Not being offended

[Daniel]

I am still a little confused by the idea of "automatic behaviors". Behavior is learned. That is rather roundly agreed upon. The source of the learning certainly varies, and can be cultural as well and from many other sources. Via discipline and forcing of one's self to be mindful of our own actions, we can stop being so "automatic". This really isn't just postulation, because I have brought myself to this point over the years through mindful practice and discipline. There are many ways to go about this, and it really isn't that terribly difficult.

I mean, the implications of what "instinct" is really is only of marginal importance, as long as we are agreeing upon a definition. No definition changes the end result as applied to this conversation. I've not read any sound study that insists that humans have instincts in the same way animals do. I eleminate that, because "instinct" directly implies a pattern of behavior you aren't in control of. I don't believe any such pattern of behavior exists. I do believe there are patterns of behaviors that people don't have control of, but that lack of control can be unlearned.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I am still a little confused by the idea of "automatic behaviors". Behavior is learned. That is rather roundly agreed upon. The source of the learning certainly varies, and can be cultural as well and from many other sources. Via discipline and forcing of one's self to be mindful of our own actions, we can stop being so "automatic". This really isn't just postulation, because I have brought myself to this point over the years through mindful practice and discipline. There are many ways to go about this, and it really isn't that terribly difficult.

The implications and uses of the word "behavior" for another 2 pages nooooo..... It would be virtually the same thing as the instinct argument in that im using "behavior" to mean "actions taken" in a general sense not a specific narrowed meaning. What is learned and what is pre-programmed and what is the cutoff time during development for something to be a "learned" thing or a "innate" thing.... (we could say that once you pop out the womb, if you know how to do XYZ by that time, its "instinct" or we could say if its not right in the genetic code post-fertilization its learned and not instinctual... or even pre-fertilization ... Dig long enough and you'll find at the end of the rainbow that they don't really know , and the line between learned and innate "things" is very blurry. For example you'll hear terms like "pliable instincts" or "instinctual tendency" (or a billion other variations) these "instinctual tendencies" that , only become "behaviors" once they've been "learned" but the disposition toward them is referred to as "instinctual" yet the actual >action

OK so, trying to ignore the problem with using English (a finite language) to describe a universe that may or may not be finite...

I don't mean to say that any of these "auto responses" (psychological or biological) are permanent or unchangeable. As i was saying in my initial post, our ability to realize and change our responses is a key thing that separates humans from the other animals. But this also assumes that there ARE "automatic responses" (learned or inate doesnt matter for the subject at hand that im refering to)

Its sort of a subtext of almost everything i post / think / say on the sociology/psychology-esque subjects, that i DO think we have conscious control over most of our actions/reactions, and the things that we don't i tend to assume we can gain conscious control over if given enough desire, knowledge,skill (and time).

My fear is that, if its ever taken all the way to its final conclusion, that is, total control over all biological and psychological actions/reactions (or something approximating it) we will end up with no motivating force.

All "instinctual" (oh shit theres that word again heh) drives will be gone, and what will be the motivation to , for instance, even get up out of a chair? Im in total control of all emotions , if i choose i can choose not to give a damn about pain, or desire or loneliness etc. and as such have no reason to do anything. Basically it could end up being "i have everything" and if you have everything, whats left? From here it gets more philosophical and even more "meaningless" (like the desire example)

Short term i think this power is awesome, and its something i strive for. But long term i see scary implications ahead, although probably way waaay ahead.

[Daniel]

All "instinctual" (oh shit theres that word again heh) drives will be gone, and what will be the motivation to , for instance, even get up out of a chair? Im in total control of all emotions , if i choose i can choose not to give a damn about pain, or desire or loneliness etc. and as such have no reason to do anything.  Basically it could end up being "i have everything" and if you have everything, whats left?  From here it gets more philosophical and even more "meaningless" (like the desire example)

Short term i think this power is awesome, and its something i strive for.  But long term  i see scary implications ahead, although probably way waaay ahead.

This is all I was trying to get out of you. I understand the ambiguoity of some words, but like I said above, it doesn't matter what defition of "automatic" or "behavior" you are using, as long as we agree on a definition, the end results are the same.

Now, to address the problem you are proposing, which I fully understand and have accepted that too many people are hung up on the idea that they must be "motivated" or "ambitious" to do anything. There is this misconception that somehow, a mind not constantly striving to do something will become complacent and do nothing. For starters, I recommend reading the thread above, as I did address this before. But to answer you a bit more directly:

What you are discussing is what is called "mushin" in Zen practise. This means "no mind". As it is understood, it does not mean without mind or heart, but without reverberation of thoughts. Meaning, you do things without fears, ambitions and anxiety. For example, if you get a leak on the roof of your house, rather than stressing out about it, you simply go aquire the materials and repair the roof. You don't need to constantly be seeking to realize tasks need to be done.

A good example of this in practice is a story about a doctor. He had a distant cousin's son staying with him, and he caught a cold. The doctor knew how to treat the cold, and did so. He woke up three times over night to check on the boy to make sure the treatment was working. Between these visits, he slept soundly. On another occasion, the doctor's own child had caught a bad cold. Though he knew the treatment, he was unable to sleep, worried about his child. One lacked unnecessary anxieties, the other didn't, both patients were treated the same. The only difference is that in the second situation, the doctor allowed himself to be stressed. In fact, to take it a step further, because the doctor's mind was needlessly cluttered in the second scenario, his treatments were more prone to error.

The idea isn't to eliminate emotion, but rather to get rid of unneccessary emotions, or at least control your reactions to them. I personally encourage people to feel what they have to feel, but to be mindful of what they are experiencing and to train themselves on how to react to them in a meaningful, and efficient way. Which goes back to the original topic. You may feel offended by something, but what happens then is important.

Pushing all this to the extreme conclusion, again, is not really applicable, as you aren't likely to ever get there in this life time. And any problems you might see with this in its extreme is probably no where near as bad as pushing the extreme in the other direction.