Yes, I see and understand that too. The core seems to be what we call thought. At the same time, the question arises as to whether there is something deeper than thought? And is thought something that really only takes place within us? Because as far as I know, there is still no proof that thought has its origin in the brain, for example.
Perhaps if we could delve a little deeper into the fear? I ask myself the following questions and try to investigate. But I keep coming to a dead end, I have the impression.
Psychological fear: In my memory, K refers to psychological fear and other emotions on the one hand as a kind of physical disorder that is triggered by thought. On the other hand, K refers to anxiety as a memory that is triggered by thought. As if the fear had been there at the time and thought then brings it into the present. How do you look at it?
And is there a physical anxiety/uncertainty that is natural and not the product of thought? If so, how does it manifest itself? How does the body naturally react to danger?
I will take your questions and statements and respond to them as best I can.
It depends what you mean when you ask this questionā¦ Are you asking if theyāre something beyond thought? Such as awareness , attention, or something sacred? Or are you asking whether there is something in the psychological arena that is deeper than thought - such as the self, or some other structure of self?
Sorrow is deeper than thought. Sorrow has been created by thought, but the actuality of sorrow is of a deeper nature than superficial thought: it involves the nerves, the body, the whole organism. K says that when there is an ending to sorrow, there is the energy of compassion. And compassion (as I understand it) is deeper, wider, more extensive than thought.
I donāt think I understand this question? As far as I understand it, thought is a neurobiological process centred in the brain, in particular the neo-cortex. Thought has evolved as an to aid perception - it also exists, for this reason, in animals, birds, etc (which is why they also have a less well-developed neo-cortex). There have been experiments to show that particular neurons contain particular memories - for example, of a famous pop singer one has seen on TV. The image of this person is stored directly in a neuron, so when one thinks of this person, this neuron contains the image of the pop star.
there are definite psychological fears that we generate through our thinking.
And
definite physical fears which are part of our instinctive physical responses.
There may be some kinds of fear which are a mix of the two, but I think these two categories of fear cover the bulk of what we call fear and anxiety.
So, for instance, the fear of what will happen tomorrow is clearly a fear generated by our projecting into the future - through thought - what might happen, what could happen; which we do based upon what has happened in the past. So the past and the future in thought (memory and anticipation) combine to create oneās fear of what might happen tomorrow. Clear?
This mental fear creates sensations in the body which we feel on a visceral level, but the fear is thought created.
Then, separate from this, are what I would call purely physical fears (so long as they are not neurotic or paranoid): the fear of falling from a height, the fear of physical danger, of dangerous animals, of snakes, of an oncoming bus, etc. These are normal, healthy physical reactions of adrenaline, to make the body respond to immediate physical danger. It takes place at the level of instinctive reaction, below the level of thought.
Hi Michael - just to mention that I will probably be taking a break from Kinfonet for a bit, but I will reply to any questions or comments you make when I can.
Iāve been ill for the last 5 weeks so Iām only replying now.
Shall we continue our dialogue?
Regarding your previous post the following thought:
Relationship of physical and psychological fear:
When I look at both forms of fear, I always see a relationship between the two. The psychological fear/insecurity shows up because in the end it can be about our physical safety. At least thatās how it seems to me.
Letās take a concrete example: letās say I have an important appointment with my boss tomorrow. Itās about whether I can keep my job. The day before the appointment, psychological fear/insecurity manifests itself in the form of nervousness. Iām not in any immediate physical danger the day before or at the appointment itself. Whether I keep or lose my job is an open question.
I see the relationship between the two fears as follows:
Our thinking constructs scenarios based on existing knowledge that could occur with a certain probability. For example, I could initially lose my job and therefore no longer have any income to pay my living costs. Then I would have to draw on my financial reserves. I might not be able to find a new job in time and my reserves would come to an end. Without a job, family and friends have a poorer image of me. People tend to help me less often. My savings are slowly coming to an end. I will soon lose my flat. People no longer lend me money either. I can spend less on food and drink each month. I feel physically worse and worse. And so onā¦
In the end, my physical safety is at stake. So it seems to me that there is always a relationship between psychological and physical fear/insecurity? So in the end, itās always about physical safety. Safety based on scenarios that may or may not materialise. Because the thought knows: when the physical body ends, does the thought end too?
How do you look at this? Have I not understood something correctly?
Sounds legit : we are going to die, might die sooner than later, and we automatically spend lots of time worrying about it - and the stories we tell ourselves compel us to act eg. lie, cheat, cajole, complain, weapon up, stay up all night worrying some more etc
Thats our biological/psychological programming, due to the organism that we are, formed over billions of years.
I think therefore I am.
Itās the āI am-nessā thatās questionable. It feels like āI amā and probably it does for everyone elseā¦but maybe there is āactuallyā only one āI amā in the universe and all these little āI amsā are mistaken identities? Since Iāve never not felt like an āI amā I have nothing to compare with that thought/feeling. K said that the āI amā that I think I am is not the āI amā that I am but some thing different: nothingā¦or not-a-thing!
So āI think therefore I amā changes to : I think therefore I think that I amā¦but could be greatly mistaken!
