Some teachings important to me as a mystic.

[UltraBudgie]

is perhaps fear v cowardice
fear is instinct
cowardice is ego

is also this op sort of law of attraction?
which good advice is to be sure ask exactly what is attracted to you
do you really know?
haha!

[IzakielSturge]

I feel like pride is what would override a person's sense of logic and induce a negative behavior, without fear. Or aggression. Or even desire. And especially sorrow.

Self control may minimize to what extent pride and aggression control one's actions. Even desire. The most difficult emotion to control being sorrow.

If love was the main emotion in control of an individual's nervous system, what would induce the necessity for fear? An individual with love and not fear might too easily risk his or her life for others, or endure future torture to protect friends and family.

A soldier with love, but not fear, might last longer - because on the alert, out of love, for all the things which increase the probability those he or she cares about benefit - which, when hir own survival, motivates caution. All the caution in the world. 

However, a person with love and not fear wouldn't survive as long if the time came to make the ultimate sacrifice every enlisted person agrees to risk.

And a fearless, passionately loving person, would do better resisting torture to avoid betraying hir loyalties.

[andy06shake]

I feel like pride is what would override a person's sense of logic and induce a negative behavior, without fear. Or aggression. Or even desire. And especially sorrow.

Self control may minimize to what extent pride and aggression control one's actions. Even desire. The most difficult emotion to control being sorrow.

If love was the main emotion in control of an individual's nervous system, what would induce the necessity for fear? An individual with love and not fear might too easily risk his or her life for others, or endure future torture to protect friends and family.

A soldier with love, but not fear, might last longer - because on the alert, out of love, for all the things which increase the probability those he or she cares about benefit - which, when hir own survival, motivates caution. All the caution in the world. 

However, a person with love and not fear wouldn't survive as long if the time came to make the ultimate sacrifice every enlisted person agrees to risk.

And a fearless, passionately loving person, would do better resisting torture to avoid betraying hir loyalties.

Sounds like you're kind of framing emotions as if one can replace another through. 

But they don't always work that way.

Love doesn't supply threat detection, pain avoidance, or rapid risk assessment.

Fear does that.

With soldiers, fear improves vigilance, learning, and caution.

Precisely because something valued could be lost, aka your life.

Love motivates sacrifice, but without fear, it just leads to recklessness.

And that will indeed get you killed sharpish in any theater of war.

Resistance to torture is a misnomer, as everyone folds in the end.

I suggest fear and love can cooperate.

But ones not a substitute for the other.

[IgnorantGod]

[...]

Self control may minimize to what extent pride and aggression control one's actions. Even desire. The most difficult emotion to control being sorrow.

If love was the main emotion in control of an individual's nervous system, what would induce the necessity for fear? An individual with love and not fear might too easily risk his or her life for others, or endure future torture to protect friends and family.

[...]

I often wonder if the 'self' has 'control' on anything. Does the 'self' owns the body, or does the body owns the 'self'? Is the 'self' a separate entity from the body, a symbiote/parasite, or an extent of it?

When I think about it, doesn't the 'self' actually lives in the past? By something like 100ms in average. Thing is, the first stinuli seems to happen before awareness. Only processed data makes its way to it. Such process takes time, no matter how small, hence the 100ms. Could one be able to 'control' that which isn't within consciousness's reach? That first stimuli triggered by the body, by the time one's realized it, it has already passed, one is already in the second step of the chain of reactions to an event.

Besides, Logos and mathematics still have to deal with Godel's Incompleteness theorem, that states no sufficiently complex functions can be entirely proven within itself. At some point of complexity, one needs to use environments and other functions to further formulate axioms.

[IzakielSturge]

"Love doesn't supply threat detection, pain avoidance, or rapid risk assessment." -andy06shake

awareness does.

Is it possible for immediacy of focus ("presentness") to react faster than an instinct of fear? I believe so. Especially if the mind is "neurally active," / "hyper alert". If there is much retention and no distraction from the situation at hand.

Some would choose aggression instead of fear. Aggression reacts similarly to fear, except you pounce instead of run. It is an instinct of immediacy concerning one's ability to respond to threats. 

But in the end, I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you.

I consider fear and aggression evolutionary accidents, that can be replaced, should the individual intelligently choose to "mutate," with something better. Something with statistically higher odds concerning the original evolutionary purposes of fear and aggression.

[andy06shake]

I often wonder if the 'self' has 'control' on anything. Does the 'self' owns the body, or does the body owns the 'self'? Is the 'self' a separate entity from the body, a symbiote/parasite, or an extent of it?

When I think about it, doesn't the 'self' actually lives in the past? By something like 100ms in average. Thing is, the first stinuli seems to happen before awareness. Only processed data makes its way to it. Such process takes time, no matter how small, hence the 100ms. Could one be able to 'control' that which isn't within consciousness's reach? That first stimuli triggered by the body, by the time one's realized it, it has already passed, one is already in the second step of the chain of reactions to an event.

Besides, Logos and mathematics still have to deal with Godel's Incompleteness theorem, that states no sufficiently complex functions can be entirely proven within itself. At some point of complexity, one needs to use environments and other functions to further formulate axioms.

I suppose one way to look at it would be that "self" isn't a thing that has control.

But more like a process that models control.

[andy06shake]

"Love doesn't supply threat detection, pain avoidance, or rapid risk assessment." -andy06shake

awareness does.

Is it possible for immediacy of focus ("presentness") to react faster than an instinct of fear? I believe so. Especially if the mind is "neurally active," / "hyper alert". If there is much retention and no distraction from the situation at hand.

Some would choose aggression instead of fear. Aggression reacts similarly to fear, except you pounce instead of run. It is an instinct of immediacy concerning one's ability to respond to threats. 

But in the end, I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you.

I consider fear and aggression evolutionary accidents, that can be replaced, should the individual intelligently choose to "mutate," with something better. Something with statistically higher odds concerning the original evolutionary purposes of fear and aggression.

From a neuroscience perspective, actions begin in the body–brain system before you are consciously aware.

Fear and aggression aren't evolutionary accidents.

Aggression is not an alternative to fear, it's an expression of such.

They exist precisely because awareness and deliberation are too slow in many situations.

It's ok to disagree, that's what this place is all about.

Debate and banter are welcome. 

Encouraged even.  

Check this short video out, it ponders some interesting questions pertaining to the subject.

[IgnorantGod]

I suppose one way to look at it would be that "self" isn't a thing that has control.

But more like a process that models control.

I don't know if it "models" control, but it seems to me to 'simulate' it, or 'emulate' it. I'd assume it would be a survival factor for individuals, maybe to prevent being 'lost in thoughts' while the tiger is waiting behind a bush.

And then, what is 'control'? To force subjects to one's will? That would mean to assume a 'will' isn't bound to physical matter, and thus the body. From observations, that doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe there is no 'control' in reality, only illusions of such.

[andy06shake]

I don't know if it "models" control, but it seems to me to 'simulate' it, or 'emulate' it. I'd assume it would be a survival factor for individuals, maybe to prevent being 'lost in thoughts' while the tiger is waiting behind a bush.

And then, what is 'control'? To force subjects to one's will? That would mean to assume a 'will' isn't bound to physical matter, and thus the body. From observations, that doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe there is no 'control' in reality, only illusions of such.

Yeah, I think you're basically correct.

Control isn't some separate thing sitting above our body, pulling levers.

More like our brains keeping things on track so we don't drift off into thoughts when there's a tiger chasing our ass.

The feeling of control is useful.

But that doesn't mean it's literal.

What we experience as will, or choice, seems to come out of physical processes interacting with one another.

Suffice to say, further study is required.

Because at the bottom of that barrel is where consciousness resides.

And where that comes from or arises really is the ultimate question. 

[IgnorantGod]

[...]

More like our brains keeping things on track so we don't drift off into thoughts when there's a tiger chasing our ass.

The feeling of control is useful.

But that doesn't mean it's literal.

What we experience as will, or choice, seems to come out of physical processes interacting with one another.

Suffice to say, further study is required.

Because at the bottom of that barrel is where consciousness resides.

And where that comes from or arises really is the ultimate question. 

That tiger is a real bitch sometime, whether it's 'real' or not.

Now, that could be an interesting inquery, if consciousness really is at the 'bottom' of the barrel, or not. But that would be pointless, since we still don't know much about consciousness itself, nonetheless entertaining.

To me, the 'ultimate' question is this : "Do you want to live?"

Because at the end of the day, no matter what reality is and isn't, and what one wishes it to be; if one wants to stay alive, there are basic needs to fulfill, and that's all there is to it.