Spontaneities

Σατυρ wrote:

I despise chaos.
Spontaneity tires the shit out of me. It always leads to disaster, except for those few occasions which other constantly bring up and can never forget.

This was interesting. Spontanaeity always leads to disaster!? So one must always delay, guard against, control those first reactions? Let the verbal, thinking mind weigh? Doesn't this lead to a permanent split in the self, where one cannot trust first reactions, almost as if there was another self, the problematic one, who must be stifled?

I have found quite the opposite, that spontaneity can be expanded and not simply be an expression of habits but of a unified self. I have not found that this has led to chaos. Quite the opposite. And frankly I would prefer to be one, rather than guard and prisoner.

Kovacs wrote:

Σατυρ wrote:

I despise chaos.
Spontaneity tires the shit out of me. It always leads to disaster, except for those few occasions which other constantly bring up and can never forget.

This was interesting. Spontanaeity always leads to disaster!? So one must always delay, guard against, control those first reactions? Let the verbal, thinking mind weigh? Doesn't this lead to a permanent split in the self, where one cannot trust first reactions, almost as if there was another self, the problematic one, who must be stifled?

I have found quite the opposite, that spontaneity can be expanded and not simply be an expression of habits but of a unified self. I have not found that this has led to chaos. Quite the opposite. And frankly I would prefer to be one, rather than guard and prisoner.

If you feel alienated form the parts you stifle, control, then you should consider the possibility that you may be afraid or shamed of them.

I feel no such division....because there is very little about me I do not know and even less which I do not accept as being a part of what and who I am.

That my reasoning dominance, as much as possible, does not mean I deny my instincts or those drives you wish to unleash upon the world without a care.

Σατυρ wrote:

If you feel alienated form the parts you stifle, control, then you should consider the possibility that you may be afraid or shamed of them.

I feel no such division....because there is very little about me I do not know and even less which I do not accept as being a part of what and who I am.

So these parts you are not afraid of and that you accept as part of you, why would they lead to disaster if they spontaneously expressed? Are they not like that only if they are denied their place?

Also it seems like acceptance here does not include expression for you or it is some kind of muted expression.

Quote :

That my reasoning dominance, as much as possible, does not mean I deny my instincts or those drives you wish to unleash upon the world without a care.

Care is one of my instincts. Self-care, empathy for others. It is one thing to feel incredible anger, but another to actually strike another person. The more spontaneous I have been the less urges I feel to move to violence, in fact it seems to me most who are violent are either denying their fears and trying to control them by controlling and hurting others OR they judge their anger so much when it finally comes through it is blind and dangerous.

This sub-forum is no place for such talk.
If you wish start a thread in the Agora.

But, in brief...

Kovacs wrote:

Σατυρ wrote:

If you feel alienated form the parts you stifle, control, then you should consider the possibility that you may be afraid or shamed of them.

I feel no such division....because there is very little about me I do not know and even less which I do not accept as being a part of what and who I am.

So these parts you are not afraid of and that you accept as part of you, why would they lead to disaster if they spontaneously expressed?

Because then they are reactions based on instincts.
And like all instincts they lack clarity and understanding.

Kovacs wrote:

Are they not like that only if they are denied their place?

Who said anything about denial?
Control is not denial?

If I control a river, I do not deny its existence....in fact I control it BECAUSE I understand it.
If I just ride it, allowing it to follow it's course then I make myself a bystander to a force that precedes my experiences.

Kovacs wrote:

Also it seems like acceptance here does not include expression for you or it is some kind of muted expression.

All art is based on need.
Need focused and abstracted into sound or color or word...

One does not abandon one's self to grief...one harnesses it, uses it, directs it onto a canvas or towards an object/objective.

Kovacs wrote:

Care is one of my instincts. Self-care, empathy for others.

Care is always about you.
You care about yourself first and foremost, because without it all else is impossible.
You empathize with others as a means of understanding them so as to best care for yourself.
Empathy is not sympathy.
I can empathize with a pedophile.

Kovacs wrote:

It is one thing to feel incredible anger, but another to actually strike another person.

Yes, but the feeling remains the same.
To turn the anger inward so as to mask it or deny it or to better guide it till makes it anger.

Kovacs wrote:

The more spontaneous I have been the less urges I feel to move to violence, in fact it seems to me most who are violent are either denying their fears and trying to control them by controlling and hurting others OR they judge their anger so much when it finally comes through it is blind and dangerous.

True, civilization entails a form of self-control which grows into a pressure.
For the person who lacks the ability to funnel this energy this repression can build up into a cancer or a mental illness.

Controlling the beast is always a dangerous affair...as is any attempt to control nature.

Yet, it defines you.

Here, here! I'm all for chaotic spontaneity.

Σατυρ wrote:

Because then they are reactions based on instincts.
And like all instincts they lack clarity and understanding.

Again, not my experience. Earlier in my life, backed up in some ways, sure, spontaneous reactions could - note: could - lack clarity and understanding. But this is because those parts of me were judged as being wrong. Over time, when these parts are accepted - and for me this must include expression, obviously not necessarily verbal - they can express spontaneously with understanding and clarity. Even the so called instincts.

Spontaneity does not at all have to lead to disaster. At least not in my experience. I would guess this could be true for some people and I do hope they keep a tight lid on stuff.

Quote :

If I control a river, I do not deny its existence....in fact I control it BECAUSE I understand it.
If I just ride it, allowing it to follow it's course then I make myself a bystander to a force that precedes my experiences.

In this metaphor you are disidentifying with the river. The river is not you. It seems to me you have accepted a permanent split in yourself.

Quote :

All art is based on need.
Need focused and abstracted into sound or color or word...

Yes, but art can be a series of spontaneities.

Quote :

One does not abandon one's self to grief...one harnesses it, uses it, directs it onto a canvas or towards an object/objective.

I see no reason for me to control my grief. I can also do these other things along with spontaneous expressions of grief.

I find no reason to distrust the expression or assume it will lead me astray or to disaster.

Quote :

Care is always about you.
You care about yourself first and foremost, because without it all else is impossible.
You empathize with others as a means of understanding them so as to best care for yourself.
Empathy is not sympathy.
I can empathize with a pedophile.

All fine and dandy, but you assumed that if someone is spontaneous they would unleash things on the world without care. That is not my experience either. I can only assume you have had very bad experiences with your own spontaneity. Certainly many of us were punished for this or judged for it as children and later. It is not about waking up tomorrow and deciding to express every impulse - if one has not explored this over time before - because doing that can reinforce the judgment that to be spontaneous is dangerous or leads to disaster. But such a decision, to suddenly push oneself to express everything, would be stifling fear and self-care. Perhaps the first spontaneity to learn if it hasn't been.

Kovacs wrote:

It is one thing to feel incredible anger, but another to actually strike another person.

Quote :

Yes, but the feeling remains the same.
To turn the anger inward so as to mask it or deny it or to better guide it till makes it anger.

I don't turn anger inward. Not much at all anymore.

Quote :

True, civilization entails a form of self-control which grows into a pressure.

Yes, there is much in civilization/society/culture that is institutionalized fear and judgment of emotions and spontaneity. Some seem to have no problem with this.

TheJoker wrote:

Here, here! I'm all for chaotic spontaneity.

Yes. I mean, must we all dance a waltz? When making love or having sex must I control my spontaneity? Must I control my first reactions and is doing this perhaps why they seem to create problems?

Kovacs wrote:

TheJoker wrote:

Here, here! I'm all for chaotic spontaneity.

Yes. I mean, must we all dance a waltz? When making love or having sex must I control my spontaneity? Must I control my first reactions and is doing this perhaps why they seem to create problems?

I think it's more fun and rewarding losing control than possessing it.

It's more adventurous. Everyday becomes another surprise.

Consistency becomes boring after awhile.

I think your life will be a good example of what is being discussed.
Perhaps it already is.

Σατυρ wrote:

I think your life will be a good example of what is being discussed.
Perhaps it already is.

Who, me?

Even this idea that art cannot be spontaneous. Again this is not my experience. An image comes, seemingly at least unbidden. But if I like the image, down it goes on the page in the voice that this there at that moment to describe it. Spontaneously relishing sounds as one comes upon them. Likewise the rhythm. Are most poems that finish here great? Nah. But then what gets called 'editing' can be spontaneous also, as other images that feel right connect to the first, and when patterns in sounds are noticed they spontaneously call for matching or echoing. Some things get heightened, repeated. But the whole process, including later passes, can be spontaneous.

Nice....still nothing lucid.

Is it like spontaneous combustion...or how immaculate conception just happens out of the blue, right?


The image comes and you conceptualize it....you bring it into focus, you think about it.
Since consciousness is a looking back, what you are talking about here is a measurement of time in which thinking has occurred, or a duration of time in regards to how far back you looked before acting.

So, spontaneity simply signifies least thought before action.
we might call it instinctive because most of it is thought as it occurs on a animalistic level where the organism reacts to stimulation in accordance to genetically encoded ways, seemingly without thinking.

There is thinking involved, but a very primitive and shallow automatic kind.
Oftentimes we've given something a lot of thought, but then act on a slight stimulation that brings this thought to bear.
We might consider this inspiration or tapping into some inner well from whence we draw imagery....perhaps having to do with Jung's Archetypes.

Here's another matter to consider:
The value placed upon the notion of not thinking before one acts is one birthed in a world where thinking prohibits integration. The blind acting is that which makes capitalism, for one, work...one insights the other to act with as little thought as possible by tapping into his automated reactions to specific stimulation, making him react spontaneously...or with little lucid judgment.
Immediate gratification, immediate concerns, immediate considerations...spontaneous actions worshiped as a sign of fearlessness.

But of course you are all "fearless" when the system protects you from the worse repercussions to your thoughtless activities and decisions.
It picks you up, for example, and returns you to your mother after running away with a bum on a spur of the moment decision.

True spontaneous actions can lead to pleasant surprises, but they most often lead to unpleasant ones.
I'm not being cynical...if entropy is increasing this means that the odds of something positive happening to you are insignificant in comparison to the odds of something not so good happening to you.
In fact death proves that no matter how much we try to forget or avoid it the worse of the worse will come to be.

Now, why do we mistakenly believe that when we acted thoughtlessly good things happened?
For the same reason a gambler always remembers his wins and not his losses, or exaggerates the wins and minimizes his losses, even if the losses are greater in sum, while the wins are few but spectacular in his memory.

In this looking back the mind filters out the bad things.
Think how you remember a trip.
You mostly remember the good times, and the good things...not how tired you might have been, or how your stomach hurt that one day, or how hot it was or how you hated your hotel etc.


Every spontaneous soul I've ever met had some basic characteristics which were the same:

Positive thinker - they always exaggerated the good and minimized the bad, even if the bad were more numerous and more costly.

They were always shallow thinkers, because spontaneity depends on it...if not on inebriation.

They always blamed others or the world for all the bad things, so as to take credit for all the good things that came about.

They always repeated the same mistakes....over and over again...and each time they found clever ways of excusing their own participation in the outcome.

They were always fun.
Thoughtlessness is always entertaining, if you are not overly involved.

If you are rarely spontaneous, you develop an official 'I' that tries to match ideas of what it is supposed to be and is threatened all the time by other parts that do not align and must be controlled.

You cannot know yourself without some significant sponteneity in your life.

Σατυρ wrote:

Nice....still nothing lucid.

Is it like spontaneous combustion...or how immaculate conception just happens out of the blue, right?

Sure, creative people often get complicated images, melodies directly. Then they get them down on paper or in their fingers. As I said, very rarely, though it does happen, this can be a finished product. Usually however added spontaneities must be added.

But even if some more Apollonian process must be added on, which I do not think is a rule, those spontaenous opening moments are critical to the processes of many kinds of artists, and these do not lead to disaster.

Just as spontaneity dancing does not or in acting, etc.

Without allowing spontaneity in art, you stifle the artist.

Quote :

The image comes and you conceptualize it....you bring it into focus, you think about it.

No, most poets I know do not. Neither do I. There are also times when the poem comes primarily as voice. A whole line comes, experientially from nowhere, and I write it down. This line often has a voice that I hear and I can give myself over to it. I do not separate myself from it. I just write what is says.

Quote :

Since consciousness is a looking back, what you are talking about here is a measurement of time in which thinking has occurred, or a duration of time in regards to how far back you looked before acting.

Either there is spontaneity or there is not. If there is not, then it cannot lead to disaster. If there it it lies, in writing, in processes like those I mentioned above. In fact much of what one has to do with beginning writers is to stop them from beginning with their rational minds and their conceptualizations. Sure, generally, there early spontaneity is crap. But that's going to be true regardless. After time, some will get deeper into their spontaneity, underneath all the training to be banal and trite and 'poetic' and then they spontaneously create things that are good. Of course others never get beyond this. But by staying split and distrusting their spontaneous images, phrases and lines, they never would have gotten anywhere anyway.

Quote :

There is thinking involved, but a very primitive and shallow automatic kind.

Sure, in the beginning, especially if one maintains the judgment that spontaneity will lead to disasters.

Quote :

Oftentimes we've given something a lot of thought, but then act on a slight stimulation that brings this thought to bear.

Absolutely.

Quote :

We might consider this inspiration or tapping into some inner well from whence we draw imagery....perhaps having to do with Jung's Archetypes.

I never liked Jung, he'd reduce us all the the same person with this vast shared id.

Quote :

Here's another matter to consider:
The value placed upon the notion of not thinking before one acts is one birthed in a world where thinking prohibits integration. The blind acting is that which makes capitalism, for one, work...one insights the other to act with as little thought as possible by tapping into his automated reactions to specific stimulation, making him react spontaneously...or with little lucid judgment.

Sponteneity or intuition is only blind if it is stifled. Things have come to me spontaenously that only years later I understood. How well they saw through the man or boy I was and I was not even aware as I wrote it. If I waited for approval of the conscious mind for these things, much much would be lost.
But even when I am not able to explain, I can often sense or at least trust something in these creations.

Quote :

Immediate gratification, immediate concerns, immediate considerations...spontaneous actions worshiped as a sign of fearlessness.

I have certainly met people who in the name of sponteneity do a lot of stupid shit or jump past self-care or valuable fear. I am not saying when I disagree with you saying all sponteneity will lead to disaster that all sponteneity will lead to great things.

As you pointed up above there is much cognitive stuff potentially going into what is called sponteneity. Much of the congnitive stuff that has been shoved into us is idiotic.

Most 20 year olds writing spontaneously will produce cliches. Because that is what they have been hearing for most of their lives. I love when some say they do not want to read (great) other writers, because they do not want their style to be influenced. So their style is influenced by television, advertising and the least creative street jabber.

Quote :

But of course you are all "fearless" when the system protects you from the worse repercussions to your thoughtless activities and decisions.

No system can protect one from stupid sponteneity. Oh, I'm gonna dance my response to those birds, out in the middle of the highway.

Quote :

True spontaneous actions can lead to pleasant surprises,

Alright, some qualification.

Quote :

but they most often lead to unpleasant ones.
I'm not being cynical...if entropy is increasing this means that the odds of something positive happening to you are insignificant in comparison to the odds of something not so good happening to you.

Yeah, and I find the conscious mind radically overestimates its ability to break patterns and deal with situations with tons of variables - which in the end is the situation when you are making art.

Quote :

Now, why do we mistakenly believe that when we acted thoughtlessly good things happened?

To me sponteneity is not thoughtless. There may or may not be verbal thoughts, but there is certainly present what in philosophy is called mind. But there is not hesitation and a separation between the act and the thought. In fact they are one.

Quote :

For the same reason a gambler always remembers his wins and not his losses, or exaggerates the wins and minimizes his losses, even if the losses are greater in sum, while the wins are few but spectacular in his memory.

This cuts both ways. Whatever position one has on the issue, one tends to remember examples that fit it, because even a positive realization that goes against an identified with thought is unpleasant.

And sponteneity, even more important, since we have arrived here, shows you that mind, shows you those patterns and habits, where the detached intellect is always guessing what we would be like if we let things flow.

Quote :

Every spontaneous soul I've ever met had some basic characteristics which were the same:

Positive thinker - they always exaggerated the good and minimized the bad, even if the bad were more numerous and more costly.

OK, that's not me.

Quote :

They were always shallow thinkers, because spontaneity depends on it...if not on inebriation.

Well, making a counterclaim about myself is better shown then said.

Quote :

They always blamed others or the world for all the bad things, so as to take credit for all the good things that came about.

yeah, that's not my experience either.

Quote :

They always repeated the same mistakes....over and over again...and each time they found clever ways of excusing their own participation in the outcome.

I see this pattern in those who really hesitate and ratiocinate and some of those who focus on sponteneity. I know the pattern you mean, but I see baby and bathwater issues. Shallow people will be shallow ponderers and shallow improv partners.

What are you saying here Satyr? Are you saying that you prefer reasoning?

You of all people should know that human beings aren't reasonable creatures and that it is a myth to apply as such to them.

When it concerns humanity what we have is a sense of unreasonable and the illogical.

We have creatures completely guided by lust, desire, and instincts. Nothing more and nothing less.

Anything else is just the delusional appearance of making us more than what we really are.

TheJoker wrote:

What are you saying here Satyr? Are you saying that you prefer reasoning?

You of all people should know that human beings aren't reasonable creatures and that it is a myth to apply as such to them.

When it concerns humanity what we have is a sense of unreasonable and the illogical.

We have creatures completely guided by lust, desire, and instincts. Nothing more and nothing less.

Anything else is just the delusional appearance of making us more than what we really are.

Ergo I seek separation.

TheJoker wrote:

If you are rarely spontaneous, you develop an official 'I' that tries to match ideas of what it is supposed to be and is threatened all the time by other parts that do not align and must be controlled.

Dear boy, if I understood the other why would I feel threatened by them?
Would they not bore me?

The "I" is order, developing.
You can call it by its many other names: God, knowledge, power, self, ego etc.
The other is chaos which is unending (infinite).
You can call it by its many other names: other, ignorance, mystery, unknown, disorder, weakness, vulnerability etc.

TheJoker wrote:

You cannot know yourself without some significant sponteneity in your life.

Ah...I too was young once.

Not Joker, me.

Σατυρ wrote:

TheJoker wrote:

If you are rarely spontaneous, you develop an official 'I' that tries to match ideas of what it is supposed to be and is threatened all the time by other parts that do not align and must be controlled.

Quote :

Dear boy, if I understood the other why would I feel threatened by them?

If you think they, these parts of you, if they expressed spontaneously, would always lead to disaster, you consider them a threat you must always control. You are on your own leash. (as an aside there is something of the Bhagavad Gita about your position. Not saying it is an influence, but it has come to mind a couple of times). Who needs to control what would not be a threat set free?

Quote :

Would they not bore me?

You own passions and urges? I hope not.

Quote :

The "I" is order, developing.
You can call it by its many other names: God, knowledge, power, self, ego etc.
The other is chaos which is unending (infinite).

Spontaneity does not need to lead to chaos. Only if it is suppressed or never been trusted. Intuitive spontaneous movements in sex and fights. Intuitve spontaneous shifts and choices when making art. Intuitive shifts and choices in any activity, if that side of the self has not been caged can lead to all sorts of wonderful order.
Most people are only spontaneous for tiny bits of their lives, sometimes under great duress or when taking drugs or alcohol. What they do in these situations often reinforces their conscious minds' idea that a tight leash must be held.

I've had the good fortune and made the right choices to experience a lot of spontaneity in a variety of different arts, but also in interpersonal situations. Decades worth. You have to be trained to be bad at spontaneity and it is wonderful not to have to spend energy not trusting oneself or be locked in some isometric hold with parts of ourselves.

TheJoker wrote:

You cannot know yourself without some significant sponteneity in your life.

Ah...I too was young once.

You think young people are spontaneous or trust it or would even recognize it if they saw it?
Nah. Unless we are talking about young children with parents who trust creativity, strong emotions and strong life energy, pretty much everyone has been shut down, and bought the excuses for it, by 8 or 9 at the latest.

Teenagers can be explosive, but it is mostly imitating patterns from the media or to do what they not supposed to. Which is likely not spontaneous at all.[quote]

Kovacs wrote:

You think young people are spontaneous or trust it or would even recognize it if they saw it?
Nah. Unless we are talking about young children with parents who trust creativity, strong emotions and strong life energy, pretty much everyone has been shut down, and bought the excuses for it, by 8 or 9 at the latest.

Teenagers can be explosive, but it is mostly imitating patterns from the media or to do what they not supposed to. Which is likely not spontaneous at all.

Yes, I think spontaneity is an aspect of adolescence where the mind is still developing and exploring. Adulthood is characterized by measured reactions and with careful planning.

It is only the young mind knowing that there is a protective parent around, which can indulge in recklessness.

Now, think...is not mankind kept immature, sheltered, in a perpetual state of infancy?
Is not youth worshiped?
Are not all the aspects of childishness made into virtues?

Think more...what is different between males and females, besides the obvious?

Would the system benefit from stunting growth so that "adults", as happened recently, lived beyond their means without a care in the world, without a thought to the possible loss of a job or a downturn in the economy?
Look around you, are not most modern "adults" just as infantile as their children?

Σατυρ wrote:

Yes, I think spontaneity is an aspect of adolescence where the mind is still developing and exploring.

Are you really suggesting your own mind, for example, stopped developing and exploring?

Quote :

Adulthood is characterized by measured reactions and with careful planning.

One does not have to be in one mode all the time.

Quote :

It is only the young mind knowing that there is a protective parent around, which can indulge in recklessness.

And again the assumption that sponteneity must be dangerous.

Quote :

Now, think...is not mankind kept immature, sheltered, in a perpetual state of infancy?

Children are controlled and learn to internalize this state of infancy by learning to control themselves unnecessarily. They are trained to fear their own sponteneity, very young. They are allowed a couple of venues for it if their parents are not too controlling, but very restricted areas. They never experience freedom and learn to be their own jailers.

Quote :

Is not youth worshiped?

The marketers love them. People want to look young. I see little interest in sponteneity.

Quote :

Are not all the aspects of childishness made into virtues?

In tiny restricted venues, sure. But by 20 every youth has a pole up their ass, either they now wear a tie or the female equivalent and barely express anything real while jamming stress down 24/7 in jobs where only very controlled directed emotions and intuition are allowed OR they have some blue collar work and are slaves in that way. Sponteneity is suppressed everywhere, except fake sponteneities like sports fandom or yelling at the TV or computer game.

If sponteneity were seen as a virtue people would not be under so much control all the time, guilt laden, ashamed, hiding behind masks, pretending to be either what their ego ideal is what what their peer groups think a person should be like.

Ever do improv with people. They cannot be spontaneous. They cannot move. They have no connection to their own intuitions. I see no worship of sponteneity.

Quote :

Think more...what is different between males and females, besides the obvious?

Would the system benefit from stunting growth so that "adults", as happened recently, lived beyond their means without a care in the world, without a thought to the possible loss of a job or a downturn in the economy?
Look around you, are not most modern "adults" just as infantile as their children?

They are not spontaneous. So this line is irrelevent.

Are you really suggesting your own mind, for example, stopped developing and exploring?[/quote]You must be having trouble comprehending.

Perhaps the word "care" implies inactivity, for you, but I speak English.

Recklessness and thoughtless acting, which is what spontaneity is, might be the only way you can explore and elarn, but I assure you it is not the only way and not the best way.

Kovacs wrote:

And again the assumption that spontaneity must be dangerous.

Perhaps being raise din a world where little boys and girls use the word as a virtue, has clouded your mind to the fact that all activities are dangerous, unless they are sheltered by some parent figure...and even then they do not fully escape risks.

I would also add that gambling is also, at times, a very profitable activity.

Kovacs wrote:

Children are controlled and learn to internalize this state of infancy by learning to control themselves unnecessarily. They are trained to fear their own sponteneity, very young. They are allowed a couple of venues for it if their parents are not too controlling, but very restricted areas. They never experience freedom and learn to be their own jailers.

Children are taught to repress their natural fears, they are told to be ashamed about fear, because they cannot control it....because they've never been trained to.

They then grow up with this sense of invulnerability, truly hiding a deep rooted lack of conviction about it, making them disrespectful, cocky and obtuse.

A fox allows her pups to explore, under her watchful protective gaze, for the first few weeks...then she teaches them what and how to fear, or how to be careful when exploring.

Kovacs wrote:

The marketers love them. People want to look young. I see little interest in sponteneity.

Really?
Even here you saw how some jumped at the opportunity to claim it as part of their character...did you not see with what pride they declare that they act without thinking?
Stupidity made into a virtue.
I used to hear it mostly coming from females, when they described their best qualities, but more and more I find males are showing the symptoms of feminization.

To be reckless, thoughtless, is, it appears, a sign of courage, when it is simply a sign of ignorance....of pride in one's stupidity.

Kovacs wrote:

In tiny restricted venues, sure. But by 20 every youth has a pole up their ass, either they now wear a tie or the female equivalent and barely express anything real while jamming stress down 24/7 in jobs where only very controlled directed emotions and intuition are allowed OR they have some blue collar work and are slaves in that way. Sponteneity is suppressed everywhere, except fake sponteneities like sports fandom or yelling at the TV or computer game.

You are mistaking spontaneity for uniformity, dear boy.
most spontaneous acts are carbon copies of others...they are mostly a free expression of animal instincts.

You do not need to be thoughtless to be free, boy....you might be free of your senses but not of what bins you, yet you choose to disregard.

Kovacs wrote:

If sponteneity were seen as a virtue people would not be under so much control all the time, guilt laden, ashamed, hiding behind masks, pretending to be either what their ego ideal is what what their peer groups think a person should be like.

Once again ,boy, you are mistaking recklessness, and thoughtlessness for freedom.
Most people are allowed spontaneity as a form of relief from control...because they've been so thoroughly programmed than no spontaneous act ever exceeds the social and cultural boundaries.

Again, the parent institution, allows you to play like a child, because your childishness suits it and it steps in whenever your stupidity goes too far and you might get hurt.

Kovacs wrote:

Ever do improv with people. They cannot be spontaneous. They cannot move. They have no connection to their own intuitions. I see no worship of sponteneity.

Yes creativity is absent...and if you think acting is your idea of freedom, where you can pretend with no repercussions, then we have different ideas about being spontaneous.

Kovacs wrote:

They are not spontaneous. So this line is irrelevent.

Theya re sponetaneous.

They spontaneously buy a home with six bedrooms; on a whim they purchase a jaguar; out of the blue they ask someone they barely know to marry them; on a lark they have children they cannot raise.

Σατυρ wrote:

You must be having trouble comprehending.

Perhaps the word "care" implies inactivity, for you, but I speak English.

Here is what you wrote:

Quote :

Yes, I think spontaneity is an aspect of adolescence where the mind is still developing and exploring.

My question is a fair one, clearly.

Yes, you followed this up with

Quote :

Adulthood is characterized by measured reactions and with careful planning.

If you, an adult, are exploring and developing then sponteneity, it seems from the above, is a positive facet of your life now. If not, which is implied strongly by the above, then it is a fair conclusion you would have no use for sponteneity, which seems to be a clear point of yours all along. What was new here was that you coupled it with positive processes in adolescents.

Quote :

Recklessness and thoughtless acting, which is what spontaneity is,

No, sorry. This is not what it must be at all.

From here it seems like wherever sponteneity appears you will replace it with recklessness. To me this shows a very shallow experience with sponteneity. Sure, shove yourself behind the wheel of speeding tractor trailer on a full highway and it's reckless. But get used to this over time, rather than shoving yourself into it - something teenagers do - so the conscious mind is there also and you get used to sponteneity. You have a false dilemma. Mind or sponteneity. That's your judgment. And sure you can find examples of impulsive people out there who match your judgments, just as I could find neurotic planners and hesitators out there - IF I had the judgment that planning or highly organized rational thought was bad. But I don't. You use shallow people to reinforce your judgments of a mode of action. Shallow people can be used to reinforce any judgment at all.

Quote :

You are mistaking spontaneity for uniformity, dear boy.

The boy stuff is really childish on your part. Do people you respect actually respect that stuff?

Quote :

most spontaneous acts are carbon copies of others...they are mostly a free expression of animal instincts.

Perfect. There is where you have inherited judgments from the JudaoChristian tradition - apropos the other thread - the beast within that must be controlled. You are trying to transcend the animal and this keeps you split.

We are amazing animals who do not need to be split. All that rationality and careful planning we can do is what we specific mammals can do. You have no idea what it is to be one entity. Or perhaps you think, like the fundamentalists, that you are not a mammal?

Quote :

You do not need to be thoughtless to be free, boy....you might be free of your senses but not of what bins you, yet you choose to disregard.

People with little experience with sponteneity cannot think when they are spontaneous. You have the judgments of the inexperienced.

Quote :

Again, the parent institution, allows you to play like a child, because your childishness suits it and it steps in whenever your stupidity goes too far and you might get hurt.

Hallucinations. Neither my parents or society has jumped in to rescue me for over three decades. You see ideas around you.

Quote :

Yes creativity is absent

LOL

Quote :

...and if you think acting is your idea of freedom, where you can pretend with no repercussions, then we have different ideas about being spontaneous.

Of course the point I was making was about how most people cannot be spontaneous, so of course it would be in a context where they might try. It is hardly the limit of where I am spontaneous.

Quote :

They spontaneously buy a home with six bedrooms; on a whim they purchase a jaguar; out of the blue they ask someone they barely know to marry them; on a lark they have children they cannot raise.

Or they plan these acts and are still shallow morons. Examples of over ratiocination and hesitation and neurotic planning abound. Does this prove these things are bad, hardly. Of course you notice what confirms your judgments.

Kovacs wrote:

No, sorry. This is not what it must be at all.

From here it seems like wherever sponteneity appears you will replace it with recklessness. To me this shows a very shallow experience with sponteneity. Sure, shove yourself behind the wheel of speeding tractor trailer on a full highway and it's reckless. But get used to this over time, rather than shoving yourself into it - something teenagers do - so the conscious mind is there also and you get used to sponteneity. You have a false dilemma. Mind or sponteneity. That's your judgment. And sure you can find examples of impulsive people out there who match your judgments, just as I could find neurotic planners and hesitators out there - IF I had the judgment that planning or highly organized rational thought was bad. But I don't. You use shallow people to reinforce your judgments of a mode of action. Shallow people can be used to reinforce any judgment at all.

It would appear you wish to save the word, while the concept remains ambiguous.

I've explained the connection between what is called spontaneity, but also known as recklessness, depending on the outcome, and thinking...or looking back.
to think is to look back upon one's own experiences or knowledge acquired through third-hand accounts, and then use these to formulate the most effective action.
As such, females are always spontaneous, as are all simple creatures, because they act with little forethought and so they act intuitively, instinctively, spontaneously, viscerally.
For most, having very little ability to reason, this form of programmed reactivity, is the only thing they have coming close to wisdom.

You seem to wish to retain the positive aspects, the times when it worked out, while you can then place the rest of the times when things did not go so well, the majority I would assume, under a new heading.

To be spontaneous and reckless is simply to place little effort in thought before one acts...to act viscerally, intuitively the women would say, instinctively, re-actively.

Now, it is true much of life's pleasures will be missed, as any time an organism places itself in precarious situations memorable things happen. Even if they might be negative they retain a positivity when remembered afterwards, through the cleansing distances of time.
Just consider how bad dancing becomes when you think about it...and you do not just let go and follow the rhythms.

You seem to admire thoughtlessness, or this kind of adolescent exuberance.
It fills you with pleasure, particularly when you live in a time and a place where the worse repercussions to all of your actions are mitigated by a system full of sheltering institutions.
No matter how carelessly and stupidly you might act, you already know that the odds are that you will be left with a pleasant memory in your later years.
Something to laugh over with friends.

Kovacs wrote:

The boy stuff is really childish on your part. Do people you respect actually respect that stuff?

Words are tools, and this one seems to be doing its job.
I always respect my tools...

Kovacs wrote:

Perfect. There is where you have inherited judgments from the JudaoChristian tradition - apropos the other thread - the beast within that must be controlled. You are trying to transcend the animal and this keeps you split.

My God, it is extraordinary how much you wish to flatter yourself.

The only thing split is your mind.
I call is compartmentalization.
I've followed the thread back and connected it to schizophrenia.

We live in an age of shizoids.

Imagine, a mind holding onto two contradictory propositions simultaneously, without wanting to resolve the disharmony.
Imagine, if you can, a mind worshiping thoughtlessness, giving it a snazzy label which makes it different from all those other nasty habits, and then also claiming reason as his guide.

Presumably, for you, learning and life is worthless if you do not just act, with the mindlessness of a beast.
You love the sensation of letting go and following your senses...you might call them by other names to save you the insult. You appreciate them, after the fact, when you see how close to disaster you came before someone or something stepped in to protect you from the worse of it.
To remain a child is a seductive proposition, indeed.

But, of course, you have to save yourself the discomfort and so the blame is placed upon me.
I am "divided", because I admire thought before action, whereas you are complete in your unconsciousness.
You are charming in your boyishness, boy.

You are partly correct, to place consciousness as the arbitrator for one's unconscious actions is to place reason above instincts.
It is to seek order in the entropy.

Kovacs wrote:

We are amazing animals who do not need to be split. All that rationality and careful planning we can do is what we specific mammals can do. You have no idea what it is to be one entity. Or perhaps you think, like the fundamentalists, that you are not a mammal?

Yes, and whereas you relish remaining just that, I wish to be more.

And so it is...the feminine and the masculine spirits on full display.

Kovacs wrote:

People with little experience with sponteneity cannot think when they are spontaneous. You have the judgments of the inexperienced.

As always, the christian tactic comes out.

I once debated a christian who finally assaulted me with the exact same argument, only he replaced spontaneity with God.

Kovacs wrote:

Hallucinations. Neither my parents or society has jumped in to rescue me for over three decades. You see ideas around you.

Of course not. You are one of those rare specimens who has managed to live outside human dependencies.
I recall once being accosted by a retard who claimed to be fearless and in need of nothing.
This after reading my thesis on fear and how it is the fundamental emotion, and on need, and how it is the mind's interpretation of entropy.
A...spontaneous assault, if you please.

Of course the fear he was exhibiting towards my ideas and the fact that when he lays in bed, all cozy and comfortable, in need, hypothetically, of nothing, he is still breathing and his heart is beating and his cells are feeding and his autoimmune system is battling intrusions.

Perhaps courage requires thoughtlessness, these days, because to contemplate all the possible scenarios might make most cringe into inertia.
Most misconstrue jumping into shark infested waters, about which they have no idea, as bravery...a spontaneous act of pure courage...yet if he would know, or think, perhaps his courage would wane...and so he prefers to not know, to jump in, head first, without a care in the world.
His courage depends on his thoughtlessness, his carelessness, his spontaneity...to be fully appreciated later when and if he survives.

Kovacs wrote:

Of course the point I was making was about how most people cannot be spontaneous, so of course it would be in a context where they might try. It is hardly the limit of where I am spontaneous.

All this reckless activity around you and you are blind to it: spontaneous buying, spontaneous eating, spontaneous relationships, spontaneous voting, spontaneous posting.

How easy it is to control and guide such thoughtless creatures. One can simply, with repetition and simple threat/reward methods, manipulate their fears and hopes and instincts and make their spontaneity so predictably bland.

Kovacs wrote:

Or they plan these acts and are still shallow morons. Examples of over ratiocination and hesitation and neurotic planning abound. Does this prove these things are bad, hardly. Of course you notice what confirms your judgments.

And here you are protected by the planners and those meticulous thinkers you pretend to admire and quote, yet can never emulate.

Neurosis is a result of facing reality and being unable to cope....and so here you are sheltering that fragile mind from the big bad world, feeling safe behind your institutional living.

I hope you remain as carefree, and careless, as you are...or, as you pretend you are.

Σατυρ wrote:

It would appear you wish to save the word, while the concept remains ambiguous.

I've explained the connection between what is called spontaneity, but also known as recklessness, depending on the outcome.
You seem to wish to retain the positive aspects, the times when it worked out, while you can then place the rest of the times, the majority I would assume, under a new heading.

Like anything, including sitting around and planning, humans can do it poorly or be so disconnected it is not a good idea.

You think it is always bad - qualified later to some rare good experiences, but mostly dangerous and these good experiences were a sign of luck.

I do not think everyone who is spontaneous is reckless. Hardly.

Quote :

You seem to admire thoughtlessness

Alright, your are starting to waste my time. You have not read what I wrote.

Quote :

, or this kind of adolescent exuberance.
It fills you with pleasure, particularly when you live in a time and a place where the worse repercussions to all of your actions are mitigated by a system full of sheltering institutions.

Nah. Recklessness catches up with all the kinds of people you have used as examples. They go bankrupt, they crash their cars and so on and so on. Sure, there is some buffering, but you seem to have a very confused notion of what sponteneity entails. As I have said many times, it does not mean one overrides fear.

Quote :

No matter how carelessly and stupidly you might act, you already know that the odds are that you will be left with a pleasant memory in your later years. Something to laugh over with friends.

No, but also, this contradicts your original point that all sponteneity leads to disaster.

Quote :

Words are tools, and this one seems to be doing its job.
I always respect my tools...

Hey, if it's working for you, but my guess is the people who don't respect you less for using that tool are pretty weak and stupid. Perhaps that's what you want.

I don't respect it or you when you use that tool.

Kovacs wrote:

Perfect. There is where you have inherited judgments from the JudaoChristian tradition - apropos the other thread - the beast within that must be controlled. You are trying to transcend the animal and this keeps you split.

Quote :

My God, it is extraordinary how you wish to flatter yourself.

The only thing split is your mind.

This makes no sense. It is you are saying the split must be there. You advocate the split. You suggest that one must control oneself and that it is best to do so.

Quote :

Imagine, a mind holding onto two contradictory propositions simultaneously, without wanting to resolve the disharmony.
Imagine, if you can, a mind worshiping thoughtlessness, giving it a snazzy label which makes it different from all those other nasty habits, and then also claiming reason as his guide.

Presumably, for you, learning and life is worthless if you do not just act, with the mindlessness of a beast.

OK, you can't read. You can't give posts a minimal respect. Strawmen, over and over. I can see where recklessness is always around the corner for you.

You have the opinion that sponteneity is bad. If I say this is not necessarily the case and in fact one can benefit from it, you interpret this - despite me being very clear about it not being the case - that I am against reason, thought, planning, etc.

You are the one rejecting a possibility. I am not rejecting thought, reason, etc.

This is a very simple kind of fallacy one encounters on the internet and elsewhere, where the person who will absolutely eliminate something, sees any defense of that something or portions of it as a hatred for everything that person holds dear.

I have pointed this out several times and you keep making the same convenient error. This is rude or ignorance taken to the level of rudeness.

PM me if you want and let me know if have actually understood my position and we can continue. Otherwise I will ignore you on this thread and just check to see if anyone else wants to weigh in.

Kovacs wrote:

Like anything, including sitting around and planning, humans can do it poorly or be so disconnected it is not a good idea.

You think it is always bad - qualified later to some rare good experiences, but mostly dangerous and these good experiences were a sign of luck.

I do not think everyone who is spontaneous is reckless. Hardly.

Yes, well I'm sure playing with words can be fun.

I love how you slip in the "always" to project upon me things you want me to be saying.
I actually made a point of mentioning that a gambler can sometimes win and that this win will trump the many losses he's suffered in his memory, leading him to gamble again and again.
When he loses he blames the other...when he wins he takes full responsibility and calls it his "play".

In a universe of increasing entropy losses always exceed the wins, yet man focuses on the gains, particularly when a specific kind of mind is to be promoted.

Kovacs wrote:

Nah. Recklessness catches up with all the kinds of people you have used as examples. They go bankrupt, they crash their cars and so on and so on. Sure, there is some buffering, but you seem to have a very confused notion of what sponteneity entails. As I have said many times, it does not mean one overrides fear.

And when it does "catch up with them" they suffer very little, and so they repeat.

Let's take bankruptcy.
What an odd way to correct the failures of the past with as minimal cost to the individual as possible.
Look at the bailing out of Wall-Street by the U.S. government, and the beat goes on.

Expect many more to come.

Kovacs wrote:

No, but also, this contradicts your original point that all sponteneity leads to disaster.

As I've explained, in natural settings spontaneity is more often disastrous and adolescent minds are prone to it as part of their maturing process....but in "civilized" social and modern environments this sheltering continues, the adolescent minds never grow up because they can always reboot and start over, as the system allows them to.

In nature the mighty lion does not hunt the biggest member of the herd, why?
Because it wishes to decrease the risks of getting kicked as this would mean automatic death if it broke a paw.
The mighty beast can die from a broken paw, or a broken tooth.

But you can go off on a motorcycle, spontaneously without a helmet, in a world made ordered for you with pavement and traffic rules which decrease the chances of you getting hit, and even if you fall and break your paw and shatter all your teeth an ambulance will come and a doctor will set it and a dentist will build you some new teeth, returning you to your ways as if nothing happened because the fear of death had been reduced in you with this underlying knowledge that no matter what happens to you you will be taken care of.

I had a friend who put himself into a $50,000 credit-card debt with reckless, spontaneous purchasing, dreams of rock n' roll stardom, and in the end he maxed out his credit-card and declared bankruptcy, erasing it after a seven year period.
Did this person learn anything, except how to manipulate a sheltering system? Will his spending ease to a reasonable state?
If anything he might, with hide-sight as his guide, find better ways to remain childish and spontaneously charming.
He was entertaining, don't get me wrong, but trustworthy, rational, in control?
Nah.
So I simply enjoyed his antics.

Being spontaneous doe not save you from mediocrity, it is how mediocrity is built.
It isn't uniqueness.
It is the surrender to basic impulses which can then be manipulated by those who depend on you being reckless and thoughtless and impulsive and childish.

Kovacs wrote:

Hey, if it's working for you, but my guess is the people who don't respect you less for using that tool are pretty weak and stupid. Perhaps that's what you want.

The tool is used to keep the simple as far away from me as possible.

Kovacs wrote:

I don't respect it or you when you use that tool.

So?
Why would your respect influence my tactics or my self-esteem?

Kovacs wrote:

Perfect. There is where you have inherited judgments from the JudaoChristian tradition - apropos the other thread - the beast within that must be controlled. You are trying to transcend the animal and this keeps you split.

No, I am not trying to transcend the animal.
This is YOUR Christian upbringing coming out.

I do not deny my nature, I try to control it and guide it.

The split is in you, who defends impulsive behavior, by using other words for it, and yet, I suspect, does not quite live-up to his own principles.
I think you've been conditioned to value anything associated with youthfulness, living in a culture where youth is idolized, but you are not totally convinced because your "spontaneity", I think, is preceded by long periods of contemplation which then react at a stimulation.
you think this reaction is spontaneous and free form all considerations when it is founded on a bedrock of experiences and genetics.

We often forget that there are periods of judging, thinking, before an action is undertaken, even though we might not be aware of it.
Then an event triggers the activity and we think it was immediate.

Kovacs wrote:

This makes no sense. It is you are saying the split must be there. You advocate the split. You suggest that one must control oneself and that it is best to do so.

Control is no split, boy.
When I control nature I am not cutting away form it.

But please provide me with quotes where I say what you claim I do.

I've said that Nihilism, the negation of reality, the world, the self, takes on two distinct forms: one is masculine and the other feminine.

The masculine projects an ideal, like God or a Utopia, as a correction to the real.
It tries to annul the world with an alternate one.
This is a drive towards the Something, characterized by absolute order, absolute knowledge, absolute power.
This is the making of one's self obsolete.

The feminine kind advocates surrendering to the status quo, without too much fuss or resistance; without too much thinking. She wishes to hurry up the process of entropy, spread chaos, dismantle categories and types, discredit anything that resists like ego or order hurrying towards the absolute Nothingness.
The void also called emptiness in the eastern traditions.

This is self-annulment through dissipation.
Of course the masculine still resides in the feminine and the feminine in the masculine so, for example, in the case of the feminine kind of nihilism, although the absolute void is worshiped it is also contradicted with the retention of the ordering consciousness. Emptiness with a mind.
Presumably an empty one.

The Hellenes advocated balance.
Not to dismiss nature, chaos, the Dionysian ecstasy, but to place a limit to it, to find some control over it, so that one is not washed away by it.

The masculine is the one who dominates the feminine inside of him.
The beauty of Apollo.
A fading spark of light in the dark turmoil.

Kovacs wrote:

OK, you can't read. You can't give posts a minimal respect. Strawmen, over and over. I can see where recklessness is always around the corner for you.

You have the opinion that sponteneity is bad. If I say this is not necessarily the case and in fact one can benefit from it, you interpret this - despite me being very clear about it not being the case - that I am against reason, thought, planning, etc.

I don't know what "bad" or "good" might mean in this context but I think things are useful or useless, constructive or destructive, to varying degrees. One tries to increase the possibility of them being constructive while minimizing their destructive potential.

I can understand how as a worshiper of thoughtlessness you are now struggling to save yourself from the irrationality you are proposing, because you have not fully explored what your positions imply.
Maybe the terms "strawman" and "ad homs" are another option for you.

The off the cuff actions of a child do not require reasoning as thinking would stop their spontaneity...or it would inhibit the visceral sensations of abandoning one's self to instinct.
There is an exhilaration attached to letting go...particularly in a world where danger has so been eliminated that the sensation of existence is no longer felt in a world of numbed, dimwits seeking a fix in computer animations.

Kovacs wrote:

You are the one rejecting a possibility. I am not rejecting thought, reason, etc.

Yes you are and you do not even realize it.
If you wish to pursue this further you should be honest with yourself, first.

A [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] might help you.
If impulsive behavior is not thoughtless and reckless but you prefer the more romantic word spontaneous, then neither is ignorance a "bad thing".
Being ignorant an be comforting. It can result in courageous acts.

I would say that ignorance promotes spontaneity in all its forms, and thinking stifles actions which would otherwise be undertaken.

Kovacs wrote:

This is a very simple kind of fallacy one encounters on the internet and elsewhere, where the person who will absolutely eliminate something, sees any defense of that something or portions of it as a hatred for everything that person holds dear.

That's cute...is it like you protecting thew word "spontaneous" from its deconstruction?
I have done nothing absolutely, as I do not believe in absolutes...but in your thinking all is so.

If you scan upwards - no, not to the skies where your God resides but in this thread - you might find a portion where I mentioned that the term "spontaneous" indicated a degree of forethought.
Ironic that someone so adept at reading would have missed it.
As all actions and consciousness is a looking back the difference is not one of absolute this or that but a degree of this or that.

Allow me to repeat it for you, one last time before I detach myself from this unproductive affair:
If consciousness is a looking back, as I go into in my thesis [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] then all actions can be appreciated after the fact.
This appreciation is then used to guide and control future actions, minimizing the dire effects upon us during our earlier activities, and this we call experience.

Now, there comes a time when a choice is presented to us, an option amongst many, and we must decide. We delve into our past experiences or, sometimes, into the experiences of others, and we formulate a course of action.
This is called thinking, reasoning, being conscious.
If this looking back is shallow and based on immediate reactions to stimuli then consciousness has no time to evaluate and construct a well-defined course of action and so the mind resorts to sampling its genetic per-programmed reactions to said stimuli or it resorts to sampling the most immediate experiences from the past which through repetition have created automatic responses to particular stimuli...this might be called conditioning.

The shorter the duration of forethought the more the automatic responses take over, and so the animal, the child, the simple man, acts impulsively, instinctively, emotionally, without exploring the cost/benefits using reason and careful panning, or well-informed judgments.
The only way this is possible is in a world which protects said man from the worse repercussions.
He is free from thinking, because it can fill the mind with the anxiety of trying to incorporate into its choice all the possible outcomes and all the possible variables.

The mind feels free, as a child does, to act and do as it pleases, knowing that no matter what happens all will turn out alright in a world where simplicity is essential to the system's well-being and this infantile behavior is a necessary byproduct.

To put it simpler still, there is no such thing, when it comes to living organisms with a brain, of no-thinking versus thinking, but the difference is one of quality of thinking, or automatic thinking versus contemplative thinking. The difference is how far back the mind goes to sample experiences in order to formulate a course of action.
For you, the shallower the sampling the better whereas for me the opposite is preferable.

Kovacs wrote:

I have pointed this out several times and you keep making the same convenient error. This is rude or ignorance taken to the level of rudeness.

PM me if you want and let me know if have actually understood my position and we can continue. Otherwise I will ignore you on this thread and just check to see if anyone else wants to weigh in.

A convenient exit.

Ta, Ta,