notice it but picking it up doesnt occur to you in any form
e) you pick it up and place it in the rooms bin, no1 cares, its no less hygenic than the air around you etc
f) you pick it up and flush it down the toilet. it might block the toilet but there's like a 0.2% chance
g) you pick it up and put it in a bag to take it to the sluice. you considered putting it in the toilet but clinical waste BELONGS in the sluice, and besides its not worth risking blocking the toilet.
h) you kick it into a corner so its less obvious, let the cleaner deal with it
i) you pick it up coz you're feeling revitalized and want to move your body
j) you put on 1 or maybe 2 gloves, take it to the sluice
k) you put on 1 or maybe 2 gloves, or not, and stick it round the corner in the nearby storage walk-in cupboard, to collect it later, since it's not worth a trip to the sluice by itself
l) dont bother to put ion gloves, but place it in a plastic bag like you'd do for some other clinical waste and take it straight to the sluice
m) dont put on gloves, put it in a bag, then carry it to the next clients room so you can continue to use the bag, but potentially spreading germs
o) etc etc etc etc
as you can see, there are many viable options here. which options did your state 1 think of? which did it choose? why did you choose it? did you think of it right away? are you prepared to deal with the consequences?
now, consider that each of those are different and people around you have their own state 1 and state 2 manifest opinions. such a simple little thing. but consider if i choose b) , someone else chooses e) and another chooses k) .
the conflicts are enormous!!! hypocracy reigns!!! you can be endlessly careful, paranoid, anal, obsess about tidyness, cleanliness, claim you're too busy to fuck around walking to the sluice or finding a bag, claim its no dirtier than the air around us and will be taken by the cleaners soon enough, claim its not a hazard, rationalise this and that every which way around.
and continue doing so in varyingly consistant manners until the end of time/
state 1 is intensely fragile, often falling to state 2 mindlessness. it is also highly variable and requires some stable overrulling otherwise a decision is difficult to make. perhaps this is a use of emotion???? without emotion we wouldn't make choices? that does make sense in a way.
warning the below text is mainly unfinished broken crap that the "edit" heading this page was supposed to refer to but i got carried away.
case study re states
what frightened the shit out of me: i was spending a LOT of time in state 1 , contemplating my own state 1 and that of others. when i realised people spend SO SO much time in state 2, i became very disturbed, feeling alone and out of place. feelings of self-awareness about my own state 1 became increasingly potent. awareness (doubt, confusion) of other people's state 1s became increasingly potent.
girl at work, i can get on with her very well (generally when we're idle) and very poorly (when logical tasks are being performed)
we can distinguish that some people spend more time lacking state 1 than others.
we should also distinguish that people's state 1s can vary greatly.
when i begin to form conclusions regarding a problem, i find it intelligent to set them as probabilities. this way, i am
a) always quickly open to receive new ideas incase/as they come along
b) able to quickly assess the value or likelihood of things
c) always searching for those missing few %
sidenote: a fault i find with this is that it leaves you suceptable to influence, especially if for example point a) occurs and i forget to apply point b) to it
however, i feel that some people's state 1 may not pay attention to details such as this.
similarly, a person's state 1 may not be knowledgeable, may be ignorant of his own ignorance. a person's state 1 might just be naturally crap at rationalisation, or perception, or problem solving.
this has an enormous direct impact on how their state 2 performs!!!!!
the state 2 is controlled by the authority that is state 1. if a persons state 1 is lacking in complexity/efficiency then their state 2 will not be as efficient.
this is obvious. but is an important distinguiation between having a relaxed state 1 and a poor quality state 1. to what extent are these linked?
RESPONSE 1; ROUGH ANSWER TO A ROUGH INTERPRETATION OF YOUR MAIN QUESTION:
As far as your example goes, I think I am a perspectivist on this; i.e. someone could literally do ANYTHING from either ignorance or pure enlightenment. There is the mystical belief that enlightenment somehow gets people "truly right" and will see the way, but to me, I don't know this and won't assume it. So, you never know where someone's heart is when you see their action.
Obviously in some ways we try to assume, and we aren't that far off. But I think the descriptions of the actions you give, is missing something. The mental component. You seem to assume that we can know where her mind is at based on what kind of action she takes. that each action specifically shows a different state of mind. I don't thinnk so.
The only question to evaluate those actions is whether she is being lazy and giving in, or if the action is made with mindful awareness of how it effects her future mind. This is different terminology than most people who go this way, but I think in practice it's similar. Your actions will have an effect on your habits and effects in the future. the choices you have right now, aren't just for the current results; the most important result they have is on your own future mind--your strength to do what you think you want to, or feel you want to etc., vs your tendency to do regretful things. I view this as Aristotelian ethics (as far as how the soul "works") although I think this is, for instance, what Jesus (however historical he was or not) actually taught. Obviously I also interpret the practical effects of Buddhism through this lens.
So though I have objections with your "state 1/state 2" metaphor, I would say that the right action is any of the above where she has considered how it effects her "soul" and is acting out of concern for that. Anything less is a kind of failure and laziness and falling from grace and waste of time.
RESPONSE 2; A NOTE ON THE "GOOD/BAD" NATURE OF STATE 2:
I think state 2 is like a tiger that state 1 is riding. This is how Nietzsche describes it and though there are other ways (Plato/Aristotle do basically the same thing when talking about this issue), I think this is enough to talk about what I want to talk about here. State 2 is not this condemnable thing, but it is something we are attached to physically, in the world (and really it is a subset of the world), and in a way it stores a certain kind of progress. Whether it's parts of the brain, your body, your collection of friends or objects and their arrangement and how this shapes your life, all of this is a consequence of your choices and lack of choices. You create a large part of your personal world, and this in turn continues to effect the way you're doing.
So state 2 is not some evil thing to avoid and stay out of. It's your pet that you must raise properly if state 1 is to have any existence at all. It's like a child. And if you're a bad parent, you'll be dragged everywhere by the Tiger and have little existence of your own. The whole world will simply drag you along and maybe you will cease to exist almost at all.
The state 1 I think you speak of is not achievable through pure effort, but through "right effort" AND "right awareness"--awareness of the fact of what you want, of what the results of your actions will be ON the tiger's future behavior, etc. What you are thinking of as permanent state 1, is achievable only when the state 2, has learned to be a good child, a good pet, through training. Not through brute force and ignoring it and whipping it into submission but occasionally letting it have its way when certain things happen.
Now the religions and some other philosophies make a value judgment on this whole system, that we ought to do this. My only point is that this may be how it works, and that if there is a conflict in our lives between wishes and acts in some way, perhaps we can attack the issue through this lens. There must be other ways (Freudian, Kierkegaardian, Jungian, no doubt other 20th century scientist ones too, more existentialist ones like Levinas, or Sarte, etc.), so my only purpose here is to share some thoughts that may be useful to this area. And I don't offer them as some authority but because I would honestly like to see what arises from the idea, whether they are lacking, whether there is more to think about, more to explain, etc.
dont remember what my above post said regarding whether or not decisions were made by a particular state. but i was talking a today with a coworker ( <3 ) about exactly what you have replied with. and that it couild be a habit we are seeing. nevertheless the original thought-process must have occured at some point? or perhaps it is a completely subconscious decision from its existance? perhaps it is learnt?
at the end of a paragraph i thought "good or bad?" and then said "lol" out loud when i scrolled to the next line "A NOTE ON THE "GOOD/BAD" NATURE"
hrm i felt my state 1 was stronger today but im having trouble describing why. i was working with coworker mentioned in another post who acts very anal towards me i cant figure out if shes intelligent or thoughtful since we often have conflicts with one another which leave me thinking "shes so blindingly self-righteous that she can't see my logic or even consider that i'm right".
anyway for some reason i had the thought to confront her directly about this instead of just wondering forever, and my state 1 - or, i - felt surprisingly at ease in carrying out this possibly risky (she mgiht get mad) action.
i detected that she seemed awkward about my quite mentally intrusive questioning (although it took some time to lead up to it - i was already babbling about psychology when the thought/decision struck me). it took a little provocation and im not sure but she was talking a little weird (possibly because this is a taboo subject?) , but what she said gave me insight. the last thing she said - very quickly, as if the climax of the extent to which she would continue this conversation - something like "(something, something, i also go up and down in the month as you know (referring to irrational behavior ).
this was insightful because it shows that she is actually intelligent and sympathetic to the problem. she also said at one point she had studied something i had said at university.
what does this tell us? can i do some sort of silly conclusion wearing a banana on its head
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|