Some thoughts on negative vs positive thinking

[Dargor]

From my perspective (being labeled as one after all) a pessimist is just an average person who's been disappointed way too much for their own good, and grown weary of it. We no longer have any high expectations from anything as a way to protect ourselves from more hurt as the result of continual disappointment. I admit that the downside of this may be overlooking potential opportunities because we always expect the same outcome. Oh well..

In contrary, besides only naivity I think the impossible and often unrealistic high expectations are the flaws of an optimist. So in the end, which one is really better? I honestly don't know. An optimist assumes the best, while a pessimist assumes the worst; an optimist invented the airplane and a pessimist invented the parachute. So in a way, both contribute something considerable. It's just a matter of which team you belong to.

[Flexi-Girl]

We can claim that there is no objective negative or positive but I would beg to differ. There is a hierarchy of value.

Eating is preferable to starving
Being loved is preferable to being hated
Having money is preferable to being broke
Having fun is preferable to boredom
Having a home is preferable to homelessness

I notice the backlash against 'positive thinking' is often associated with being delusional, enabling, not taking responsibility, avoiding real problems or covering up ones ill conceived intentions.

The truth about positive thinking:

One can be a responsible person thoroughly grounded in reality while still having an infectious optimism. Likewise, one can still be made better by some pain.

I would say however that being negative is ultimately negative as it shuts down any possibility. It breeds contempt, nihilism, and apathy. It adds to the suffering of the world.

Originally Posted by Flexi-Girl

I feel better when I have gratitude and optimism. I guess there is no way of knowing one way or the other if that's a bad thing.

You'll know when you're honest with yourself, you'll know when you have to work hard to cover up your feelings but inside it hurts so bad. You're telling yourself that you're doing the right thing and you're trying to convince yourself that you're Spiritual because you're being positive, then underneath all you have is despair. When you're telling yourself you're positive and all you feel is hurt, what you have is conflict. Emotional intelligence is being able to deal with your emotions intelligently and effectively to come to a satisfactory outcome.

You'll know the difference between being at peace, having grown and matured and fooling yourself.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

""I still haven't had a good answer to this question. Objectively, what makes positive positive and what makes negative negative? Please, be the first.

What is meant here by, “be the first” according to the quoted, means “be the first” to conform to the limitations, expectations, philosophical orientations and agenda of the challenger - then you’d be the first! (to reason or convince an adamant resistance or complacency)

What makes “positive” positive is the Will and Vision of Spirit, which is the incessant transformation, evolution of life, and the transcendence of ignorance in all formations - toward the greater manifestation of light, delight, truth, e.g., Divinity in the physical plane.

Anything that is aligned with That Purpose is positive. Anything that discourages, denies, evades, dismisses, etc. such is negative. It’s not about how ego-mind defines positive or negative for its own agenda of self-preservation and self-perpetuation i.e., “balance”. That is a falsehood. Spirituality is purely concerning the Will of Spirit for each individual life, the confluence with such is what spirituality is and does - - consciously and deliberately as a practice in and through each individual life.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Flexigirl

I think the reason having a positive mindset is looked down upon more often in the world is because it's been conflated with naivety. It's easy to be positive when you're living in paradise and your not worried about paying your bills. Besides, nobody likes to be preached at.

On the other hand having a pessimistic negative attitude seems perfectionist because you find dissatisfaction in most things. No matter what, something is always lacking. You never find satisfaction because nothing is worth caring about and hence forth, worth preserving.

If you fail to see value in anything, no matter how bleak it might seem, you become nihilistic. Life loses meaning and purpose, while you give way to your base impulses.

I think being positive, although sometimes foolish is ultimately better. There is something about falling short of perfection, and still finding value. Even if or when you see the flaws in a thing, you can still love it, or you can still see it's potential. That's got to be a good thing.

Maybe the problem with a positive mindset is about discerning what is and what isn't worth caring about. You don't always have to be passive and positive about everything that happens. You don't have to suppress your negative feelings to be optimistic.

Flexigirl,

The reason a positive mindset is superior - actually, infinitely superior - is because a positive mindset is aligned with the intrinsic nature and purpose of Truth and Reality itself. The innate qualities of Nature are light, delight, progressive consciousness, etc. - Divinity.

Everything else is derivative of that which in the physical is a dynamic process that is inherently divine (positive) but which is obscured conditionally. That apparent obscurity is the origin of what we call negative - the conditional inertia and limitation which is universally appearing as reality, but which is an illusion e.g., “negative” because not really true. All negativity is a dead-end. And this is one of the great lessons - or bad habits - that takes so many iterations to eventually learn the hard way. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

The positive mindset is UNCONDITIONAL in its transformational potential because that positivity is the latent and inexorably emerging spiritual aspiration that is the Transcendental Will of Spirit embodied within all physical reality. It transcends and supervenes conditional circumstance and is not dependent on it (even if circumstance presents opportunity to engage positive transcendental orientation). Negativity on the other hand is dependent on circumstance as the dominant "reality", hence that orientation tends to perpetuate more of the same.

We have a false notion that there must be a “balance” between the positive and negative as if to say “let’s not get too carried away with our true Nature - we need to adhere to the familiar falsehoods and limitations of earthly life to maintain status quo.” But that is a false appearance based in the conditional ignorance itself. As such there is no need to "balance" your faith and intuition with doubt and sterile reason. Why negate progression?

Your positive attitude is not foolish - it is essential for spiritual evolution. That’s not to say that this process isn’t daunting, and that isn’t the same as foolish - because ignorance is so pervasive and so persistent. But that is precisely why a positive mindset is valuable or even indispensable, because it has a real utility in achieving that transformation. In a way, it is an invocation of Spirit (although not directly, but by attribute or quality).

And yes, discrimination/discernment in how to apply a positive mindset is also valuable - they go together; they are not mutually exclusive. Together they accelerate the process, because one enhances the other.


~ J

Thank you so much, friends for your help and support.

Flexi-Girl, thank you so much for starting this thread

Namaste

Jl

Originally Posted by Jyotir

What is meant here by, “be the first” according to the quoted, means “be the first” to conform to the limitations, expectations, philosophical orientations and agenda of the challenger - then you’d be the first! (to reason or convince an adamant resistance or complacency)

What makes “positive” positive is the Will and Vision of Spirit, which is the incessant transformation, evolution of life, and the transcendence of ignorance in all formations - toward the greater manifestation of light, delight, truth, e.g., Divinity in the physical plane.

Anything that is aligned with That Purpose is positive. Anything that discourages, denies, evades, dismisses, etc. such is negative. It’s not about how ego-mind defines positive or negative for its own agenda of self-preservation and self-perpetuation i.e., “balance”. That is a falsehood. Spirituality is purely concerning the Will of Spirit for each individual life, the confluence with such is what spirituality is and does - - consciously and deliberately as a practice in and through each individual life.

Ego-mind defines Spirituality for its own agenda, ego-mind tries to convince others that it - above all others - knows the Will of Spirit. If the Spiritual Adept wasn't so intentionally ignorant of the Jungian definition of ego the Spiritual Adept would understand how everything you've said there comes from your ego-mind, as you put it.

So tell me Jyotir, what happens between the eye sending signals to the brain as you read that post, and it becoming a belief that you think you actually have the first clue about who I am? There's more to Spirituality than Spirituality, and it'll affect people's Spirituality regardless of whether it's ignored or not.

Positive and negative is what the perceiver thinks it is, that much is obvious. It's agenda, nothing more.

Originally Posted by Flexi-Girl

Eating is preferable to starving
Being loved is preferable to being hated
Having money is preferable to being broke
Having fun is preferable to boredom
Having a home is preferable to homelessness

So what's positive or negative is your preference? If those things you've listed are your Life's Purpose?

Originally Posted by Flexi-Girl

I notice the backlash against 'positive thinking' is often associated with being delusional, enabling, not taking responsibility, avoiding real problems or covering up ones ill conceived intentions.

It's the stuff cognitive behaviour therapy is made of, away from any beliefs. When you you think positive and inside you know your emotions are a mess, all it does is cause conflict inside you and it does affect your mental health. Telling yourself you need to think positively when all you want to do is break down and cry is not emotional intelligence. Dealing with what you feel effectively is 'positive', and when you do that it changes your existential experience. The next time 'something negative' happens, you have the strength to deal with it.

Originally Posted by Flexi-Girl

One can be a responsible person thoroughly grounded in reality while still having an infectious optimism. Likewise, one can still be made better by some pain.

You can be optimistic that you can deal with it, that's not a bad thing and in some ways it could be Law of Attraction.

Originally Posted by Flexi-Girl

I would say however that being negative is ultimately negative as it shuts down any possibility. It breeds contempt, nihilism, and apathy. It adds to the suffering of the world.

Yes it does. But your reality is defined by your definitions, so you can define the 'negative' as a 'lesson' just as easily as you can define it as 'negative'.


What I think you're missing here is that when you call it positive or negative, you're creating your own reality. That's the truth.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

""Ego-mind defines Spirituality for its own agenda, ego-mind tries to convince others that it - above all others - knows the Will of Spirit. If the Spiritual Adept wasn't so intentionally ignorant of the Jungian definition of ego the Spiritual Adept would understand how everything you've said there comes from your ego-mind, as you put it.

Yes, ego-mind defines spirituality for its own agenda which is (as tacitly approved by standard intellectual convention as positive) the negation of spiritual possibility. It tries to convince others as a projection of the intentionally avoidant Jungian internal conflict that there is no spirituality, that spirituality is just a fantasy, suspect, delusional, or even dangerous in order to protect and perpetuate its sovereign identity which is actually a falsehood and illusion. But, shhhh…, don’t tell anyone on a spiritual forum because that’s a nefarious and negative zombie agenda.

Meanwhile, Spirit doesn’t know its own agenda? And if we are part and parcel of Spirit how can it be (as you evidently argue) that this Will/"agenda" of Spirit remains - e.g., presumed as axiomatic - ever unknowable to human beings?

But I guess if one has a keyboard and plenty of time on hand, one could make the case for negating and dismissing thousands of years of evolving traditions, revered teachings, and directly experienced and observed attainment that in essence is the confluence with That Will.

So tell me Jyotir, what happens between the eye sending signals to the brain as you read that post, and it becoming a belief that you think you actually have the first clue about who I am?

In all fairness to yourself Greenslade please answer the same question. For instance, you’ve boasted numerous times on the forum of having a “Certificate of Mediumship” on your wall. Ok, so likewise, what happens between the eye sending signals to the brain; do those microtubules percolate awareness as one looks at a framed piece of paper on the wall, and it becomes a belief that one thinks they actually have the first clue about who they are? Please, have at it.

There's more to Spirituality than Spirituality, and it'll affect people's Spirituality regardless of whether it's ignored or not.

I reserve a healthy skepticism for such inane platitudes as they have little practical value or utility in spiritual life, even if as seeming mystical conundrums they make for great Obi-Kenobi lines in Star-Wars sequels. On a spiritual discussion forum they do appear to fool however, as evidenced by the many “thank you”s and “you’re very welcome”s. In that regard they admittedly may provide value for some existential purpose. Do you even know what that phrase means aside from its self-referent convoluted circularity? Why don’t you explain it to the naïve ones who aren’t versed in the latest neuroscience?

Spirituality at its heart is simple, practical, and profoundly purposeful. We don’t need to make it complicated, obscure, confusing - or unattainable. The latter is an archaic approach that employs priesthoods looking for power as intercessors - not people seeking direct, readily attainable fulfillment of, by, from, and significantly, for the Divine.

Positive and negative is what the perceiver thinks it is, that much is obvious. It's agenda, nothing more.

Wow, and yes! Quite obvious indeed. So, having gone around in so many dizzying circles we come back to the inadvertant truth! That being: In spirituality the agenda of Supreme Being is referred to as God’s Will, because it is the disposition, the “agenda” (oooh, scary, creepy, shades of political oppression!) or whatever one wants to call it, that is percipient of Spirit’s Own Intention which determines ultimately whether it is positive or negative. It’s that simple! If ego-mind can have “agenda”, certainly God may as well, don’t you think? One can fight that, and oneself as well. But we know how that ends up: sterile debate, endless contrails, confusion, and smoke and mirrors on an internet forum! But to what end?

~ J

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Yes, ego-mind defines spirituality for its own agenda which is (as tacitly approved by standard intellectual convention as positive) the negation of spiritual possibility. It tries to convince others as a projection of the intentionally avoidant Jungian internal conflict that there is no spirituality, that spirituality is just a fantasy, suspect, delusional, or even dangerous in order to protect and perpetuate its sovereign identity which is actually a falsehood and illusion. But, shhhh…, don’t tell anyone on a spiritual forum because that’s a nefarious and negative zombie agenda.

Meanwhile, Spirit doesn’t know its own agenda? And if we are part and parcel of Spirit how can it be (as you evidently argue) that this Will/"agenda" of Spirit remains - e.g., presumed as axiomatic - ever unknowable to human beings?

I'll leave that to the experts like yourself.

Originally Posted by Jyotir

But I guess if one has a keyboard and plenty of time on hand, one could make the case for negating and dismissing thousands of years of evolving traditions, revered teachings, and directly experienced and observed attainment that in essence is the confluence with That Will.

Says the one that dismisses and negates psychology and then proceeds to psychoanalyse people en masse. Good luck with your urban legend as Spirituality.

Originally Posted by Jyotir

In all fairness to yourself Greenslade please answer the same question. For instance, you’ve boasted numerous times on the forum of having a “Certificate of Mediumship” on your wall. Ok, so likewise, what happens between the eye sending signals to the brain; do those microtubules percolate awareness as one looks at a framed piece of paper on the wall, and it becomes a belief that one thinks they actually have the first clue about who they are? Please, have at it.

In all fairness I have never claimed to have a "Certificate of Mediumship" hanging on my wall. In all fairness, I have never claimed to be an expert in mediumship because I've read the word 'telepathy' in a book. But then I guess this is just another invention of yours for the sake of derision. Excuse me while I consign this to the Spiritual toilet.

Originally Posted by Jyotir

I reserve a healthy skepticism for such inane platitudes as they have little practical value or utility in spiritual life, even if as seeming mystical conundrums they make for great Obi-Kenobi lines in Star-Wars sequels. On a spiritual discussion forum they do appear to fool however, as evidenced by the many “thank you”s and “you’re very welcome”s. In that regard they admittedly may provide value for some existential purpose. Do you even know what that phrase means aside from its self-referent convoluted circularity? Why don’t you explain it to the naïve ones who aren’t versed in the latest neuroscience?

So what self-referent convoluted circularity does the phrase "Thank you" have, pray tell?

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Spirituality at its heart is simple, practical, and profoundly purposeful. We don’t need to make it complicated, obscure, confusing - or unattainable. The latter is an archaic approach that employs priesthoods looking for power as intercessors - not people seeking direct, readily attainable fulfillment of, by, from, and significantly, for the Divine.

You should practice what you preach.

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Wow, and yes! Quite obvious indeed. So, having gone around in so many dizzying circles we come back to the inadvertant truth! That being: In spirituality the agenda of Supreme Being is referred to as God’s Will, because it is the disposition, the “agenda” (oooh, scary, creepy, shades of political oppression!) or whatever one wants to call it, that is percipient of Spirit’s Own Intention which determines ultimately whether it is positive or negative. It’s that simple! If ego-mind can have “agenda”, certainly God may as well, don’t you think? One can fight that, and oneself as well. But we know how that ends up: sterile debate, endless contrails, confusion, and smoke and mirrors on an internet forum! But to what end?

~ J

Feel better? Because you're not talking about Spirituality any more.