To affirm life is to respect its cycles. You can offer no disrespect to the departed by living vibrantly.
Goozle. That interjection, does that have meaning?
Only if I relate it to “Google” or some such word. I will offer that it does not have meaning because it bears no actual connection to anything else. It is not a word, but see what your mind did with it?
Yeah. John Lennon’s poems, like.
Your mind does that with all meaning, all inference, but it doesn’t always succeed does it?
No. It tries to connect anything, everything, but it does something else also. It has a stance it can take against any new information.
So, “belief” is our attempts at connection? Yes. Perhaps another tack…
What makes a good story? What would make a bad story? What makes a story make sense?
Elements that I can relate to, connect with and can perceive as connected to each other. Indeed. Continuity.
And coherence. A disjointed story is ignored, or even a source or irritation, even anger. Why is that?
I can’t relate to it.
What is a lie other than a story lacking continuity? Can exclusionary assumptions help us in any way? Can knowing what is not true help us in any way? How well do we know the untrue? How easily do we identify it? Thoughts?
It is not true that monsters are hiding under my bed – waiting for me to fall asleep so they can pounce on me. That’s a “non-truth” that is helpful for me to remember, perhaps. What does it help you do? How does it help you feel?
Relax so I can fall asleep? How does it do that?
Puts my mind at ease. Perhaps you honestly believe you are safe.
Well, relatively safe from monsters, yes. Which makes the exclusion of monsters under the bed unnecessary? Meaningless?
Once I’ve excluded them as “real,” then those thoughts are no longer necessary. But meanwhile, like “terrorists”, the Patriot Act and all of that stuff….
Perhaps another tack… Problems. Do you ever solve a problem by knowing the details of how and why it’s a problem? Have you ever solved a problem you had immediately?
If my personal narrative can inform me of how and why the problem is there, then the narrative helps “solve” it. The very instant you identified it?
No, I guess not. Have you ever solved one of your problems by actually solving the problem as you understood it?
First I have to see it as a problem unless it’s something like a hot stove. Then I react too fast for it to become a “problem.” If that happened it was never a problem because your inferences take it out of the picture.
Yes, it never was a problem to begin with. It may not even be a hot stove, but your inferences will still behave the same way, serve to curb the likelihood that you will burn your hand. Does knowing the stove might be cool help you?
Not really. See how this relates to my previous attempts to explain?
I’m beginning to see that, yes.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.