"Conditioned Reactions" are not "Natural Givens"

Feb 2011
1,196
1
USA
Do you mistake 'conditioned reactions' for 'spontaneity'?
Conditioned reactions are 'learned'; spontaneity is 'natural'.
The quality of emotions indicates 'what' precipitates them.

Even though I wrote the above, after reading it, I laughed. (To me) The laughter indicates a "reframe" occurred at unconscious level. Something changed (neuroplasticity?)
I don't know 'what' changed but it feels 'therapeutic'. We 'do' heal from within. You can count on it. (Healing is not 'fixing').

(If by chance, you too laugh after reading the above, {experience a reframe} let us know.)
 
Feb 2011
1,196
1
USA
"Conditioned reactions are not natural givens."
Conditioned reactions are 'learned'; spontaneity is 'natural'. That's so "glaringly obvious" (to conscious mind) but it appears we subliminally believe 'conditioned reactions' were 'natural' and that accounts for the 'reframe'. It's"getting real".
(I'm sharing insight as it occurs, your present at the 'birth of creativity' this moment.)
A reframe occurs when two beliefs are incongruent. The reframe changes the false belief to match the true one. or rather to match/fit facts.

We can consciously profess one belief but unconsciously believe differently. When we don't recognize 'covert' belief, which do you think prevails automatically?
Is that what we call "self-sabotage"? That's what it looks like to me.
 
Feb 2011
1,196
1
USA
Dual Perspective, the opposite of "can't see the forest for the trees".
We are born conscious, it takes several months to learn language/thinking. How do we lose perspective of witnessing our thoughts?
Let's say two people share a belief or have different beliefs. One 'clings' to his belief as the 'one and only truth'.
The second, can share or hold a different belief, but takes a second perspective, as witnessing his belief as one of many possible ones.
The first person has one perspective, down on ground level in among the trees, the second person, is 'flexible' and has 'dual perspectives'; as if in a helicopter, witnessing the forest,( his thoughts). When we encounter two such people, we can 'detect' that difference between them; if only we could 'detect' it in ourselves. ( We can). (Are you in dual perspective mode this moment?)
 
Feb 2011
1,196
1
USA
'Believing' is a cause that has effects.
When 'believing a thought', what exactly are you doing? (Answer from-out-of your own experience, not from what you 'think' the consensus answer might be.)
If you do the believing, your responsible for the effects.
When you seek help, implies you can't solve your own problems. (You can, if you access your innate wisdom.)
When you believe "assumptive images real', you cause your involuntary reactions, such as, emotional suffering, dysfunction behavior, mistakes, stress, etc.
It's likely you believe those symptoms are externally caused and here I am saying they are internally caused. Those opposite views are so 'incongruent' that you can't reconcile them, and so discard my view in favor of what you already and always 'believed'. That way you continue to replicate those symptoms unabated, getting the same results as always. :D

We are "hard-wired" to react to perceptions; so beware of "unwittingly" 'making' pseudo/counterfeit perceptions.(You will pay the 'piper' with reactions, that may not be to your liking.)