And to what goal? Once one sees these positions the questions manifest by the tool of enslavement (intellect).
Conventional Wisdom would lead us to believe that "intellect" is "required for survival".
Conventional Wisdom would lead us to believe that a seven year old, abandoned in the forest, could NEVER survive for more than perhaps a couple of days at most.
Yes it would, and I appreciate your sharing an example of it not being so. While it seems obvious to me that intellect has been of great value in many ways to survival, I also believe our natural state is one that is lacking the intellect. I somewhat see it like this.
In the *beginning was the **Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was ***God.
*I view this beginning as the introduction to intellect being installed in us.
** I view the Word as being the initial spell(ing)s imprinted in us.
*** I view the word God in this context to imply that the creator of these WORDS (spells) is to be worshiped. We see most everyone around us not ever question their intellect, instead of seeing it merely as a tool among others for survival, we have been trained to be subservient to the WORD and identify ourselves as being one with the WORD.
FOR I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE.
THOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS (WORDS) BEFORE ME.
For thou shalt *worship no other *god: for the *LORD, whose name is **Jealous, is a jealous ***God:
*Bind to oneself, identify as, implement as an alternative WORD (spell)
** God (Word/Spell/Higher Being to be worshiped/deferred to).
*** Jealous, a state of dysfunction that occurs when one is trying to run opposing WORD/SCRIPTS at once. This is referred to elsewhere in that book as a dis-ease/demon known as Legion. You referred to it as ID earlier.
Edited to add a thank you for the videos, they were interesting.
Great metaphor.
id is the pre-verbal mind. id is the sensory mind without the prefrontal cortex.
the id wants "food" & "comfort".
the ego (intellect) formulates strategies to serve the id.
I believe what is throwing me on the id is it seems to combine two distinct areas as one, which is not uncommon when trying to map out what is what.
Dr. Fraud (Freud) postulated that it is a pleasure principle that drives this, which is at odds with a survival principle. Pleasure is not a need, although satisfying a need can at times be pleasurable.
Survival is a need. If using this definition of his to define an id, I will have to maintain my view that Id is driven by intellect, as it is the driving force behind seeking pleasure for the most part. I believe that survival drives and what we are born with are all driven/within the realm of feeling, which is above serving pleasure.
I agree that this is part of what the intellect does, when it is not serving those who construct the spells that are being handed to us for their purposes.
Thank you.
When I noted "food" & "comfort", the idea of "comfort" = "not death" + "not pain" + "not hunger" + "not danger".
Most of our critical "pleasure" receptors are directly tied to "survival instinct".
Eating food = survival
In a primal environment, fat + sugar + salt = increased chances of survival
Procreation = survival
Even "social status" = increased chances of survival
I will accept that, although where I view this it still falls in my classification as pleasure comes from intellect. I do so because the area of feeling is unconcerned with pleasure or displeasure.
In the area of feeling, one is unconcerned with pleasure/displeasure. The sole intent is result. Classifying the way the intellect does is not within its realm. Things just are.
Eating is not always pleasurable.
Procreation is not always pleasurable.
A graphic example of this would be the way the area of feeling handles life death situations. Feeling does not resent whatever presents the danger. Feeling does not feel gratitude if a tool or circumstance arises that one can use to be victor. It merely acts to fulfill what needs doing.
All of the things you mention above have the ability to both bring pleasure or discomfort/pain or death. Feeling is not concerned with ones view of these things, nor is it seeking to classify them. It accepts them for what they are with no judgement as it acts to nullify or utilize for an outcome.
Now the question where this gets tricky, is on what is the driving force for the outcome. It is none of those things, and I'm ignorant on what is the driving force behind feeling and its extension will. That's why I can't say free will can exist, since it's impossible I believe to know what is controlling the area of feeling. I can only witness it in action.
Ok, so you're supposing some sort of "sub-id"?
This sounds to me like a function of the super-ego (flow-state).
super-ego = without a conventional "sense of personal identity" or "beyond ego" (superior to "ego")
When you say "feeling" are you speaking of "emotionless" action?
Try this on,
PURE SENSORY LOGIC (PSL) (super-ego) is not concerned with one's view of these things, nor is it seeking to classify them. It accepts them for what they are with no judgement as it acts to nullify or utilize for an outcome.
Like GPT3.
Like ALPHA-ZERO
Or perhaps like,
But even this PURE SENSORY LOGIC (PSL) is not "self-guiding".
It takes commands (mission objectives) from the id (or the sub-id).
have you considered "survival instinct" might be the captain of the captain of the ship?
I don't have time to watch these at the moment, but thought I would take a few moments to extend my outlook more as I see we are at an impasse due to my view(s).
I continue to get lost by your probing due to your usage of psychological terms. It has been 4 decades roughly since I studied anything to do with psychology. At the time, I found most of it to be (in my opinion) a bunch of crap. Labels being attached to things to pretend we know something we don't. As the years went on, this grew to include some pretty horrible experimentation on the subjects, both through torturous physical experiments and in more recent years of a chemical nature. Remembering back, it seems the only two things I found somewhat agreeable (although has been so long I wouldn't be able to verbalize with any conviction why) would be some of the assertions of Jung, as well as a branch called Gestalt psychology.
Now that I've shared the disadvantage I have when you utilize terms from psychology, I will share a simplistic explanation on how I view this. I'll probably be repeating what I've told you, but maybe I can phrase it differently to aid in what I believe is taking place. Everything below this is now my opinion.
There are two parts to us, our intellect and our natural feeling state. The two do not mix. Intellect is not able to fully understand what is taking place in the natural area of feeling. It is only able to grasp small areas of it by reducing it to surface areas that it can observe, and then manipulate. It will never be able to understand/grasp the many powerful things from this are of ourselves.
It is very adept however at manipulating feeling, enough so that it lulls one with its constant chatter and demands of worship into allowing one to not flex the mysterious area within us all. Dulling our feeling muscle if you would as it demands we allow it to take control.
Due to this (that I hold as) truth, it is impossible to know intellectually what captains this area. I've considered strongly that it's possible that like the intellect being a foreign installation, so too is feeling and we are little more than the observer all the way around.
The actions taking place here are not clothed in emotion for sure. But as I mentioned above, that is not a proper definition as it only describes a small surface area. I'm not qualified to say that feeling does not have functions that are non action.
I may add to this in a few days once I've watched the video, however I hope I've bridged much of the gap that has been existing between us due to differences in syntax.
and,