He who seeks knowledge deserves it
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it
This article is about the way the human mind works. It is the synergy of anthropology, evolutionary psychology, metaphysics, philosophy, psychology, yoga.
This article isn't just knowledge, it's transformation of the mind.
Though the spirit (the part of a human being survives after the death of the flesh) could solve some problems, since there is no evidence of its existence I will not comment on it.
The Universe is! It is neither good, nor evil. The Universe has no preference about good or evil. There are two forces in the Universe: construction and destruction. "Construction" means the creation of a shape, ultimately the Universe itself. "Destruction" means change, the way a shape changes into another shape. "Destruction" is the way the Universe changes.
The human mind is good and evil, it is angel and devil, saint and whore. Nature lets it behave as it wants (= as it is its internal structure), without "threatening" it with reward or punishment.
Psychological stability comes from behavioral dynamics: you have to constantly adjust your behavior, always paying attention to the results of your actions, to how they influence people around you.
The consciousness is the way the human mind is aware of its existence and things around it.
Being aware of something (by expanding the consciousness to include that something) is the only way humans can improve themselves, by building their own minds, by changing / transforming the things they are aware of. Take love for instance. Being aware of what love is, means there is a chance for that human to improve his love, though love is nothing but a cerebral process. Humans can give love special attributes, they can make it worth turning the world upside down.
Being aware of something doesn't mean simply knowing that thing. There has to be an actual change of the cerebral structure in such a way that would allow you to "see" inside your mind and see how that something influences your mind.
People have the illusion of free will. There is no such thing! It is a limited will. The instincts control the mind. They make the very base of the mind. Of course, the mind is more complex than just bare instincts, but they control. Whatever you think you want, they are the root of your desire / will.
Unlike the mind of inferior animals, the human mind has a lot more psychological barriers, some of which are principles of life. The human mind is far more complex, and by no means freer. On the contrary, the human mind is bound to evolve only within certain boundaries. However, the animal mind has lower expectations (a small consciousness), and thus, a smaller "playground".
The human mind is a bundle of mental process which can be separated in the following categories:
Reality is outside of the mind, but the perception of reality always depends on a point of view. There is no such thing as "absolute reality".
There is a difference between what people perceive and the way the Universe is, but the Universe needs an observer to see... the way the Universe is. Thus, it is irrelevant how the Universe is, since only an observer with his own point of view can see it.
Take the Theory of Relativity: what are space and time? Take the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: what are the speed and position of a particle? They all depend of the point of view, of the observer.
Let's take "self-defense". You can say what self-defense is from a point of view, but you can't say you have an absolute definition of self-defense.
People are never capable of discussing absolute reality because there is no such thing (you need a point of view to observe the reality), but they can agree on a common point of view. Language breaks down when people don't agree, but it can not break down due to lack of absolute reality.
Everything that happens in the Universe is probabilistic, not absolutely sure.
In order to learn, a mind must be flexible in analyzing different points of view. Assuming that one's "truth" is the only "correct" truth, would hold one back from evolving, from absorbing new information. Most people, even if they don't agree with someone, would not get into a fight with the people they disagree with. Violence would certainly not improve anyone's intelligence or common sense, although it would create certain conditionings.
Nature doesn't care about you or me. For Nature, it is irrelevant what individuals choose. But Life cares about survival, Life is survival, and only the fittest survive, not the smartest, strongest, or richest. The fittest is an individual / species that can extract the maximum profit from the environment, with the minimum consumption of resources.
Diversity (of points of view) is the method Life uses to find the paths which bring most profit, and thus generate the highest chances of survival.
Good and bad
There is no such thing as absolute good and absolute bad. There is no absolute system of reference to define good and bad.
Whatever people believe is good or bad is a result of Nature's laws.
Nature is one: change / energy / matter. Change is born from void (the absence of movement). Matter organizes itself in various structure. Does matter know that it has to organize itself? No, it does not! The absence of organization is chaos. Chaos and organization are opposed views (= mirrored) of the same concept: change / Nature. What is chaos can't be organization, what is organization can't be chaos. Thus, matter can be either chaotic or organized, but it has no mind of its own, it has no goal to fulfill, it simply is in one of the two states. It's all statistics.
Good and bad do not exist in an absolute system of reference. Humans assign them specific values simply because of Nature's laws. For example, people regard murder as bad. But murder is not bad because it is bad, but because death (= the result of murder) is the opposite state of life. Life has no goal of its own; it simply is the opposed state of death. So, whatever action brings death, the opposed state of life, is inherently in contradiction with the rules of life.
"Moral relativism" and relativism (philosophical or scientific) have nothing in common. "Moral relativism" is an idiom which describes a duplicitous individual.
Some people confuse relativity with duplicity (and lack of determination). Moral relativity actually means duplicity, used as an idiom, but relativity does not mean the same thing. Relativity means different points of view over the subject of an observation, points of view which non-duplicitous and very well defined; relativity means context. A duplicitous individual is someone who has several sides to adhere to, and lies to each of them that he adheres only to them.
Relativity is rather a state of mind, a stance, than a philosophy. A relativist is rather someone who has his own personal philosophy, but who also displays a detached stance about conflict.
Everything in the Universe is relative, relative to something, to a context, to the system of reference which contains it. Relativity implies change. Change is the manifestation of relativity of things.
A relativist questions Reality, but questioning Reality means understanding that Reality is perceived distorted by human factors, not questioning the existence of Reality.
There is no absolute truth. There are, however, facts. A fact exists due to a certain context and is interpreted (by a human) in a certain context. There is nothing absolute outside context... and there are innumerable contexts. There is only relativity.
Relativity means looking at things from different points of view. Relativity doesn't mean duplicity or indetermination. Strength and determination are separated from beliefs, beliefs in rigid "truths". It means that different living beings have different ways of perceiving Reality and moral, and different goals.
It is possible to say that a (small) context is absolute by itself because it's self-contained and self-sustained. However, there is always a bigger context and this is what makes everything relative to it's own context.
In fact, relativity is a bunch of tiny absolutist views (called contexts). This is the whole idea of relativity: fragmentation of points of view, and particularly fragmentation of decisional factors which lead (observers / individuals) to taking a specific action. Relativity is not a point as absolutism is, but a range.
It is possible to say that something which is true makes a truth, or that looking at a problem from several points of view seems to be absolute, but never chase the Absolute Truth because there is none outside your interpretation of it.
It is possible to say that analyzing something from several points of view is objectivity, but note that this kind of objectivity is not absolute, as most would expect objectivity to be; it is simply formed from more than one point of view. If you look at a context from the outside, you'll see a bigger context. Look again from the outside... and again... and you'll see a bigger and bigger context every time. Each context is like a concentric leaf of an onion.
The existence of something is not a proof of absolute, it's a manifestation of an object being observed in a certain context, it's a fact, it's reality. The undeniability of the existence of the manifestation of an object is not a proof that the object which is observed is an absolute system of reference; it's just a fact, an object in a context.
A relativist adheres to no side of other people. However, a relativist does know and pursues his own path and goals.
Isn't Reality absolute?
No! Reality is a manifestation of something. Do you know what that something is? Nobody knows. What you think is real is actually your perception of this manifestation. It is certainly not something absolute. Something absolute would be something which does not change, something which can't be observed differently by different observers, from different points of view.
Man versus virus
An example of how to interpret relativity is the interaction between a human being and a deadly virus. Is any of them right? Is any of them correct? Is any of them superior?
The answer to all questions is no. Let's consider what really happens.
The virus has invaded the body of the human. Is the virus trying to kill the human? No. It is simply trying to survive. Unfortunately, the virus is so aggressive in its invasion that is actually killing the human. But what the virus does is simply attempting to survive, and the only thing the human can do to survive is to fight against the virus.
The human is not morally superior. However, during billions of years of evolution, various creatures have fought for survival and evolved into humans. So, the life represented by humans has won its status by fighting for its position in the evolutionary tree. This status doesn't intrinsically belong to humans because of some absolute standard.
Let's take a firearm. Is it something good or is it something bad?
A firearm is a simple piece of metal, it's cold, it's impersonal. It's a fact, it's Reality, it's a Truth in itself. You could even say it's something absolute.
Now let's see... In the hands of a filthy thug coming your way, it's a very bad thing (for you, not for the thug). (You agree, right?!)
In your hands, when you're faced with a filthy thug, it's a good thing (for you, not for the thug). I guess some people would still think it's a bad thing and they would rather be at the mercy of the thug. Go figure! Diversity!
So, it's all about context. The Absolute is utterly irrelevant for a human being. Everything is about context, how facts collide in various contexts. This is Relativity!
It's very difficult to teach people to see the difference between human concepts (like "right and wrong") and reality.
Take for instance planets. All over the Universe, planets revolve around stars. This is a fact, it is reality, it is a law of physics: gravity. So, it is right or wrong that planets revolve around starts? No human says something like that because they consider planets have no concept of morality. It's neither right, nor wrong. It just is the way reality works.
Now consider that some planets just don't revolve around the star they are near. Why? They just don't like, that's why. So, is that wrong? Clearly, it isn't wrong, but it is contrary to the laws of physics. But it is not immoral.
Now do you see that morality is strictly a human concept?
The essence of all lessons
The Truth can come and go as it pleases, always wondering throughout the sleepy minds. But know this: It does not make itself, It does not change itself, It always follows You. – George Hara
The "default" human brain is female. The male brain is a default brain which develops under the control of testosterone.
The only clear difference between the brain a of man and one of a woman is the hypothalamus which is larger in men than in women. The hypothalamus regulates various autonomic (= involuntary) activities (like body temperature, metabolic processes).
Some (average) data about the human brain:
The number of neurons of a brain is not particularly important for the potential intelligence, but the number of connections among them is. This can be easily observed because though the number of neurons in an adult brain decreases in time, its intelligence may increase (since the connections between neurons change constantly), manifesting as experience.
The human mind is driven by two things: instincts and diversity.
Instincts are inborn unconscious mental processes. However, they all have indirect influence over the consciousness.
Diversity exists in all beings and objects in the Universe. Diversity is simply randomness, and it's the only thing which causes evolution in the absence of a brain which would make things evolve the "right" way.
Instincts manifest as a behavioral bias toward what they are intended to do. Without this bias, humans would have no preferential choice for certain actions, like moving away from danger, since danger would not be perceived as a bad thing because the humans would have no preference for living.
All instincts alter the reasoning; the result of this alteration is an emotion. This is because instincts form the basic mental structure, on which the rest of the mind develops. The alteration is proportional with the intensity of the stimuli which trigger the instincts, and is particularly strong when frustration occurs (because the instinct is not satisfied – it is repressed). For example, the more hungry a person gets, the more it tries to find food (and the more it ignores other activities).
If the exposure to stimuli which trigger a specific instinct lasts too much time relative to the exposure to stimuli which trigger other instincts, the mind gets used with them and the bias for that instinct increases. If the mind doesn't restore to its normal reasoning status in proper time, it is altered forever, biased toward that instinct.
Instincts don't manifest visibly from birth, but they increase in intensity gradually, and may need a few years of exposure to stimuli in order to become visible.
Becoming aware that instincts do control you, and you don't control them, and of the fact that you can not (and must not) switch them off, is how you make peace with your mind.
Each instinct is a part of you, not you in the entirety. The mind is a synergy of good and bad (from the point of view of the body) "programs". Neither of them, taken alone, represents you, but only all of them together. Everyone has his own path to walk on, his own way to deal with instincts and all other things in life.
You can make peace with your instincts if you understand that each of them is not... you (but only a fraction of you). Unfortunately, the more brain power a life form has, the more it distorts its own instincts. This brain power can be harnessed through mental evolution, that is, by seeing how sheer brain power distorts and amplifies the cracks in instincts, emotions and logic.
Any instinct can be repressed, but no instinct can be suppressed. Actually it is possible, but that would lead to death. For example, consider you tell a guy that he can't switch off his conservation instinct, because he just can't choose to do that. The guy says "I can, I have a choice" and, for the purpose of the demonstration, he kills himself. Well, guess what, the guy is dead, that is, exactly what I said about switching off an instinct meaning death. Instincts exist because they have the precise goal of keeping life forms alive.
Another example is that some people steal to have a better life, while others choose not to steal. This isn't free will because the reasoning (which makes the choice) is built during the entire life on the genetic structure and on the environmental factors which each human experiences. So, the difference between the two people is not the free will, but the structure of the mind.
Every single instinct is there for a reason, and it is essential to let them all do their jobs. The pressure resulted from the repression of instincts has catastrophic results for every single human being. The way you think, in every single moment, leaves permanent marks over your mind! DO NOT MESS WITH THE MIND!
Instincts drive the life of humans. They are the root. They are immutable.
Some people believe they are more than instincts or that instincts do not drive their lives. Well, the first part is true, but the second is false. Humans are more than their instincts because instincts are points of reference, not paths.
An instinct is like a city somewhere on Earth. You can go from there anywhere else on Earth, through innumerable paths, but the origin remains the same. The path which originates in the instincts is the personality of the human, and this is not the same thing as the instinct itself. However, the root of the existence of the personality is the same: the instincts.
Another way to view instincts is to consider an instinct being a pole and the human being tied to the pole. The human has some leeway to move around the pole, but can't cut the rope he's being tied up with.
So, the personality of a human is more than his basic instincts, but the root of the personality is the same: the instincts.
Instincts are the root of illusion. They make the consciousness believe they are the whole mind, but that isn't true. They drive the mind (because of the bias they create), but they are only the root of the mind. Only people from area 3 can see beyond the illusion because the structure of their brain has evolved to that point.
Another illusion is the existence of good and evil. They only exist within the mind, not outside it. This is because of instincts. Whatever helps the body stay healthy is seen (by the mind) as good, and whatever threatens the body's health is seen as evil.
Pleasure and pain are two feelings which, like good and evil, tell the mind that the things which happen to the human (mind and body) are good or bad, that is, are helping him live a healthy life, or threaten his life by destroying his health.
The feeling of ugly is linked to feeding. When a human looks at something very ugly, his stomach has an adverse reaction – a repulsion. The feeling of beauty is also linked to feeding, but in a less clear way. The clearest signal occurs during a sexual relationship, when partners lick each others "beautiful" parts.
Another illusion is the importance of a human in the Universe. A human is important to the Universe, but this depends on the context. From the point of view of the Universe, a human is no more important than dust. From the point of view of life, a human is no more important than grass. From the point of view of (universal) consciousness, a human is no more important than any other conscious life form; however, this importance expands together with the expansion of the consciousness (every human is responsible for the expansion of his consciousness).
The dark side
The alteration (by instincts) of reasoning may lead to "the dark side" of the mind. If instincts are not satisfied, stress occurs in the mind and this generates frustration which increases constantly until the instincts are satisfied. If the frustration overwhelms the reasoning, the mind falls to "the dark side".
In this state, the mind will release psychological pressure by destroying the source of frustration. However, since this source isn't usually compact, the destruction occurs for a very large range around the source.
Illusions make things worse. The mind combines frustration and illusions into one huge engine of destruction, usually motivated by a weak reason (like a verbal confrontation) and sustained by a disproportioned understanding of the self importance in the environment.
By no means is freedom the existence of something. Freedom is the absence of something, and that something is imprisonment.
No human knows what (mental) freedom is, because all live a continuous illusion. All humans look at freedom from the distorted point of view of illusion. You can't consider yourself free of something since this would mean a distorted point of reference (= the illusion). So, don't try to understand what freedom is.
Freedom can be experienced by understanding and avoiding the illusion (that is, what isn't freedom), instead of seeking something freedom might be, since the seeker has a distorted point of view - the one of the prisoner (of illusion). So, just move away from illusion, and knowledge of what freedom is will come.
For example, a human who lived all his life in a prison, doesn't know how is outside (= freedom). Despite this, he can experience the outside if he leaves the prison. To get outside, he doesn't need to know what outside is, but only what the prison is.
Don't try to directly understand what freedom is. Observe the instincts (= the illusion) and you will experience freedom, in time. The veil will fade away, you just have to leave the illusion behind.
Being normal refers to being like most people. However, biological normality and social normality are two different things separated by an astronomical distance.
The biological normality is given by the DNA, and says things like "male and female have to reproduce the human species amongst themselves".
The social normality is given by the behavior of the society (traditions, habit, taboos), and says things like "don't pee on the street".
Biological normality is fixed to the natural structures. Social normality is relative to the context and changes in time.
Morality is the resultant of average human behavior. Before you think of examples which show that masses of humans behave in ways which seem immoral to you, note that circumstances do not define average human behavior, they only change it (temporarily). Built-in biological factors define average human behavior.
For instance, there were times in history when people were killing some of the their newborns because they did not have enough resources to keep themselves and the newborns alive. This is how circumstances change average human behavior.
In contrast, biologically defined average human behavior states that killing newborns wastes vast resources (consumed in order to give birth to the newborns) and may lead to the death of the species. That is why biologically defined average human behavior does not include killing newborns.
To take a non-emotional example, consider that if, somehow, meat (food) would be poisonous for the human body, humans would not eat it, and this would constitute biologically defined average human behavior. If, in such a case, someone would force masses of people to eat meat, that would seem immoral to you because it would lead to their death (= the opposite state of life, the goal of biology).
So, you see, whatever you believe is moral and is an absolute principle, is in fact the resultant of (biologically defined) average (human) behavior.
Are we the slaves of our brain, or are we the masters?
Some people don't like their psychological barriers and force their brain to submit to the way they think they should feel and behave. Such people say they control their brain, that they are their own masters.
Well, they are not masters, but simple slaves. In order to be able to question whether we are masters or slaves of our brain, a human creates a point of view separate of what he thinks is his brain. However, the thinking process is still performed by that human's brain. So there is a fight among different aspects of a single mind, not between a "self" and a brain.
We are not slaves of our brain! We are our brain! The mind has thousands of facets, thoughts, experiences, which all fight for domination. We are, however, slaves of our instincts (which form the most basic part of the mind). But, reasoning can be used to fight against instincts, although reasoning should be used to create a unity of mind, not to create a constant battle with the inner nature.
The conservation / survival instinct (= the need to survive) is the most important element of behavior / personality. It is the very essence of life. Life is conservation instinct, conservation instinct is life. In order to be alive (or to preserve life), the conservation instinct must manifest.
The conservation instinct is the root of all instincts.
The mental mechanism through which the conservation instinct directly manifests is fear.
The drive to live is not a brain function. Think at bacteria or fungi. They have no brain, yet they fight to live. They do so by making use of reproduction. But note: reproduction is a tool, not a goal. Fear is a brain function, but the drive to live is not.
From the conservation instinct derives the reproductive instinct. This is the conservation instinct of the species as a whole.
In order for a species to survive, it must reproduce. It must also expand its territory in search for resources necessary for survival and potential evolution (which offers more chances to survive). Without the need to survive, neither the reproductive instinct nor the territorial expansion would exist.
The evolution of a species has two stages: physical and mental. The physical stage occurs before the mental stage because the species first needs to acquire physical dominance over inferior species; this first stage means physical battle over territory and resources.
The physical evolution leads to increased awareness of what happens in the environment, in order to gain more control over it. Increased awareness is achieved with increased sensibility of the senses.
In a stable environment, increased sensibility of the senses leads to increased sensibility of the emotions, as evolution of the social behavior (the one which creates strong ties within the species, making it act as an even more evolved life form). Thus, the second stage, mental evolution, has been achieved.
Evolution may occur slowly as a way to diversify life forms, in order for them to have better chances of survival. This usually occurs as a response to slow changes in the environment.
The most important steps of evolution occur suddenly (as jumps), and create breaks between the old species and the new one. This happens because the species needs to adapt to sudden changes of the environment. If there would be no sudden changes in the environment, a new species would not need to break from the old species (since there no reason for a change) and life would most probably remain at a low evolutionary level.
This goes to the very heart of moral relativity. What does it mean "to defend yourself"? The answer is simple, each side (of a conflict) has its own point of view over what good and bad mean. It's of no consideration to ask the other side to view things the same way because it views things in opposition to your view. In lack of peaceful talks there would be violence.
Regardless of the way a conflict is solved, peacefully or violently, both sides lose something. The difference is that peace increases the chances of both sides to continue to live.
But violence is only a way to escalate a conflict because neither side is willing to compromise.
Alas, the human being is a violent one, an animal, and its mental capacity will not evolve suddenly.
The second most important characteristic of behavior is the reproductive instinct. If an organism doesn't survive then it can't reproduce; this is why the reproductive instinct comes after the conservation instinct.
The reproductive instinct is the root of the sexual instinct. While the reproductive instinct deals strictly with the reproduction of the humans, the sexual instinct deals with the sexual relationship between the men and women involved in the reproductive process, that is, it deals with the physical way how reproduction may occur.
Reproduction actually means the reproduction of the species and has nothing to do with a sexual act. Sex is a tool that humans use in order to actually reproduce.
Further down the road of evolution is the sexuality. Sexuality is behavior and includes the full spectrum of the sexual and emotional relationships between men and women.
For example, dancing is a manifestation of sexuality; it communicates the availability to play sexual games. This is visible because people will always prefer to dance with people of the opposite gender. Primitive ritual dances may make exception, although even those, in many cases, refer to the fertility of Nature.
Sexuality does not necessarily include a sexual act, for example in the case of parents and children, but simply its already manifested aspects: the reproduction of parents from which the children were born.
At instinctual level, sexuality is a fight for the control of the partner, regardless of the feelings between the two. This happens regardless of the type of the relationship: monogamous or polygamous. Even in a monogamous relationship, the man will always instinctually chase his woman and try to have sex with her as much as possible, and the woman will always instinctually try to filter the man's requests. The only way to have a balance is for the two partners to create it through mental evolution, during many years.
The man is trying to spread his semen so that the chances of reproduction increase. The woman is trying to conserve her biological and environmental resources so that each of her offsprings can get more of them in order to maximize their chances of survival.
Why does the reproductive instinct get to be more talked about, if it's second?
The survival instinct is like air. Air is always there, so people take it for granted, they get used with it.
The reproductive instinct is like water. Water comes and goes. People interact with water and so they are conscious of its presence more than they are conscious about air.
The sexual instinct has an "upper hand" over any other instinct because it binds the two halves of the human species (= men and women). Without reproductive instinct there would be no human species (and, thus, no individuals), but without an individual the human species would still exist. Therefore, the reproductive instinct is the most important aspect of the behavior of the human species. It is the only part of the human behavior which makes the difference between the relationships between the two genders.
Is there anything sexual in the parent – child relation?
This answer doesn't try to say whether sexual attraction between a child and a parent is possible, it simply tries to separate sexuality and sex.
The relation between a parent and a child is determined by sexuality, not by sex. Although these two are usually confused, they are not the same thing.
Reproduction exists in order to preserve life. The reproductive instinct determines humans to be possessive and protective with their children, that is, with the Life they create. Reproduction has nothing to do with either a penis or a vagina. The genital organs are themselves tools, not goals (of either the reproductive instinct or by sexuality).
The goal of reproduction is Life. On the other hand, sex is just a tool which is used by people who can reproduce.
More concretely, any dreams about having sex are determined by accessibility / closeness, not by a special kind of connection. The closeness to many other people of the attractive gender would determine dreams about having sex.
Do children seek partners who resemble their parents when they search for sexual partners?
No. They are looking for themselves. This is known as assortative mating.
There are two main reasons why a human is not looking for his parents in his sexual partners: biological and mental.
When a human is looking for a reproductive partner, he has biological reasons to stay away from his parents because the combination of similar genes (= inbreeding) has catastrophic evolutionary effects which lead to death in the long time.
For reproductive purposes, every human is looking for a mate. A reproductive mate is another human that has the physical and psychological abilities to procreate and raise offsprings.
When talking about parents, the psychological abilities are out from this discussion because the parents are just ordinary people, meaning, like any other parents, like any other people. However, biologically they are unfit because they would cause inbreeding.
"Aha", you would say, "but what could be more inbreeding than reproduction with self?" Well, the thing is that humans are looking for themselves from a psychological point of view, not from a physical point of view. They want control and stability, which can be obtained from someone with a similar psychological profile.
One other problem with this issue is the attribution of an identity (like parents or self) to the sought partner. It is not an identity that is sought, but certain traits which are compatible with the self.
Why are people measured / judged by their sexual behavior?
Because the sexual behavior is a critical indicator of the general behavior of a person in its relationships with members of the opposite gender. This is because genders exist only in conjunction with the reproductive instinct, and this only manifests in conjunction with the sexual behavior.
An incompatibility in the sexual behavior, and in the general behavior, means that there is an incompatibility in the reproductive life of a couple. From a biological point of view this is undesirable.
Why men and women understand prelude and romance differently?
The human behavior is determined by genetics, or simpler said, by the physiology of the human body. Men and women don't behave like they do because that's how things are, but because their bodies are (a bit) different. Their minds behave in ways which optimize the consumption of physical and mental resources. If the consumption were the same, men and women would behave the same.
Women are more sentimental than men and require more time to get involved into a relationship. This is because the attraction between men and women exists for reproductive purposes. Since a woman has to carry the (potential) child for a long time (about 9 months), and thus be more careful about her life, she has to be careful about who she makes sex with.
Men, on the other hand, only need to quickly spread their genes around. For this, they need only a few minutes.
So, the romance that women want before they start a long-term relationship with a man offers them the time they need to filter out potential fathers of their children, men who may offer them weak heirs.
Why do humans feel pleasure when they think of sex?
In order for a species to survive, it must reproduce. In most species, the reproductive instinct is enough to have a reproduction rate high enough so that the species would survive.
But in humans, there is a problem: their high consciousness gives them the ability to ignore their instincts. Humans can choose to ignore their instincts if they believe that the instincts keep them trapped into the animal world, together with any other low-intelligence life form. But ignoring instincts dramatically decreases the chances of survival (because the purpose of instincts is to keep life forms alive).
Certainly, this is not a problem with feeding (or other biological drives with a short term effect) because even rationally, a human can realize that he would die if he would not eat. So, either instinct or reasoning, a human would eat often enough to live.
But even in the case of such instincts, pleasure still exists, although at a much lower level than in the case of the reproductive instinct. Just think at the pleasure you feel in many cases when you eat. This pleasure exists because food provides your body with the elements the body needs to survive and store elements for later consumption.
Certainly, instincts do not provide perfection, they do not make humans eat exactly what they need and in the perfect amounts. This is because Nature has no brain to know what to do in order to maximize the chances of survival. Diversity is the factor which provides the right context for the natural selection of the fittest individuals and species to survive.
In the case of the reproductive instinct, the pleasure is much higher because there is a need to compensate the potential rational disregard of this instinct. Without this instinct, there would be no motivation for women to waste 9 months of their lives to bring a child into the world and then to raise him. Without the pleasure, neither men nor women would be rationally interested to be under the control of an individual of the other gender.
If a human doesn't reproduce himself, he would not die. But doing so he would decrease the chances of survival of the entire species. Of course, the individual doesn't care about this fuzzy outcome. Here is were pleasure fills in the gap. Due to its presence, even if humans would rationally choose not to waste their energy and time by giving birth to children (and being under the control of the other gender), they would still have sex for pleasure and thus increase the chances of reproduction.
I never felt any need to make children. Besides the fact that I don't want the responsibility and that this is not a world to bring children into, I simply do not feel the need!
However, as I grew old I started having moments when I felt extreme pleasure thinking that I would tell a woman to "make me a child". Note that it's not "let's make a child together", but I wanted her to make me one.
This drive is not strong enough to force me to make a child, but nevertheless it exists and it actually increases the chances of me making a child.
Love is a derivate instinct of the conservation and reproductive instincts. Innocent love (= love without physical attraction) is the way humans care for their young, their innocent, their fragile fellow humans, so that they grow up with little effort; this kind of love is actually the result of the reproductive instinct (read here the explanation). Lusting love (= physical attraction) is the way humans combine the reproduction with innocent love and with pleasure.
Love is most complex when it contains both physical and sentimental attraction. Physical attraction means attraction toward the body of another person, purely for reproductive reasons. Sentimental attraction means attraction toward the personality of another person, mostly because of the need for a higher consciousness (the person who loves wants to improve for the person he loves, in order to provide stability to the relationship).
Love gives birth to fear, fear to lose the subject of love. This fear may lead to hate when the subject of love is actually lost. The hate can be directed either to the lost love, or directed to others who are considered responsible for the loss. Hate, of course, leads to suffering.
Non-sexual love is also (usually) driven by the reproductive instinct. This love occurs mostly within a family – the stable foundation of the reproduction of the species.
For example, parents love their children because they need to protect them (since they are the future of the family / species), and children love their parents because they will, one day, be parents too (this is the mirrored manifestation of this type of love).
Do you think you love your partner? When you look into your partner's eyes, especially when making love, what do you see? Do you see a stranger? You should see a very good friend! When the mist of the sexual instinct fades away and you still see a partner in your lover, that is what love truly is!
Though jealousy has a broad definition which says that a person is fearful of losing its top position in the domain of interests of another person, sexual jealousy is the one which deserves all the attention here.
Sexual jealousy occurs because of two basic human needs: sexual instinct and domination. Domination is used by humans to secure their control over something of interest; the subject of interest is defined here by their sexual instinct. Sexual jealousy is actually the fear of losing the subject of love.
From a biological point of view, losing control over the sexual partner means that the most important aspect of the interaction between genders, the reproduction, loses to the competition. Jealousy is the way the mind uses to attempt to secure the winning position for the body it controls.
Humans consider their sexual partners are their property, and humans defend their property because property it is what gives them an upper hand over the environment and over other beings. People use their property to control the environment, thus increasing their chances of survival.
But why don't people just cross-reproduce? Why don't they just constantly change their sexual partner? This would certainly increase the chances for reproduction.
Well, this does happen. Men are the ones who have the strongest instinctual drive to behave so. This is because it's easier for them to impregnate a woman, whereas women must go through gestation (which is a lengthy and costly process).
Most people have multiple sexual partners, but when it comes to raising their children, they usually form couples. This happens because a couple increases the chances of survival of the offsprings, due to the combination of resources of the two partners, and due to the better focus on few(er) children.
But if people like to keep their property for themselves, why do they like to share music, for example?
First, the music is not their creation. Only a copy of a song is their property. Second, sharing this type of property fulfills a critical role: communication. Communication increases the chances of survival of the entire species, so sharing songs fulfills this primary drive.
Kissing is a fascinating behavioral trait of humans (although it's not exclusively used by the human species).
Normally, all organs have a very well defined function and (are used to) fulfill only that specific function; the palms make an exception because they are used with the general purpose of handling objects. There are, however, a few organs which are used for a complementary function, namely to show the sexual attraction toward another person.
The mouth is the most important such organ. The biological purpose of the mouth is to allow food into the body, to chew the food, and to speak. Yet, the mouth is also used for kissing, a behavioral trait which shows one person's affection for another.
Why is the mouth so important in showing the affection for another person?
First, the mouth is a central organ in the conscious life of a human (since it's used for feeding, a basic survival requirement). But, the mouth is also used for domination, domination which requires trust from the partner.
The domination is associated to the mouth exactly because it is used for feeding. Basically, during feeding, the mouth is used as an offensive weapon. Therefore, the partner must trust that it would not become food.
I am not talking here about a individual consciously thinking he can become food for his partner, but about the way the brain works, particularly its primitive layers (those which deal with instincts).
The need for trust becomes clearly visible, when, during a sexual act, people use their mouths to lick and take inside various parts of the partner's body. Besides the signals emitted during the licking, which are supposed to demonstrate to the partner that its body is delicious (this is because the tongue is the organ used to check the eatability of food, using the taste), holding various body parts inside the mouth requires the partner to trust that its own attractiveness as a reproductive partner is more important than its attractiveness as food.
Interestingly, the trust issue is reversed in the case of licking and sucking the fingers. Fingers, and more specifically fingernails, are weapons descendant from paws and claws. Thus, licking and sucking the fingers is actually submissive behavior, where the person doing the licking and sucking trusts its partner will not "get its claws out" (in an aggressive manner).
Another such organ is the penis – rectum pair of organs. In this case, the need for trust comes from the high possibility of being hurt during anal sex (due to the sensibility of the rectum, and due to the dominant position of the man).
The proximity of the anus to the genital organs, and its tight grip on the penis, are secondary factors used in the decisional filters in the man's brain.
Normally, women are not interested in (or at least are not interested in initiating) anal sex because they can't (naturally) be the active / dominant part (they can't make the penetration). This inability of being the active part creates a lack of balance in the trust issue, and thus a lack of interest.
Pain is very costly and has degrading effects on the human mind. The more pain the mind feels, the more and more it is inclined to renounce its principles, its diversity, its uniqueness, in exchange for less pain. The mind cares less and less about principles, and even ends up turning pain into pleasure.
Say you love somebody deeply and that somebody doesn't care for you. In such a case, you would normally feel pain thinking that the person you love makes love to someone else. In time, you could see that this pain would turn into pleasure, that is, you would feel pleasure thinking that the person you love makes love to someone else. Of course, you could be aware that this kind of pleasure is sick, is a distortion of the natural state of your mind. This happens because your mind can't cope with the high level of pain and thus the brain changes structurally so that no more pain is felt.
The opposite effect could happen, that is, your love could turn into hate. In this case, your mind starts playing the role of the victim of a sentimental delusion. Basically, the pain felt due to the permanent separation from the person you love turns into a different kind of pleasure, that of considering itself the victim of a situation, the one which deserves to be care about by everybody.
The real character of an individual is visible under pressure and when he is rejected, not when everything is alright for him and he is happy and loved by everybody.
Most people confuse (at least subconsciously) fantasy with reality, and try to apply their fantasies in reality and control reality just as they control their fantasies.
This is one of the main reasons why pornography is forbidden to children. It is not that children who watch pornography become sexually obsessed, but that their mind integrates the habit of considering a fantasy as being reality, and turn this into a main behavioral trait.
This happens because pornography presents sexuality from the point of view of a dominant person in a fantasy controlled by it. Habit would turn this fantasy into a usually used dominant tool.
Even if the individual who has the fantasy thinks of himself in a dominated posture, the fantasy is still controlled by that individual.
Do people watch pornography because they have unfulfilled physical and emotional needs?
Yes, but this is also why people have sex or make love.
A dream is the result of the subconscious processing information from the memory, or stimuli the body feels while asleep.
A dream is made of symbols. These symbols can sometimes present themselves as senses, like: images, colors, sounds, smells, touch.
Most dreams appear to be visual. However, the dream itself is not made of visual elements, but made of symbols which manifest visually. Because the brain is designed to receive most of its information through the visual sense, most dream symbols manifest visually.
Don't try to control your dreams! If you don't control you're dreams, if you allow your subconsciousness to fly free in the dream world, you'll fell much relaxed when you wake up.
Dreams are not supposed to be logical, nor to be pleasant (but this doesn't mean they have to be nightmares).
The more stressed you are, the less you'll remember what you dreamt. Making peace with your mind means allowing your subconscious to be free from your (conscious) interference.
Inertial thinking is the way a flock thinks. For humans, the flock is the society. Inertial thinking is the way the mind tries to be more stable, to integrate into the society. In this sense, inertial thinking is good for the mind.
There are two paths to the fulfillment of the inertial thinking, both being copied behavior, not new behavior (no new connection is made):
The problem is, inertial thinking also leads to "flat line" behavior. By "flat line behavior" I mean that nobody thinks "out of the box". Anyone who tries to improve himself (to be better than the rest of people) is pushed back in line by his inertial thinking.
An example of "bad" inertial thinking is when someone steals something for the first time. That person needs a certain psychological conjuncture (= high stress) to steal. If the conjuncture repeats, it is easier for him to steal again, then even easier, and so on. A thief who tries to stop stealing will always think there is no point in resisting the temptation since he already stole. Basically, he thinks his mind is already dirty and it makes no sense to stop. If the thief is capable (usually due to another high stress) of resisting the temptation, he just stopped thinking inertially. From this point forward, it will be easier and easier to do the same, to actually take control of his consciousness; this occurs in area 3 (or in the way there).
Of course, the worst the outcome of a person's actions are (for example, the death of another person), the easier it is to submit to inertial thinking.
The mind is very lazy, and this is why it is much easier for any human to adopt the thoughts of other people (= the flock) rather than thinking on his own.
Statistical relevance is a concept present in all natural phenomena.
For example, radioactivity has statistical relevance. Each radioactive atom has a certain probability to disintegrate itself. Taken alone, each radioactive atom can disintegrate now or never. However, if many such atoms are taken together, they will display a mass behavior, a statistical disintegration period, that is, half of the atoms (it's not possible to know which ones) will surely disintegration in a given time frame.
Statistical relevance is also visible in the way the human mind works. Many minds that try to solve a given problem come up with different solutions. Usually, the optimum solution is the one which is statistically determined, that is, the one which is considered best by most minds.
Many people believe this process is a form of collective thinking. This is false. Statistical relevance has nothing whatsoever to do with collectives. Statistics is applied to sets of data / items, not to collectives. A collective is a set of data / items which interact in a way which transforms individual items into average items; a collective is derived from a set, but a set is not derived from a collective.
The subconsciousness is easily influenced by the consciousness.
Have you ever said to yourself you would give a few years of your life (or a part of your body) to get something good instead? This is a huge mistake! If you think like this, you permanently scar your mind!
Basically, you're telling your brain that certain parts of your body are discardable. But they are not! The brain is built to take care of even the tiniest part of the body. If you tell him you don't care about your body, you induce a conflicted state to your brain, which propagates indefinitely throughout your mind.
Have you ever thought about having to choose between two good things? Again, a huge mistake! This is because you are setting a limit to yourself. Choose both good things!
Whenever you want to achieve something special, choose to eliminate all the bad things from your mind and life, not the good things. The bad things would be: ignorance, stupidity, hate, misery, and others like them.
Do not throw away the good part of your life! Throw away the bad part!
Don't waste time with bad things, but spend you time with good things!
Simple physical or mental exercises from yoga can be done by most people, but some parts of yoga are only for people with exceptionally strong minds. "Detachment" is one of them, an essential concept in yoga.
First, I will define "attachment" as something the mind likes, is attracted to.
Detachment is a very dangerous idea because most people interpret it as the opposite of attachment. Usually, this interpretation is associated with sexuality. For example, some people interpret sexual detachment as giving themselves to as many people as possible, without preference or attachment for someone.
Detachment doesn't mean the opposite of attachment. It means neither attachment, nor the opposite of attachment. Detachment means the lack of desire, not lack of (natural) inclination for something.
The inclination for (doing) something is built into the genetic and psychological structure of the brain and mind. Rejecting inclination means the repression (or maybe even the suppression) of instincts.
The desire is the effect, not the cause of instincts. Desire is the result of many contextual factors, including (but not limited to) instincts.
So, sexual detachment must not be interpreted as giving your body to everyone, but has to be used as a time to see what is beyond sexual desire, and what your subconscious feels about sexuality. Beyond sexual desire is the sexual instinct, distorted by various environmental factors which generate sexual frustration, and beyond that is the reproductive instinct.
Detachment can help with understanding instincts, but instincts can't help with understanding detachment. Therefore, sexuality must be controlled with the help of detachment, not detachment with the help of sexuality. Practice detachment to better understand and control your sexuality. Don't make sex thinking that you will be practicing detachment.
It is difficult to understand what detachment is precisely. So, rather than trying to do so, you should start from understanding what detachment is not (neither attachment, nor the opposite of attachment). From this point, the mind will start to learn on its own until, hopefully, the structure of the brain will change in a way which would let the consciousness see / feel the detachment, and it will become a normal part of the mind.
Here are a few points to think of on your quest for detachment:
Some religions and philosophies tell you that certain people have suffered for you, and so that all humans can be "free". This induces people to think that pain is a purpose and the only way to enlightenment. If you embrace this behavior then you will suffer, but you will not find knowledge. Pain and pleasure are illusions that divert you from your path. Illusions are not the path to Freedom and Understanding.
If you are purposely looking for pain and pleasure, you will experience them, but they will hold you back.
If pain and pleasure come from a natural experience, they may help you, but only if you realize that they are temporary.
The Edge gives a clear vision, to those who travel the path to it, of both sides of Nature, life and death, together, as one. Life and death are one because neither can exist without the other. But here is the catch: the statement is true only from the Nature's point of view, not the viewer's point of view.
Just as the Sun can turn into a supernova and destroy the human civilization without being evil from the Nature's point of view, so is this phenomenon evil from a human's point of view. Both points of view are true.
When you stand on the Edge, you can see life as earth, and death as an unfathomable river which turns where the earth starts. Both sides belong to Nature, yet if a human steps from earth into the water, he dies. As simple as that!
The earth is a metaphor for the universal spirit made from all living beings, the synergy of each and every consciousness. This spirit has no focus, as Gods have in religions. It can't help when prayed to, since it has no focus to act upon. Each part of it has to help itself in order to improve itself and the whole spirit. Being a part of the spirit doesn't mean losing self-focus.
Standing on the edge, between earth and water, makes it easy for confused people to step over and die. But a human being is alive. That's life! Its natural purpose is to live. If it's dead, then it's not alive.
Yoga gives a way to people to earn, with their own will and effort, a vision of both sides. This is the path to understanding, the path which can be taken by the ones who need to see the Edge. Those who understand, know that their journey ended and they can turn, on the path, to life. But those who don't reach the Edge by their own forces, step by step, could, in a moment of confusion, step over.
Only very determined people should take the journey offered by mental yoga!
At various moments of your life you want to make choices. There are only two possibilities: act or don't act.
Both determination and indetermination feed themselves (and increase their own effect). A clear mind is the result of constant determination, and leads to more determination and a more clear mind. Indetermination has to be removed from the mind because it only creates more indetermination.
Choice must come only as a result of determination. Determination doesn't mean that you choose to act, but can also mean that you choose not to act. If you are prepared for your choice, you choose to act. If you are not prepared for your choice, you choose not to act.
Don't stress yourself about not being able to make a choice to act because that means indetermination. If you don't feel ready to act then choose not to act.
Don't waste your time and energy waiting for gods to help you, or waiting signs from gods! Act yourself!
Even though doubt is the opposite of determination, it is good (in certain cases) because it means the mind can change, that is, the mind is free of rigidity.
Beliefs give mind rigidity: good (like stability and strength) and bad (like lack of change, thus of improvement).
Aggressiveness is very important for the free evolution of individuals and of the human civilization.
Some people say that lack of violence is what separates people from animals. They are mistaken, of course, because most animals use only the resources they need to survive, so they are not violent unless they have to protect their property. Anyway, lack of aggressiveness is what separates plants from animals.
Aggressiveness is not violence. Violence means abuse; it is intrinsic to the personality of violent individuals. Aggressiveness means bold, harsh; it is a response to the hardships of life.
The most important thing to know is how to choose your battles, and perhaps even more important, how to choose your enemies. Aggressiveness must not be born from fear, but from determination.
Various philosophies and religions say that in order to have a prosperous society people should love their neighbor (meaning everybody else). However, this is a false path because the root of evil in a society is violence, and the root of violence is the presence of hate (and greed), not the lack of love.
So, in order to have a prosperous society people should ignore any hate (and anger) they might feel for their neighbor. Note that I am not saying to not hate, but to ignore the hate you feel. Hate occurs for specific reasons and denying it would do almost as much damage as letting it control you.
Personally, I would have no need or desire to love someone who hurts me, but it is very important to me to ignore hate. I do not care what happens with the person who hurt me, thus I have no need to love that person.
Yes, it is very difficult / painful to do so, but think that you would suffer anyway, so why not use the opportunity to build on your future, to develop your mind, to make it withstand pain without breaking down.
Forcing your mind to ignore hate is how you make it get used with the lack of hate, and thus decrease the clouding effect that hate has over reason.
It is important to ignore hate because hate consumes energy and time. Note that forcing your mind to ignore hate also consumes energy and time, so in fact there is a balance, not a black and white issue.
It doesn't matter whether hate itself is good or bad, whether is solves or not your problems. What matters is that if you let it inside your mind it will consume you. So, you can choose: fight to keep the hate away (to ignore it), or let it grab you in its claws.
Conditioning is how various people manipulate others to do what they want.
Conditioning can be done by appealing to a person's moral compass, namely culpabilization (= induction of guilt, like in the case of religions), or through marginalization by using (more or less subtle) indication that you don't belong to a social group, in order to impose a specific moral on the conditioned person.
Culpabilization and marginalization are usually transferred to other people through aggressiveness because aggressiveness is a fast way to induce submission into the individuals which are to be conditioned.
For example, if someone tells you constantly that if you do something bad (it is not specified for whom is bad, but is implied to be bad for both you and the person who tries to condition you), you end up believing that is true and you slowly start doing that thing less and less. Basically, this is the application of the "Good dog! Bad dog!" principle.
Conditioning is usually present in groups because there is the so called "group moral", that is, a common view of moral.
The flock instinct models the human society, in both good and bad ways.
The main laws of the flock are:
The composition of a flock is:
It's important to note the difference between a flock and a group.
A flock is not exclusive and it tries to get inside it as many individuals as possible, and mold these individuals in one cast. Individuals accept to be part of a flock because they have no other choice. There is no diversity in a flock. The flock actually tries to destroy diversity, to level everything down to a common denominator.
It's also true that no diversity in a group, however groups are exclusive and thus put limits on their own behavior. Few people are part of a group because only few of them fit the requirements of the exclusion. While a flock molds its individuals to a new personality, a group doesn't do this because the individuals must already fit a specific personality. Because of this, there are many groups, with different views of how an individual should behave, and therefore they don't destroy diversity.
The following describes the various (but not all) types of the members of a flock.
Active member of a flock who believes that he was given sacred authority by the higher powers in order to try to bring the independent-thinking individuals, or what he calls "black sheep", back into the flock's normal beliefs about things like religion, politics and economy.
If the waster sees that the black sheep can't be simply convinced to renounce their beliefs, he tries to lure the black sheep into conversations of what he claims to be reasonable arguments, using doubt (like "this is what you've heard, not what you think"), guilt, shame and threats (like "you'll burn in hell").
However, the real interest of the wasters is to confuse the independent-thinking individuals, to waste their time and energy, to make their life as difficult as possible so as to increase the chance that they abandon due to the high cost of their way of life.
He tries to make the black sheep waste their time wandering through the labyrinth of illusory proofs, luring them to endlessly seek in fog what does not exist. The waster says "prove otherwise". And the black sheep go around seeking their much needed proofs instead of simply being free and just go do their usual business.
Active member of a flock who slowly and persistently tries to erodes the will of other people, in particular of those who are different than the majority.
Active member of a flock who tries to make people do things that their nature says not to do, by trying to diminish the role that psychological barriers (like the concept of morality) have in the evolution of mankind.
Active member of a flock who is an alpha-male wannabe, too coward to be an alpha-male, too ignorant to realize his full manipulative potential, always trying to get on top of other people because he believes that he is special and smarter than the rest, always trying to have the last word so that the other people remain without response because they are abruptly exposed to the absurd logic of the pusher and they lack the experience to react to it.
A pusher will not stop pushing when simply asked to stop. Therefore, other people would have to resort to violence in order to stop a pusher. But since most people will not become violent, a pusher continues to act thinking that "they can't do anything to me".
Active member of a flock who creates emotionally charged situations for his intended audience to empathize with, and which at the same time block any logical reactions from the people who would want to react, because they are unprepared.
The flock is herded to the conclusion that relinquishing control over their lives to an authority is good for the flock.
Active member of a flock who is endowed by Nature with a desire to acquire and exert power. He is perhaps the most dangerous of all sheep because he will control the flock but paralyze it with his lack of vision (that a leader has).
Passive member of a flock who can be manipulated through the use of specific psychological tactics, to move in a desired direction, who therefore form a large ideological support base for the claims of the manipulators.
Social habits are born from the flock instinct's goal of linking the individuals it contains. The tools used by the instinct in order to maintain these habits are shame, guilt and fear of confrontation. This means that some individuals will use these tools to force most people to submit to their will, because using these tools requires far less effort and resources than direct aggressiveness.
Handshaking and pecking are social habits. But they and kissing, touching, petting, and sexual acts are forms of communication. They all communicate the desire to physically and mentally control the object of attention, to have the body of that person under control.
What is different about these forms of communication is that some of them involve sexual symbols. A sexual symbols is either a sexual organ, or a sexual behavior. Kissing, petting, and a sexual act involve clear sexual symbols, like the mouth, the genital organs, or touching the genital organs, or touching the body in ways which generate clear sexual pleasure / interest.
For instance, it is one thing to touch a hand against a hand (= shake hands), but it's quite another to use a hand to touch the genital organs, or to give an erotic massage. The human perception of these two acts is different because only one of them involves a sexual symbol: the genital organs.
But there are cases, like pecking, when the sexual symbol is hidden under the pretense of a non-sexual form of communication. Pecking does involve a sexual symbol: the mouth. The reason why the sexual aspect of this form of communication is hidden, and thus pecking is considered a non-sexual form of communication, is because the people who are being pecked are afraid to confront the people who are trying to peck them, or because these people feel a sexual pleasure from doing so.
(For the sake of shortness of this section, it's too complicated to explain that "sexual pleasure" means pleasure obtained during sexual behavior, not obtained during a sexual act, and to explain the difference between the sexual behavior and a sexual act. In short, a sexual act is a simple tool of the sexual behavior.)
Simply put, if you are being pecked and you accept it, it is either because you feel sexual pleasure from pecking that person, or because you are afraid to to say "NO" to that person. If you would say "no", you are likely to have to explain your behavior and to confront the potential anger of the person you are refusing.
Anger is a tool used by the people who are trying to make you feel embarrassed and guilty in order to make you submit to their will, although they are not necessarily conscious about their goal, so that you either actively follow their instructions or passively withdraw inside your protective mental shell.
When I was young and I was starting to refuse to peck with relatives, it was pretty difficult because some of them were angry because I didn't accept to do it. At the time I was not conscious about the tools used by the flock for conditioning people into getting in line with the flock's goals - domination, but I was strong enough to resist to these attacks.
You must understand that your body belongs to you and to nobody else. The anger of the person you are refusing exists just because that person wants to control you, wants to physically touch you, wants to own your body for a few moments. So, you can make a choice and be the only owner of your body but also have to spend some of your energy to stand up to the person who wants to control you, or you can make the choice of letting someone else own your body for a few moments.
If you believe you can say "no" then just do so for the rest of your life and see how the embarrassment and guilt you'll feel because you don't follow this social habit, will try to stop you from refusing to peck.
Let's say Bob gives Alice flowers. Is it normal for Alice to peck Bob?
If Bob gives flowers to Alice and he expects Alice to peck him, which is a wide spread habit, he is trying to buy (from a biological point of view) sexual gratification from Alice. As explained previously, a part of the motivation for pecking is biological and it involves a sexual symbol: the mouth. If Alice is pecking Bob, she does so either because she feel sexual pleasure from doing so, or because she is submitting to the social habit of sexually gratifying men who give flowers to women.
All humans are part of a network: the human civilization.
Most people organize themselves in sub-networks like philosophies and religions. Any such network gives people extra psychological energy because of empathy (or the synergy of mental energies). Humans feel that belonging to a group gives them more power to go through life.
When someone gets isolated (either physically or psychologically) from all networks, he begins to suffer psychologically, because all humans are genetically designed to be part of a society.
People think they are the same they were one second before, or one day before. Their memory "tricks" them into thinking they are the same. Nothing is the same as before! Every single tiny little thing changes the mind.
Every experience, every memory changes the personality of a person, and any relationship that person has (by increasing or decreasing the psychological distance between partners).
However, the mind also carries its identity, its essence, through time – the memory.
Do you remember everything you did the day before, or the previous year? You can't because the memory doesn't store every detail, and so you can't remember every detail about yourself – about who you were at that time. You can only remember certain key features about you and your life.
Seeing through the illusion of being the same is essential in the development of the mind.
The most important step in human evolution was (and is) the communication. Speech is the most important type of communication because it is the way humans are able to transmit fast the essence of their thoughts.
Communication is also very important in relationships because it is the only way partners can decide quickly, with as little pain as possible, if they are compatible or not in key aspects of their personalities.
However, communication can't usually solve, and should not be used to solve, problems, simply because the partners may be incompatible. Communication simply shortens the painful times. It simply brings incompatibilities to surface.
Waiting for your partner guess what's in your mind, without clearly saying what you want, is a waste of time and energy, simply, is childish.
Your subconsciousness is not your slave, is not your master. It is you! Unity of mind is necessary for its stability.
The mind of an individual is formed from many separate elements, which in many cases behave independently, perhaps even in opposite directions. Thus, integrating all these elements, achieving unity is desirable.
People pray to higher principles because they feel a need for protection. The main biological protective principle is the parent, mother or father. Yet, the need for protection is a part of your mind, a part of you, a part of unity; this principle is built in you.
Praying to the protective principle means praying for unity of mind. So "pray to all to let you see" the harmonious joining of all elements which make the human mind. In their absence (= death), there is no observer of Nature, of Life, there is no Unity of mind.
Make peace with your instincts! Instincts are the support of the mind, the base on which the human personality develops.
What is the purpose of life, or more precisely, of Nature itself? I don't know, but I do know that some questions can only torment the mind because they have no answer. So, instead of seeking such answers I would rather work to understand the full power of instincts, so I can understand that the foundation of myself is the human body which is driven by instincts.
Is there a soul? Perhaps, but I am not sure, I have no proof of its existence.
What I know for sure is that the body which I have is real (as I perceive it) and it is built according to a precise genetic program. The genes are the ones that make every cell of the body live. When I will understand and make peace with this essence of life and of myself, I will embark on another journey – the one which will show me if there is (or not) a soul. Until then I can only be amazed, time after time, by the complexity of the web of life created by just a handful of (incredibly powerful) instincts: pure life.
Everyone is responsible for his own life, for his own choices. Nobody else will make the right choices. Every human has to realize that only he, alone, has the power to influence his own mind, to make it overcome the hardest obstacles, even if they rise one after another, relentlessly.
Understanding how the human mind works is dangerous because you can see it's a machine and all principles have no foundation other than illusions. But this is the moment which makes or breaks a human being, the moment when the human can choose whether to have principles, even without intrinsic reasons for them, or be a machine.
However, most people are not prepared to choose, because their choice would be too strongly influenced by instincts. Illusions (like the belief in: life after the death of the body, religions) can moderate choices which are driven only by instincts.
Stop considering yourself and stop behaving like a victim. Stop sacrificing what you have good. Want to be happy, not to suffer. If you think that the suffering and pain make you morally superior, you'll end up suffering, living in pain and constantly making sacrifices, but you will not be morally superior, you'll just be deceiving yourself that you are.
Tell relentlessly to your consciousness to Stop hating and to Expand. Always trade the bad parts of your mind: ignorance, hate, rage. In exchange, ask for: knowledge, wisdom, beauty, peace. If at some point your mind gets locked in a loop of negative thoughts, tell it to stop. Nature does not care about good or bad, so it will trade its goods with your bads without hesitation.