Equanimity

I’m not sensitive at all. I just understand how manipulation works.

You want me to think : “oh, I don’t want be associated with immorality and murder so I better say that equanimity is good.”

or “oh, rejecting equanimity is just like accepting murder. I don’t agree with murder so I need to accept equanimity.”

It’s all bullshit. It’s all based on pushing someone’s emotional buttons.

You are simply shooting arrows at the term ‘equanimity’ without bothering to understand what is equanimity.

Note the critical point in that article;

Your claim is equanimity stifle creativity.
The above prove you wrong.
The above sort of ‘calmness’ arises from a cultivated state of equanimity.

How can one who has lost control of their emotions be creative when they are overwhelmed by their emotions. If there is any ounce of creativity from these highly emotional disturbed mood swingers, those creativity would have come out when they are calm [a quality of equanimity, albeit low in this case]. These people are suffering from some kind of mental disorders which no ordinary person would want to promote or strive for.

Thus the most effective way to seek creativity without any danger of mental disorders is via the cultivation of a state of equanimity [not apathy, ‘frozen’ mental paralysis or indifference] ’

You are still overly sensitive on this.
I have no such intentions at all.
All I did was stating facts to avoid being blunt and offensive just in case of misunderstanding.
Point is, if I don’t qualify, some people will take it as a direct insult.

Some random guy says something in a blog and it’s a proof or foundation for a proof?

Again equating lack of equanimity with mental disorders.

I am not insisting on that.
Given the limitation within a discussion in a forum, it is one clue and a lead for one to seek further reinforcements.

You are complaining due to the lack of depth and width in your knowledge database.

Note it is well known there are many creative people who were recognized as mad and within other DSM categories.
Note Van Gogh, Sylvia Plath and others.
Those who suffer from severe depression has extreme mood swings from disturbed to normalcy.

This is what I meant by my above statement.
These creative people are unfortunately suffering from some kind of mental disorders which no ordinary person would want to promote or strive for to gain creativity. What is wrong with this?

They don’t lose creativity, they lose too much creativity. Of course, it’s their decision how they are going to live their lives. I’m just saying that equanimity =/= no creativity. It means less creativity if it means anything. And less is oftentimes more.

The East has one quality that the West lacks and that is holism or in plain terms the right brain.

You forgot to say ‘height’.
Your personal ‘evaluations’ got tiresome a long time ago.

Equanimity is equivalent to today’s buzzword “mindfulness” [from Buddhism], which in turn, is synonymous with hypnosis, or altered state of consciousness.

The Science of Meditation and the State of Hypnosis:
asch.net/portals/0/journalli … olroyd.pdf

The effects of meditation and hypnosis are similar:

“Dropping of the awareness of the environment and loss of sense of separate self”

“…letting go of awareness of physical sense perception and space, psychological (and consciousness) boundaries…”

“Presence of theta waves in frontal area correspond to shutting down of executive and choice functions…, desire for action…and switching off of neural connections”

“The evidence indicates that both hypnosis and concentration meditation result in inhibitory patterns, particularly in middle and frontal cortical areas associated with executive functions and cognitive control”

The question is then posted as to whether the practice of mindful meditation increases one’s suggestability [due to increased presence of alpha and theta brain waves].

There are similarities and differences between meditation and hypnosis.

eocinstitute.org/meditation/med … ilarities/

There are lots of articles on this topic.

Basically meditation is for the overall well-being including specific areas of the individual, OTOH, hypnosis often has a specific target in mind.

Often the scare mongering by those who are anti-meditation and do not understand meditation is falsely presented as meditation empties the mind and thus make it vulnerable for Satan to get in.

Generally there are two types of meditation, i.e.

1. Concentration
2. Mindfulness

Both are necessary and concentration facilitates mindfulness.

Experiences of altered states of consciousness do happen during meditation but they are not the objective of meditation and the meditator is often advised to let such experiences go and one should not crave for it no matter how ecstatic the epiphany or experiences.

I don’t simply make such a statement without the justifications.

To add; if any one were to advise me with supporting justifications I will take their advice and update myself and I have been doing a lot of such in the past.

reminds me of this article (scroll down to decognition process and persuasion techniques).
dicksutphen.com/battle-for-your-mind.html
The right brain is often targeted in hypnosis, NLP, and other brainwashing techniques, while the left is being immobilized or distracted.

In a manner of speaking…Yes!

… and Satan inspired “busy-ness” keeps God out?

Do tell me more.

Other than it being false…Sure! (note the use of the exclamation mark) Without right brain functions we also have all sorts of problems. Someone says right brain skills are missing in the West. You argue AS IF this is a call for the elimination of the left brain. See the problem?

Like you are at work and and someone says we need to get better at having better designs on our products.
Your response: if our products have no contents, we will lose business.
Head bang.

Perhaps if while you meditate someone is there telling you things. I mean, that is perhaps. In hypnosis you have someone telling you things. Someone utilizes your open state for a purpose.

So you call it proof. When he points out it is not proof but rather an appeal to the authority of some guy who wrote a blog, you now call it a clue.
See, again, this is where one acknowledges the other person is correct.

NOtice what happened. You say you can’t be creative if you have lost control of emotions, then you give examples of extemely creative people who had strong emotions, even to a problematic level. You just slide over the fact that you were incorrect. You move to the next point. They can be creative but it’s a bad tradeoff. Wildly oversimplified, but here’s what you did not do: admit that what you said about creativity earlier was false, even while supplying evidence it was false yourself. Then you could move on to say it was not worth it. You argue without honor.

If you have too much of the left side of the brain you will find it very difficult to operate in fluid, real-time, situations. You would have this need to predict every little movement in the environment which won’t work because real-time situations require quick decisions and deep thinking is slow – it does not occur fast enough. Sure, all else being all, it’s better to be precise in your predictions than to be imprecise, but in reality it is rarely the case that all else is equal. That’s the trade-off. The more precise your modelling of the situation is, which means the greater the number of facts it takes into account, the slower it is. So if you strive for precision and your motto is “the devil is in the details”, you will be immune to manipulation but you will suck at real-time activities (such as social activities.) You will only be able to operate under laboratory conditions. Thinking isn’t all bottom-up and it does not have to be. More facts isn’t always better than fewer facts, clarity isn’t always better than ambiguity, precision isn’t always better than imprecision, reason isn’t always better than intuition and so on.

What do you think is more fundamental?
Ambiguity or clarity?