sitting said:
goyacobol said:
The "warning system" seems to be a function of pain and anger. If we can then turn our emotions around and find a positive solution that produces a positive emotion.
Hi goyacobol,
I'm not sure about this one as well.
I don't think we find a positive solution to produce a positive emotion. It's the other way around. In the sequence of manifesting,
thoughts & emotions are the source, not the outcome.
We need to be mindful too that any
positive solution we find -- dependently arises out of karmic factors other than just our own. The final result is a complex
mosaic of which our source input is but one. It's a merging of
all others ... though the weight of each may be different.
This mosaic concept was hinted at several times in the transcripts -- and I think it refers to the confluence of karmic lessons for
all individuals. Synchronicity simply one of its delights.
FWIW.
sitting,
I didn't probably express my thoughts very clearly on how I understand finding "a positive solution" and how that relates to emotions. I think that is because I am still working on it. I am actually meditating on this as a seed trying to figure it out better. When I said finding, I could have probably said it better as recognizing or discovering.
As to the sequence it may be like "which came first the chicken or the egg?". Laura mentioned the idea of " a "warning system" that exists within you naturally" relating to emotions. I placed the thinking/asking part as a post-reaction to what should we do when we sense a warning from our perceived negative emotions whether it is pain, anger, fear etc..
If I am to try to "use emotions positively" then I have to understand what that means and I think your description is part of the process. I am not sure how you mean the green part above and how that relates to manifestation unless you mean the manifestation of the solution. But then maybe part of the problem is the idea that we need a solution or that we need to "fix" something. For me it is not so much trying to "fix" something as it is to work towards being an STO candidate. For me it is a choice not really something that needs to be fixed in the sense that hey, I am STS I had better fix that. That is where I suppose a solution requires choice which entails thinking about the situation. That is why I placed thinking after experiencing the negative emotion part.
Maybe if my emotions were more positive first then my thoughts would also be more positive. Hopefully you see the paradox.
Going back to the chicken and the egg, brings me to the question of how thought relates to emotion. Reading
Chapter 69 of the Wave it becomes clear that the mind/emotion/body connection is very complex.
Laura said:
Receptors are the first components of emotion.
A ligand is any natural or man-made substance that binds selectively to its own specific receptor on the surface of a cell. The ligand bumps onto the receptor and slips off, bumps back on, slips back off. When it is bumping on, it is binding, and each time it does this it transfers a message by its molecular properties to the receptor.
One of the doctors Laura studied was a Dr. Pert. Dr. Pert even took a drug herself to induce a euphoric state of mind.
Dr. Pert said:
After an accident that put her in hospital, Dr. Pert was given first hand experience with a drug that alters emotion:
There was no doubt that the drug’s action in my body produced a distinctly euphoric effect, one that filled me with a bliss bordering on ecstasy, in addition to relieving all pain. The marvelous part was that the drug also seemed to completely obliterate any anxiety or emotional discomfort I had as a result of being confined to a hospital bed and separated from my husband and young child. Under its influence, I’d felt deeply nourished and satisfied, as if there weren’t a thing in the world I wanted. In fact, I liked the drug so much that, as I was ending my stay at the hospital, I very briefly toyed with the idea of stealing some to take with me. I can see how people become addicts!
… I remember marveling at how there were tiny molecules on my cells that allowed for that wonderful feeling I’d experienced every time the nurse had injected me with an intramuscular dose of morphine … (Pert 1999, 33)
Just before relating this experiment Laura says:
Laura said:
Looking in another direction, when we consider drugs that change behavior, such as heroin, marijuana, Librium, angel dust, PCP, and so on, precipitate radical changes in emotional states and must also be able to bind because there are receptors for similar substances produced by the body. LSD and other hallucinogens, which produce changes in cognition, must do so because there are receptors specific to them; suggesting again, that under proper circumstances such chemicals may be produced by the body itself.
It is unfortunate that Dr. Pert has taken the position that a change in emotional state relates to a change in consciousness, because it is clear that drugs produce many temporary emotional changes and result in a general decline of overall consciousness; whereas what we are looking for is the connection to produce lasting changes in consciousness – true consciousness – and not the imitation of the Predator’s mind, the addiction to emotion that keeps us asleep in the Matrix Control System, the lunchbox of fourth-density STS.
As for the chemical components of emotion Laura states:
Laura said:
Dr. Pert continued her experiments with the chemistry of emotions for many years. She developed a conceptual understanding based on her assessment that “these biochemicals are the physiological substrates of emotion, the molecular underpinnings of what we experience as feelings, sensation, thoughts, drives, perhaps even spirit or soul.”
My conundrum is that I am aware of the importance of emotions and that they relate not only to my body chemistry but also the mind/spirit/soul connection.
Again Laura puts it like this:
Laura said:
When talking about emotions in this way, it has to be understood that it includes all the familiar human experiences of anger, fear, sadness, joy, contentment, courage; as well as the sensations of pleasure and pain, and the drive states such as hunger and thirst. All of these are measurable in chemical terms.
However, Dr. Pert, as I have already noted, goes even further and refers to more intangible states, or subjective experiences, such as spiritual inspiration, awe, bliss and other states of consciousness. I think she has failed to make the distinction between chemicals that produce states and states that produce chemicals.
Considering these factors how do
you use emotions positively?
Could you give me the sequence and an example?
Of course I am also thinking about perpendicular realities and how karma is also involved. Since the Cs say we will have to learn by "suffering together" maybe you can help me out a bit more by sharing what you have learned.
And to keep this more in one place (I feel like we hijacked this topic so I hope we can maybe finish soon) I'll answer Buddy too.
Buddy,
Buddy said:
goyacobol said:
Well actually, I have been thinking about negative emotion since I posted that remark and how to apply it to that theory. I can't say I have the whole banana on the idea.
I was thinking of some other places where the Cs talk about "positive emotions" vs using emotions positively. I am not sure negative emotions always yield negative actions & results.
Often it's easier to put a theory or explanation in context with a concrete example from life to make it understandable. There are live, play-by-play examples in the Wave where Laura writes in the Wave about her own struggles with folks in the original Cass group, for example.
Anyway, think of how you would feel if you were in those shoes, tasked with bringing important information to people, and next thing you know, people start tripping as their programs (some of which you don't yet fully understand) are triggered and they write you to "correct" what you are saying or vehemently disagree with you, as if they could shout you down in print.
After struggling to identify the real issue you discover a particular attack is based on a deep desire to destroy your work because that person has accomplished nothing in their own life and it reminds them how worthless they are by comparison. Well, you can get angry. It's an attack for no good reason and it almost triggered your own death impulse to shut it all down and retire. However, for various reasons you must respond and when you do,
that energy is expressed, blended with full-context facts as an explanation and comparison of what all the parties involved are actually doing, and the underlying driving principle becomes visible as the fundamental good and productive is seen beside the fundamentally bad and destructive.
You've probably had experiences in your own life where you were attacked for no good reason and if you had known exactly what was happening and why, then instead of holding onto that anger or expressing it in destructive ways, you would have
responded in a way that exposed the facts of the matter so the truth can be seen by all. If you happen to be correct in your analysis and exposé, then just as the picture becomes clear to others, the emotion also clears and your physiological system can return to a more harmonious state.
Does any of that make sense in regard to what you're asking?
Yes, I think that makes sense. I am just struggling with how you "expose the facts of the matter so the truth can be seen by all" part and using my emotions positively at the same time.
Thanks to both of you for the thoughts.
:)
:)
