In discussing the mental and emotional polarized people it is important to realize that there are two levels of each.
First there is the lower mind which we all use. This consists of our consciousness using the computer brain in which to separate truth from error.
Then there is the higher mind in which only a few are polarized. This uses logic and pure reason to arrive at truth beyond the reach of the mere calculating power of the brain.
Then we have lower and higher emotions. The lower emotions are controlled by the solar plexus and are directed by the desire nature. They are selfish in nature and tend to distort reality. The majority of people are dominated by this part of their feeling nature.
Then there are the higher emotions, or feelings from the heart center which is dominated by the ray of Love-Wisdom.
These feelings are unselfish love tempered by wisdom which is at union with higher mind. These feelings are accurate guides and offer little distortion. Only a minority rely on these higher, for most go with the lower more selfish emotions.
In our discussions here we are dealing with the higher mind vs. the lower emotions which often result in conflict or disagreement.
Assignment: One of the most misused words is “freedom.” What is the difference between how the mental person sees and uses this word compared to the emotional?
Comment: A mentally polarized person would see freedom as a “truth” ie: we hold these truths to be self evident…..as a emotional person would see freedom as a “right” through economic or racial status, by trying to obtain a “right”, or keeping a presently established one.
JJ: This is a good insight. A reader also stated that the mental person sees freedom with the whole in mind and this may be the core difference in how the mental and emotional people see the use of many of their words. The mental person will stay within the boundaries of accepted use established by society and dictionaries and use the words as they apply to the whole.
The emotional person will use what he feels is the definition and uses his words to further the cause of the lower self with little consideration for the whole.
This particularly applies as far as freedom is concerned. It is interesting to read about the arguments of the principle of freedom that took place during the civil war. Lincoln believed his side was fighting for freedom because one of his goals was to eliminate slavery.
But Lincoln was also amazed by the fact that many in the South believed that they needed slaves to remain free for without their slaves their economy would be hurt, giving them less financial and individual freedom from undesirable labor.
Lincoln saw freedom as it applied to the whole, including the blacks and the South saw freedom as it applied to slave owners but not there slaves, or not the whole.
Lincoln made a great statement around this principle: “The Shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as a destroyer of liberty”
Today the emotional person sees freedom in things that benefit him but not the whole. For instance, if higher taxes take away freedom from the many but benefit the few (of which he is a part) them he will be for higher taxes as it brings his group more freedom. The mental person will seek a fair tax system, even if he benefits more from the current unfair system.
I asked the group to name some other misused words.
Comment: People seem to use the word truth in a variety of ways. Some say it is absolute and others relative. Some say they are presenting truth when it is only opinion.
JJ: Good observation. I would add this. The more emotionally polarized the more relative and nebulous is his vision of truth. The more mental the clearer and concise will be his vision and the more articulate he will be in expressing it so it can be understood by the average person.
There are many words that are misused by the emotionally polarized, not the least of which are words around the subject under discussion such as emotion, mind, heart, love etc. Others are God, religion, system, Christ, soul, spirit, authority, intelligence, peace, judgment, duality, karma and many others.
Two mental people can use these words and understand each other, but if you have an mental and emotional or emotional vs emotional there will be problems.
Here is a core difference between the two types:
“The mental person will listen to the actual words you say and attempt to accept them at face value. If there is something he does not understand he will ask clarifying questions.
“The emotional person will often feel (rather than hear) what you are saying, having his emotions triggered by certain red flag words. If you try to clarify it does not change how he feels.
Emotional Person: Do you forgive me for how I treated you yesterday.
Mental Person: You mean when you got angry at me?
Emotional Person: I suppose.
Mental Person: Sure. I forgive you. It was no big deal.
Now the emotional person did not register the forgiveness phrase but the anger phrase and after stewing a few moments may come up with something like:
Emotional Person: “You think I’m still angry, don’t you?”
Mental Person: No not at all.
Emotional Person: You’re still holding what I said against me, aren’t you?
Mental Person: No. I told you that I forgave you.
Still the emotional person will not hear the word forgiveness and move on. Instead, he is focused on the trigger word, which in this case, is anger.
Have you had times in your life that people feel your answers rather than take your words at face value? Describe.
“I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated.” Poul Anderson – author
Copyright by J J Dewey
April 21, 2003
Easy Access to All the Writings
For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE
12 thoughts on “Mental Registration”
Cayman Islands Dollar
Nonsense. Go to Google and do a search for “climate change” filtered to freeread.com. The results are filled with criticisms of the consensus of man-made climate change, dismissing the dangers it presents as overblown, and presenting the issue as if it is strongly two-sided.
That in itself wouldn’t be so bad if you actually addressed any science on the matter, but instead you go after people like Al Gore and the media who, even by your own admission, do not represent climate science very well. For someone who has plenty to say on climate change, you have very little actual data on the subject to cite. When I do see you cite something, it’s usually something favoring what you already believe to be true.
If the overwhelming majority of climate scientists say man-made climate change is a serious issue, then your own principle of following the highest you know says that we ought to listen to and take measures to curb our environmental impact and emissions. Of course, that flies in the face of your deeply held conviction that maximum human freedom will ultimately lead to the best outcome, so any science that suggests there is a serious negative effect from human activity is naturally going to be dangerous to you.
Climate change isn’t the only area of science you have problems with. I notice you give homeopathy a pass. I’d say that’s pretty egregiously unscientific.
You just say “nonsense” instead of finding even one thing I have said that is proven to be scientifically inaccurate.
I found several examples and I told you how to find them as well with a very simple method. Can I not address the overall content? Do I really need to remind you of things that you yourself wrote?
You know what you wrote, you know what your positions are. You are trying to get me to go on a task of quote mining through your writings as a distraction technique, something emotionally polarized people do according to you.
Do you or do you not consider man made climate change to be a strongly 2-sided issue? That’s a yes or no question, and by your own standards you should have a yes or no answer unless you are emotionally polarized on the matter. If the answer if yes, which we know it is from your writings, then that is pretty contradictory to what science knows.
Since you insist, here is an example of what I’m talking about:
“I have studied both sides of the climate debate and there is valuable information to be had from looking at both presentations. Our schools should not be afraid to allow students to hear both sides of the debate. It would be helpful if all they did was allow a guest speaker to come in now and then and present a different point of view.” -The Seeker’s Guide to Soul Contact, Day 118
Examining both sides of a problem is the scientific approach contrary to your thinking.
Examining all sides of a problem is the scientific approach, but when the data is in and clearly reveals the side with the most merit, then their are no more sides. At that point, there are those who accept the data and those who do not because they have some hangup with the truth it reveals.
Start talking about anthropomorphic climate change JJ Dewey and see how emotionally based you and your group become because the truth of that matter challenges your so-called mental ideas if freedom.
You can’t claim to be mentally centered then reject science when it produces findings that are inconvenient for your beliefs.
Why make an accusation you cannot back up? You cannot find, in all my millions of words written, one statement that goes against proven scientific facts.