Many people believe the universe exists outside of us. However, perhaps it may exist within us instead.
You cry when you read a bit of paper. You cry when you watch a couple of pixels move. You cry when someone tells you a sad story. How could you possibly feel such emotion over such a petty mimic of experience? Because, those pixels and that paper simply take you to your destination within the universe of the mind.
The mind is a vast unexplored map, and through reality and imagination you uncover regions of it. Perhaps when we dream we are venturing through the unknown world the mind into the abstract and unintelligible. Everything that ever could be and everything that exists is within the unexplored cosmos of the mind
We look outside ourselves for meaning and we find nothing. Yet we know meaning is a truth, we know reason is a fundamental law in this world we live in. Yet when it comes to finding it we fail. We have looked long outside but do not dare to venture within ourselves to look for the answers.
Branches of quantum mechanics claim that consciousness must keep existing even without clinical death. Material analysis of the cosmos reveal that all the elements that are most abundant within the universe are the most abundant within our bodies too; we are stardust.
Even neurologists say that we have little understanding of the mind despite years of research. When we view the brain as a producer of consciousness, imagination and behaviors we seem to have issues explaining everything in a solid theory. But when we view it as a container, things become less hazy.
It wouldn’t be irrational to suggest that the real universe may be our minds. Within every beings mind, there is a globe of an impossible size. We sail the seas of our mind with our imagination and renditions of reality.
Many people believe the universe exists outside of us. However, perhaps it may exist within us instead.
Furthering an argument with a friend I decided to strengthen my hypothesis with additional research, only to find some shocking results. Initially, I thought that suicide rates were directly proportionate to depression rates and so I used the data in conjunction to support my hypothesis on their relationship.
Before I continue, I must justify my decision to use global data instead of country specific data. I am looking into the mentality of humans and their psychological responses here, location and development are cultural variables that allow me to reach in depth deductions and add statistical validity to my data.
I first looked at the relationship between depression and suicide rates of different countries with multiple data sources to ensure they were viable. To my astonishment I found no clear relationship between them on multiple accounts, with the minor exception of some areas of Africa. However, what struck me the most was that Japan has one of the highest suicide rates while also having the lowest depression rate.
Previously, my understanding was that depression as a mental illness was the leading cause of suicide. However, when I looked at the relationship between suicide and mental illness the relationship was much more palpable. The suicide rates match up with the mental illness rates much more frequently than depression rates, suggesting that although depression may be a factor, other forces are at play when it comes to a person taking their own life.
Perhaps the most interesting part of my research was the cultural variation. Japan has an extremely low amount of mental disorders per inhabitant while having one of the highest suicide rates. This is a case study which is important to understand as a person does not have to be insane to commit suicide, in fact some might say it is a sane reaction to an insane situation.
Mental disorder and suicide rates are higher in areas which have a longer duration of night through the seasons. Most notably Greenland and Russia which are close to the arctic. This would suggest that circadian variations in rhythm are more detrimental than society currently perceives them to be. This has caused me to reconsider the severity of seasonal affective disorder, sleeping patterns and circadian cycles.
First world countries have extremely high rates of suicide and mental disorders when compared with most other countries. This astounds me as the countries we live in are seen as lands of opportunity, education, sanctuary and safety. There are a couple of deductions I can make from this. Perhaps we have adapted to the urban and artificial world in a negative way, or perhaps we take so much for granted that when we come across a negative experience we cling to it and refuse to let it go until it destroys us.
In heaven, the slightest glimpse of darkness looms prominently even in the vast glory. But in hell, a single shimmer of light ripples across the darkness like a Promethean flame.
Why? Well intelligence has its burdens; as a species we have surpassed the physical challenges of this world and are now facing the problems of the mind. It may sound harsh and slightly horrifying, but just as the natural mechanisms of change eliminated the physically weak, it seems as though mental illness and suicide may be the worlds means of eliminating the mentally weak.
This seems like a menacing reality to some. But personally I don’t think mental illness is something that people are absolutely helpless to. Just as you are responsible for taking care of your own body, you are also responsible for taking care of your mind. The common objection to this is that you are helpless to chemicals and external stimuli and therefor cannot monitor their effects on you. It is true that chemicals do have an affect on you, but they are certainly not responsible for the entirety of your behavior. If this was true, there would be a pill for happiness which simply is not the case (medical treatment only benefits around 50% of patients), the placebo effect also counters this view as you can produce and simulate the perceived outcome.
Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that not all humans are the same.
There are three people, you give each one of them an orange. The first person does not like oranges, and therefor receives nothing. The second person like oranges, and receives medium satisfaction. The third person loves oranges, and is extremely happy.
Three people receive object (A) which is processed by their reaction (B) producing different effects (C). You are in control as soon as you process what ever the world throws at you. The extent at which you are in control is dependent on how much effort you are willing to exert to change how you process things. You can let that comment about your weight stick with you till the day you die, or you can throw it out the window from the word go. You can view the rain as an annoyance and let it discomfort you, or you can view it as a refreshment and let it soothe your nerves. You can get hit and stay down on the ground, or you can get up and come back harder. Whatever constraints you have placed on yourself do not exist- they are just an illusion.
Sources are below.
Depression - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_depression#mediaviewer/File:Unipolar_depressive_disorders_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO2004.svg
Suicide - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate#mediaviewer/File:Sucide_rate.PNG
Mental Illness -
The Misrepresented Claim -
Natural Change -
The Biological Approach (see effectiveness and appropriateness) -
Yeah, but see people with cancer can’t help themselves, they can’t physically fix it, they can’t just be like “wow I don’t have cancer anymore” to make themselves happy. so why can people with depression do that. they can’t. People with depression can take medication just like people with cancer can, whether it helps or not, but that does not mean that they can just fix a mental disease by themselves. ~ Young Depressed Anon
You just completely shifted from the point I made to a completely different one; logical fallacy: shifting the goalpost to suit your argument. The point that I made that you haven’t refuted is that just because you have an illness doesn’t mean you understand its nature better than everyone else - you don’t get get Alzheimers and then suddenly know how neurons fire, case studies and approaches do you? Well there you go then, don’t assume that I can’t know anything about depression. Furthermore, the difference between depression, sadness and melancholy are their duration and perceived magnitude. I hope you know those two factors aren’t inconceivable to other humans, and I can conceive the magnitude of one without the duration and vice versa.
I’m not suggesting you don’t take medicine for what ever illness you have. I’m just saying that the biological approach to the matter is fatalistic and reductionist. I hope you understand that depression is a common mood disorder which varies in magnitude over different people, almost everyone experiences some form of depression at some stage in their life; you aren’t special. If you don’t think you have at least some degree of control over your mood then you need help. You don’t need help because you’re depressed, not because you’re insane, but because you’re naive, ignorant and clearly uneducated on psychological processes, philosophical concepts about internal and external interactions and scientific evidence regarding the approaches to mental disorders.
Look, if you are going to respond to this message I ask of you two things. The first thing I ask is that you actually address my response fully, do not shift the goal post, do not pick and extrapolate on one weakness, do not ignore any part which damages your ego, you have to respond fully if you want to get anywhere with this argument. The second thing I ask is that you don’t use logical fallacies, it is difficult sometimes but it if you use them as the basis for an argument then it’s like growing a tree upside-down and trying to harvest fruits from it.
I am in a perpetual conflict between materialistic, conformist and social desires and existential, pure, raw and unique aspirations. Neither of the two are objectively better than one another and consequently I find that the subjective, the objective, the internal and external are also an interplaying force when the two are taken into account.
I have to deduce the absolute importance of primitive present indulgences, semantic fulfillment and the quenching of the ego that is without rational desire. I have already sided with logic, vibrancy, adventure, meaning and self improvement so the latter is currently clinging desperately to a spar in the back of my mind.
When making any important decision it is essential to weigh up the negatives and positives with as much structural sensibility, critical thinking and evidence as is possible. In doing so I discovered that much of my materialistic desires are simply western impressions as of what success really means, those impressions however are fairly out dated and for the most part illogical.
If it is true that I have evolved from a member of the neanderthal family then I should hope that I spend my newly acquired prowess forming meaningful connections to the world, experiencing it in a new light and playing on the chords of the double helix as emotionally as is possible.
The future is a strange place. It does not exist now, but in a couple of years it does exist in the now, but then it is not the future anymore. Regardless, I could see myself with an excellent education, a beautiful wife and a house of magnificent grandeur. However, I can also see myself having an education born from experience, a love that I met in the strangest of places and many average houses around the world. Between the two, one has a history of experiences that will make me feel alive.
- Minimalising goals and productivity that attribute to success in life.
- Maximising the importance of trivial failures.
- The irrational focus on the negatives of a given situation rather than a structural approach.
- Fatalistic assumptions of a scenario being black and white with no mid ground. This leads to a success or failure view which in combination with the above lead to self hatred and underestimation.
When a person displays depressive behaviors it may evoke sympathy from others, this creates positive reinforcement as they are supported and let off normal duties. The physical and mental effort exerted in a depressed state is minimal which positively reinforces the behavior for minimum exertion. These responses reinforce depressive behaviors increasing the likely hood of them being repeated.
This is applicable for any situation in which you have to do work consecutively over a long period of time. The method constitutes a consistent oscillation between doing work and relaxing. In applying this method you restore your body and mind to a balanced state.
To apply this method, you need to know when you are doing work. Any given time that you are not doing what you want to do be doing you are doing work. Anything that requires you to exert a force on it is also work.
Contrarily, when you are relaxing you are doing exactly what you want to be doing. There should be minimal forces exerted in a state of relaxation.
If this method is practiced over the period of time that you are working you will find numerous unusual benefits. The first benefit you will notice is that you feel as if you aren’t doing work at all. The second is that you will summon the will to actually want to work and relax, thus enjoying both states equally.
The reason this method is so effective is as follows: If you do work too much of the time you will exhaust yourself mentally and physically. If you do too little you will become physically and mentally depressed as your body and mind adapt to doing nothing.
Examples of when you are doing work: exercise, chess, competitive gaming, driving, retail work, writing, art, entertainment, caring, studying.
Examples of when you are not doing work: sleep, meditation, reading, eating, watching, playing relaxing games, listening to music.
This was a very intricate and delicate firefly that has a limited lifespan and thus I must write it down in all its beauty or it shall diminish in darkness.
The fundamental laws of this universe are obvious in every crevice in every pour in every binding of this world. Tis a law of balance, of equilibrium; for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction, you sow what you reap, yin and yang, life and death.
It is my proposal that this is balancing of forces is meant as rest, that this world cannot descend into absolute darkness nor absolute light. Therefor, what lay after and what lay before may be very much the opposite.
What people describe as hell and what people describe as heaven could just be the forces in extremity, without the law of balance in the world.
Nobody truly knows what was before, and what is after; it is a history shrouded in uncertainty. But how could a mind of balance perceive such a realm of imbalance, of extremity, unless the minds of those people, are very much insane?
Insanity may have a sense of truth, and heaven and hell may be embalmed in a florid distortion.
There is some kind of satisfaction in sadness. I find that negative, deep, hard-hitting emotions are not only more prevalent than positive ones but more potent. This is why when I cry over a dead character, or listen to a song that reminds me of an ex girlfriend, I feel more alive. It’s like you stop feeling numb and feel raw and vibrant for a moment.
Psychological reason - If you have persisting problems that induce prolonged sadness within you then a non-persistent, sudden, and short lived sensation replaces it and consequently you feel better in that moment. This could explain the phenomena of cutting.
Philosophical reason - The classical life style of the modern human is primarily positive, regardless of whether we acknowledge it or not. If the principle of balance is applied to this, then the act of being sad could bring you down to a base level which is preferable, thus returning you to the aforementioned raw state.
Biological reason - Mirror neurons activated when empathizing with sad people or ideas could evoke the feeling of inclusiveness and connectivity. This would then make the burden of sadness feel “shared”, giving an additional feeling of alleviation.
In the life of academia, the question of what intelligence is and how we may define it is somewhat a frequent occurrence. To start with, let us work with the definition which like many terms, is derived from Latin. Intelligence is derived from the Latin verb Intelliger, to perceive, comprehend, and thus understand. Just working from the definition we can see that intelligence can be applied to a broad range of subjects, however in modern society it is favored to a narrow spectrum, such as linguistics and mathematics.
Regardless of what kind of psychology you favor, whether it be behavioral, biological or psychodynamic, it is clear that cultural, social and media influences have a profound effect on our judgement and perception. For example let us take a professor in musical studies and a professor in mathematical studies. To which one do you give the badge of intelligence? Although the professor may be adept in music, just as the other professor is adept in mathematics, we give our intellectual favor to only one. This reflects our modern society in that our academic system is primarily scientific, utilizing mathematics and bringing about an external change that benefits societies progression. Therefor we favor mathematics, showing how our judgement is based around our cultural influences.
Then that begs the question of is this right, is the scientific values we hold justified simply because it is more useful to our understanding at this time? Let us take an experienced mathematician, and an agricultural survival expert. Let us experimentally implement them into a Sub-Saharan tribe where they must fend for themselves and integrate into another culture. Tribal members, along with the expert will be proficient in body-kinesthetics and and natural understanding. While the mathematician on the other hand, despite being deemed as smart, will fail to flourish and survive with his current understanding. Simply put, the participant we deem as less intelligent, will outperform the mathematician in understanding, in a different environment.
This outlines the subjectivity and situational applications involved with intelligence. This is precisely why it is hard to define which type of intelligence holds more value, because it is not a concrete objective idea that we can experiment with, hypothesize, prove nor disprove aptly. This is why Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence came under attack as infallible and lacking evidence. It is simply an observation of human behavior that takes its form in many ways. If that observation was untrue then we would observe the exact same type of intelligence in every human, but that is simply not the case.
Perhaps then it would be useful to classify intelligence in terms of its usage in the expression of knowledge and the attainment of it. But you see then, that all forms of intelligence allow this, from musical, natural and existential studies to literature, mathematics and critical thinking. For in everything that we can perceive and comprehend, we can rightly understand in different depths and perspectives. Which fortunately for us, means that our dear friend Einstein was correct in his statement.
”Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”