serenesam
Active Member
I really admire those who like to look within themselves as it is here in which they believe they have found all the answers. It is here they believe it is what is best and what constitutes best. In the process of looking within oneself, I do wonder if gut instinct or intuition exists in conjunction to looking within oneself or if they are in actuality separate from one another. I would like to take a closer thorough look at this internal philosophy of thought and belief. Analogous to one of my previous writings named "Thought Processes and Its Impact" (http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/181959-thought-processes-and-its-impact.html), I noted missing important key points perhaps not known to the typical average individual both in the expert arenas as well as the non-expert arenas. More importantly, I felt the tracing to finding the true root cause of a particular thought did not go far enough in the view and opinion of many people (speaking to pretty much everyone).
So in the case of looking within oneself to find the answers, I am puzzled by the fact that there are countless instances in which when one were to look within oneself, one is still wrong, still searching for answers, or inevitably find out eventually that they did not have any answer even though they may have initially thought so. This is similar to the whole notion of suggesting to others to follow their gut instinct, listen to the inner voice, or that their intuition is usually correct. The funny thing about the precedent statement is that it literally says "their intuition is usually correct." If one were to look up the word usually in the dictionary, one may logically conclude that this isn't always entirely correct. In other words, just because one's intuition is usually correct and (hence the usage of the word usually is used), does not mean that one's intuition is always going to be correct. We also find in so many instances (pertaining to our daily lives and the global world around us), our gut feeling, inner voice, or intuition may not be right.
A potential counterargument by those in support of the internal philosophy is that the individual consciousness is linked to the collective consciousness or the collective intelligence and so basically any idea by one individual would be known to all other individuals. In reality though, we know that is not true. It's true that the knowledge possessed by the collective can sometimes be transmitted to a particular individual but certainly not all knowledge is transmitted because that one individual is able to come to the understanding of something not known or understood by the collective. I sometimes wonder where the brilliant idea of a particular individual comes from and if it does come from within is there another dimension or layer in which that idea comes from? Is there a beginning point in which one can pinpoint the origin much farther back than the internal self? Within oneself, aren't we all connected to form a collective intelligence of existence? Isn't the collective intelligence supposed to be superior to the individual kind of like the notion that two brains are better than one but then again maybe one brain might be better than both brains?
Because a particular individual is able to possess knowledge not quite known or understood by everyone else, I believe it is safe to say that that can be attributed to a Mysterious Variable. I do not want to say that the tracing of this origin is going back to an outside entity such as God because I would like to speak within the context in which we do not know if such as outside entity exist or do not exist. It is much safer this way because that is what current reality says and shows us, in other words, we have no way of determining as to whether or not a God outside of ourselves exist or do not exist.
Please keep in mind that I am not trying to refute the notion that all the answers come from within us and the internal self but rather I am just wondering if there is still yet another origin beyond the internal self (or in this case I guess that would translate to the precedent meaning something prior to the internal self in which brilliant ideas emerge from).
Perhaps gut instinct may actually be separate from the act of looking within oneself because it does not require any extensive thinking. Gut instinct is automatic and may occur within a matter of seconds. It is this in which I see the possibility of the validity of the oneness theory, that we are all One and that we are God yet gut instinct itself isn't always entirely correct either. Where then is the existence of Omniscience? Either way, even if gut instinct was separate, this does not support the internal philosophy and so does the act of looking within oneself as previously explained in prior paragraphs.
Finally, another potential counterargument would be that the God Source split itself up into many pieces and so you get different beings, people, and things. All of these differences would constitute God. Even if all of this was and is entirely correct, this still does not explain the inaccuracies of the internal self, as well as the joint effort of a multitude of individuals (which we also know may have inaccuracies and the crazy thing is that the "group mind" may have more inaccuracies compared to the individual self or that one person.....). Hence, the only logical conclusion is unknown or as I would like to put it, an Unknown Variable.
So in the case of looking within oneself to find the answers, I am puzzled by the fact that there are countless instances in which when one were to look within oneself, one is still wrong, still searching for answers, or inevitably find out eventually that they did not have any answer even though they may have initially thought so. This is similar to the whole notion of suggesting to others to follow their gut instinct, listen to the inner voice, or that their intuition is usually correct. The funny thing about the precedent statement is that it literally says "their intuition is usually correct." If one were to look up the word usually in the dictionary, one may logically conclude that this isn't always entirely correct. In other words, just because one's intuition is usually correct and (hence the usage of the word usually is used), does not mean that one's intuition is always going to be correct. We also find in so many instances (pertaining to our daily lives and the global world around us), our gut feeling, inner voice, or intuition may not be right.
A potential counterargument by those in support of the internal philosophy is that the individual consciousness is linked to the collective consciousness or the collective intelligence and so basically any idea by one individual would be known to all other individuals. In reality though, we know that is not true. It's true that the knowledge possessed by the collective can sometimes be transmitted to a particular individual but certainly not all knowledge is transmitted because that one individual is able to come to the understanding of something not known or understood by the collective. I sometimes wonder where the brilliant idea of a particular individual comes from and if it does come from within is there another dimension or layer in which that idea comes from? Is there a beginning point in which one can pinpoint the origin much farther back than the internal self? Within oneself, aren't we all connected to form a collective intelligence of existence? Isn't the collective intelligence supposed to be superior to the individual kind of like the notion that two brains are better than one but then again maybe one brain might be better than both brains?
Because a particular individual is able to possess knowledge not quite known or understood by everyone else, I believe it is safe to say that that can be attributed to a Mysterious Variable. I do not want to say that the tracing of this origin is going back to an outside entity such as God because I would like to speak within the context in which we do not know if such as outside entity exist or do not exist. It is much safer this way because that is what current reality says and shows us, in other words, we have no way of determining as to whether or not a God outside of ourselves exist or do not exist.
Please keep in mind that I am not trying to refute the notion that all the answers come from within us and the internal self but rather I am just wondering if there is still yet another origin beyond the internal self (or in this case I guess that would translate to the precedent meaning something prior to the internal self in which brilliant ideas emerge from).
Perhaps gut instinct may actually be separate from the act of looking within oneself because it does not require any extensive thinking. Gut instinct is automatic and may occur within a matter of seconds. It is this in which I see the possibility of the validity of the oneness theory, that we are all One and that we are God yet gut instinct itself isn't always entirely correct either. Where then is the existence of Omniscience? Either way, even if gut instinct was separate, this does not support the internal philosophy and so does the act of looking within oneself as previously explained in prior paragraphs.
Finally, another potential counterargument would be that the God Source split itself up into many pieces and so you get different beings, people, and things. All of these differences would constitute God. Even if all of this was and is entirely correct, this still does not explain the inaccuracies of the internal self, as well as the joint effort of a multitude of individuals (which we also know may have inaccuracies and the crazy thing is that the "group mind" may have more inaccuracies compared to the individual self or that one person.....). Hence, the only logical conclusion is unknown or as I would like to put it, an Unknown Variable.
