How much control does the mind have over its actions?

[prodigalson2011]

In regards to the original question, I think proper categorization would serve to put the question in clearer perspective.

I would say it’s less a matter of how much control the mind has over its actions as how strong is the will to overpower any internal obstructions to the course of proper action. With the exception of severe mental or physical impairments, the mind is in perfect control of our physical actions. The problem arises when fears or desires, which are not part of our minds, per se, but of either our hearts or instincts, are stronger than our wills and consciences. While they are distinct from one another, our hearts, bodies and minds are inextricably intertwined. The fears and desires aroused in our bodies and souls make themselves present in our intellects.

As revelation teaches us, the effective cure for this weakness is the solution of faith, hope and love offered by God. “Perfect love casts out fear.” “Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid, for I am with you always.” Here, our Lord himself indicates that our fears, as well as our loves, arise in the heart. Indeed, it is the separation of our hearts from God that leads to our inner conflicts between will and act; faith and fear. As a consequence of our fallen nature, however, we are apt to fail to master these virtues to the extent of perpetual success. Yet we always have enough will power to do the least that is expected of us: repent and try again.

 

[tonyrey]

So, if someone ties you to a chair and you can’t escape, you do not have complete free will. You cannot get a glass of water.

You cannot implement your choice but your free will still exists. No one can compel you to make your decisions.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

When I speak of free will, I am speaking of it strictly in the physical realm.
Besides, Isnt free will acting upon something, thus willing something to happen?.

In common vernacular, yes. As used in this forum, not always. Some in this forum use “free will” to talk about the ability to make a decision without consideration of wheter or not one can act on that decision.

 

[JDaniel]

Are you saying that I have to trust God more or are you saying something relating God’s will and his self-control to ours in someway?

(I do trust God, but I like to ask questions so you got what you want if that’s what you want, thanks though).

Fakename:

I know you trust God, and I would never encourage anyone to desist from asking questions.

I guess what I’m saying is that I think all of our actions are directed by God. When I think about free will, I almost have to concur with those who say our wills are constrained by what, where, and when we were and are. With the exception of “sin,” (and, possibly “love”) which is purely rejectional, it seems that all other choices are a matter of choosing between two or more options which exist either in our minds as past experiences (and juxtapositions of past experiences), or eminent, in front of our eyes at decision-time. (While I think both are still “free will,” per se, I can see why the deniers don’t.)

I introduce Fr. Saint-Jure’s work to open up the discussion a little more, because I think this is a great topic - which I thank you for introducing. A “person”, a “being” or monad I suppose, which seems to own all of his activities and decisions, his mass and having-ness, is said to be almost completely limited. The idea that our bodies and minds, which we regard as our closest personal possessions, are almost completely controlled by God - that, to me, is very eye-opening, don’t you think?

Consider the simplest of “sins” - the “lie.” The lie is so common that it’s like eating. What makes it wrong is that we a expected to tell the truth (especially if under oath). All other verbal interaction is an oath violation if it is a lie. So, you can see how different that is to choosing to cross the street here or there. Although, choosing where to cross the street, or what to think, seems wholly to be under our control too.

God bless,
jd

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I cannot control all of my thoughts. To some extent, I can control my focused thoughts. The peripheral thoughts are much trickier, like herding cats.

Here’s what I have free will over at any given moment. a) my next focused thought, b) my next word or thought to communicate, and c) an intent to physically move. A half second later, the whole situation must be reevaluated.

That’s intended to be a discussion model; analytically it isn’t perfect yet.

The Good News is that I was able to “reprogram” my thoughts, by constantly “feeling them out” and even going with them when they took me places I didn’t want to go. The payoff is, along the way I was allowed to give myself suggestions – call it hypnosis, or call it self-talk – to my peripheral thoughts, in order to give them instructions on what to do.

After 11 years of this, a few months ago I started seeing the payoff, big time.

So you can’t control your peripheral thoughts, and to the degree you can focus you can control your focused thoughts. But you can restructure the whole mindset the peripheral thoughts bring about, given time and know-how.

Where do you get the know-how? That’s individual. For myself I engaged in huge amounts of listening to scripture, mainly unfocused, by playing a file of it 24/7 for a few months. That lets it seep in past the mental sentries that try to stop it by requiring to figure it out before it can go in. That was a form of Lectio Divina for me. Also I listened to a great deal of philosophy and various religious ideas Catholic, Christian, and even some that Catholics say is dangerous. I used my engineering, science, and math aptitude to find allegorical relationships that carried across all fields of study.

The trick for me is to have seen myself and my Catholicism from so many points of view, that eventually patterns started to emerge and my thoughts just started getting less hostile. A few years ago I was hiding behind the balcony guard rail in between getting up to playing songs on the pipe organ at St. Anthony, because I saw the crucifix turn into a serpent and start moving around. Now I don’t have any problem like that whatsoever. Zip. Nada. All the unresolved issues are now subject to faith that it’s OK for them to be unresolved at this point. My pastor told me that (between August and December) I had transubstantiated – I am still Alan, but no longer the same person.

All it took was some mind engineering. I had to release it to be totally free and go where it wants, and then out of sheer desire and increased wisdom and some loving guidance, it started realizing what thoughts were constructive and what weren’t, and straightened itself up. My mind truly embrace 1 Cor 6 and 1 Cor 10, that everything was permissible but not everything is beneficial. Given the freedom to explore, it found out how to serve me well, and provide me with as much fruit of the spirit as I can experience at almost any given moment.

I’m still calibrating. Every few days I have sad moments, usually lasting less that a minute or two and almost never more than five minutes. Contrast this with six years ago, when I spent about three months 23/7 wallowing around on a mattress, wishing my negative racing thoughts would stop even if it meant the end of me – antidepressants barely touched it. Yeah, those little devils were pretty mischievous then, but I think the problem wasn’t so much in the ones trying to be destructive, but in the ones that would follow them and give them substance.

But when I fight thoughts, that gives them power and incentive. So I no longer fight them. Bad thoughts flow through with hardly a notice; good thoughts are like salve.

Alan

 

[fakename]

Fakename:

I know you trust God, and I would never encourage anyone to desist from asking questions.

I guess what I’m saying is that I think all of our actions are directed by God. When I think about free will, I almost have to concur with those who say our wills are constrained by what, where, and when we were and are. With the exception of “sin,” (and, possibly “love”) which is purely rejectional, it seems that all other choices are a matter of choosing between two or more options which exist either in our minds as past experiences (and juxtapositions of past experiences), or eminent, in front of our eyes at decision-time. (While I think both are still “free will,” per se, I can see why the deniers don’t.)

I introduce Fr. Saint-Jure’s work to open up the discussion a little more, because I think this is a great topic - which I thank you for introducing. A “person”, a “being” or monad I suppose, which seems to own all of his activities and decisions, his mass and having-ness, is said to be almost completely limited. The idea that our bodies and minds, which we regard as our closest personal possessions, are almost completely controlled by God - that, to me, is very eye-opening, don’t you think?

Consider the simplest of “sins” - the “lie.” The lie is so common that it’s like eating. What makes it wrong is that we a expected to tell the truth (especially if under oath). All other verbal interaction is an oath violation if it is a lie. So, you can see how different that is to choosing to cross the street here or there. Although, choosing where to cross the street, or what to think, seems wholly to be under our control too.

God bless,
jd

Are you saying that a thing is limited just in case it is a monad? And if it is not a monad, that is if some of its being is controlled by God, then it is not limited?

If so, then I don’t think that it is true since traditionally God is both free and perfectly his own being and therefore he would be limited under your definitions though he is really unlimited. But I don’t even know what you mean by the above anyways so what do you mean?

Also, RE: the lie and our own mental control, I think that you definitely bring up an interesting point about how we often find ourselves “looking in” at our own actions from a third-person POV and this happens in a lot when we lie. I guess in no other instance, is the inability to control all thoughts and to thereby be totally “one” w/one’s self is so obvious.

 

[fakename]

I cannot control all of my thoughts. To some extent, I can control my focused thoughts. The peripheral thoughts are much trickier, like herding cats.

Here’s what I have free will over at any given moment. a) my next focused thought, b) my next word or thought to communicate, and c) an intent to physically move. A half second later, the whole situation must be reevaluated.

That’s intended to be a discussion model; analytically it isn’t perfect yet.

The Good News is that I was able to “reprogram” my thoughts, by constantly “feeling them out” and even going with them when they took me places I didn’t want to go. The payoff is, along the way I was allowed to give myself suggestions – call it hypnosis, or call it self-talk – to my peripheral thoughts, in order to give them instructions on what to do.

After 11 years of this, a few months ago I started seeing the payoff, big time.

So you can’t control your peripheral thoughts, and to the degree you can focus you can control your focused thoughts. But you can restructure the whole mindset the peripheral thoughts bring about, given time and know-how.

Where do you get the know-how? That’s individual. For myself I engaged in huge amounts of listening to scripture, mainly unfocused, by playing a file of it 24/7 for a few months. That lets it seep in past the mental sentries that try to stop it by requiring to figure it out before it can go in. That was a form of Lectio Divina for me. Also I listened to a great deal of philosophy and various religious ideas Catholic, Christian, and even some that Catholics say is dangerous. I used my engineering, science, and math aptitude to find allegorical relationships that carried across all fields of study.

The trick for me is to have seen myself and my Catholicism from so many points of view, that eventually patterns started to emerge and my thoughts just started getting less hostile. A few years ago I was hiding behind the balcony guard rail in between getting up to playing songs on the pipe organ at St. Anthony, because I saw the crucifix turn into a serpent and start moving around. Now I don’t have any problem like that whatsoever. Zip. Nada. All the unresolved issues are now subject to faith that it’s OK for them to be unresolved at this point. My pastor told me that (between August and December) I had transubstantiated – I am still Alan, but no longer the same person.

All it took was some mind engineering. I had to release it to be totally free and go where it wants, and then out of sheer desire and increased wisdom and some loving guidance, it started realizing what thoughts were constructive and what weren’t, and straightened itself up. My mind truly embrace 1 Cor 6 and 1 Cor 10, that everything was permissible but not everything is beneficial. Given the freedom to explore, it found out how to serve me well, and provide me with as much fruit of the spirit as I can experience at almost any given moment.

I’m still calibrating. Every few days I have sad moments, usually lasting less that a minute or two and almost never more than five minutes. Contrast this with six years ago, when I spent about three months 23/7 wallowing around on a mattress, wishing my negative racing thoughts would stop even if it meant the end of me – antidepressants barely touched it. Yeah, those little devils were pretty mischievous then, but I think the problem wasn’t so much in the ones trying to be destructive, but in the ones that would follow them and give them substance.

But when I fight thoughts, that gives them power and incentive. So I no longer fight them. Bad thoughts flow through with hardly a notice; good thoughts are like salve.

Alan

This is all true, one cannot control all of one’s thoughts and yet you can establish a strange indirect control by giving them freedom or by ignoring them passively. But there is definitely a part of the mind that I think is quite restricted to us and which resists all control. This would be the parts that are mentally “atomic”. I hypothesize that a thought can be changed and controlled if and only if it is continuous and capable of division and addition. For instance, by adding ideas to some idea you change that idea by degree and by the proportion of the addition. And one changes one’s habits by putting more and more degrees of separation between the antecedent of the habit and consequent.

So it seems that only an idea that is truly one and unitary is incapable of being manipulated, only accepted as a given condition of life.

 

[JDaniel]

Are you saying that a thing is limited just in case it is a monad? And if it is not a monad, that is if some of its being is controlled by God, then it is not limited?

Fakename:

No. I think we think of ourselves as “monads.” We imbue significance to ourselves. We imbue the “I” to ourselves. Then the “I” becomes the alpha and omega of what we see ourselves to be. Then we begin to justify that “sense” of being. We bring to it the weight of science and philosophy. We bring to it an exaggerated self-sufficiency. Luck, i.e., good fortune, exacerbates this. Soon, we can send “luck” packing because there’s no such thing as “luck,” we opine. It is sheerly the over-projection of our own importance.

If so, then I don’t think that it is true since traditionally God is both free and perfectly his own being and therefore he would be limited under your definitions though he is really unlimited. But I don’t even know what you mean by the above anyways so what do you mean?

I really enjoy the manner of your interrogatory. That said, what I mean is in the above paragraph, if it is decipherable. (My fault, not yours.)

Also, RE: the lie and our own mental control, I think that you definitely bring up an interesting point about how we often find ourselves “looking in” at our own actions from a third-person POV and this happens in a lot when we lie. I guess in no other instance, is the inability to control all thoughts and to thereby be totally “one” w/one’s self is so obvious.

Yes. Exactly. All of our lives of self-training has brought us into greater and greater acceptance of our illusions. Some people understand this, but, most do not. (I, in fact, am in a haze about it. For me, the fog is ever so slowly clearing away, but as it does, new questions arise.)

God bless,
jd

 

[Eric_Hyom]

As a smoker you might want to give up smoking, but giving up requires huge will power to overcome the bodies need for nicotine. If you are overweight and want to loose weight, this requires a continued will power.

It seems we might want to do things, but our mind and body compels us to do the opposite.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

This is all true, one cannot control all of one’s thoughts and yet you can establish a strange indirect control by giving them freedom or by ignoring them passively. But there is definitely a part of the mind that I think is quite restricted to us and which resists all control. This would be the parts that are mentally “atomic”. I hypothesize that a thought can be changed and controlled if and only if it is continuous and capable of division and addition. For instance, by adding ideas to some idea you change that idea by degree and by the proportion of the addition. And one changes one’s habits by putting more and more degrees of separation between the antecedent of the habit and consequent.

So it seems that only an idea that is truly one and unitary is incapable of being manipulated, only accepted as a given condition of life.

So you’re modeling memes as thought molecules of atomic single-idea thoughts? Also, are the atoms mutually exclusive – IOW one formula for each thought? Synonyms would ultimately break down into the same underlying structure? Or am I taking your model too far? (or totally didn’t get it?)

I’ve been thinking of something a lot squooshier than that. I think ideas are neither dependent nor independent of each other in nature, and therefore I’m having trouble with “atomic idea,” because I’m not sure I can accept that a meme can be constructed with sub-memes to atomic level. That said, I think your model might actually be simpler than mine, in order to have a beginning of a discussion on how all these memes behave, and to establish a common terminology where we might explore our collective models.

Maybe now after you see what a mess I made of your post, you can help bring me up to speed. Or maybe walking us through an example?

Alan

 

[Gaber]

As a smoker you might want to give up smoking, but giving up requires huge will power to overcome the bodies need for nicotine. If you are overweight and want to loose weight, this requires a continued will power.

It seems we might want to do things, but our mind and body compels us to do the opposite.

that is appearently true up to the point of one’s competence in mental tech, or metaphysics. The so called “swish” pattern sometimes used by T Robbins and others is often very effective in reducing smoking to 0 or close to it. Siimilarly, there are weight reduction programs that actuially re-train the body/mind, and there are some uncommon eating strategies in this field, as well. So, once again I refer to the party scene in Down the Rabbit Hole both as a wonderful piece of humor and as a good discription of how durned near everything we do is habitual/addictive. Including belief. In any case, as Einstein said, the sort of thinking that got you into the problem won’t get you out. This is monumentally true. It is why so many wise people insist that if you change your thinking, you change your world.

Part of the “problem” btw, is that ususally folks frame thier mind and thier sense of identiy as being the same thing/think. Not so. If it was, how could you “see” your thoughts? But there is a whole practical philosophy around that, not very well recieved on here, so we will leave it there for the moment.

 

[fakename]

So you’re modeling memes as thought molecules of atomic single-idea thoughts? Also, are the atoms mutually exclusive – IOW one formula for each thought? Synonyms would ultimately break down into the same underlying structure? Or am I taking your model too far? (or totally didn’t get it?)

I’ve been thinking of something a lot squooshier than that. I think ideas are neither dependent nor independent of each other in nature, and therefore I’m having trouble with “atomic idea,” because I’m not sure I can accept that a meme can be constructed with sub-memes to atomic level. That said, I think your model might actually be simpler than mine, in order to have a beginning of a discussion on how all these memes behave, and to establish a common terminology where we might explore our collective models.

Maybe now after you see what a mess I made of your post, you can help bring me up to speed. Or maybe walking us through an example?

Alan

I’ve never really analyzed it too much but limited experience has taught me that thoughts like grunts and syllables are either like my “atomic” memes or are my atomic ideas. On further reflection I think that atomic ideas are sometimes less than these though since one can imagine having multiple feelings connected with synonyms and grunts (and connected substantially with them and not simply following upon them as if in a series of things coming one after the other). Essentially then an atomic idea is an idea which is indivisible and is not composed of elements. Further it seems that ideas which are molecular, could become atomic to the degree that their elements are identified together. For instance, 2 is made up of 1’s and since this is so self-evident to us and since it expresses a mere identity relation, it follows on my opinions, that the idea of 2 can become atomic. So additionally, the atomic idea is also an ultimate idea and one that is taken for granted. As a corollary, the size of an idea seems based on existential factors. For instance in perfect lucidity a person probably won’t think of an atomic idea like the cogito but when he is tired, his mind might drift to such an idea and so, make it into a molecular one. I hope that wasn’t too exhausting. Also note another corollary: one idea can be, at some time, an atomic one and at another time, a molecular one and vice versa.

A molecular idea I will also call any idea that is simply non-atomic.

Now that I have my own ideas established I’ll get down to some of your questions.

(1) Some atomic ideas are unique and some are not unique because sometimes the same idea can change from molecular to atomic and later back to molecular.

(2) So it is not in the nature of atomic ideas to be unique since sometimes they are identical to molecular ones. But in the set of atomic ideas, are all these ideas unique? I think that there is no strict necessity that they should all be different but I suppose they could be.

(3) I think that every molecular idea does eventually break down to into the same underlying structure (that is, into atoms).

Finally, one sees the inconsistency in my account of “atomism”. I characterized atomic ideas as being the opposite of continuous, that is of being discrete. But atomic ideas and molecular ones routinely transform into each other. So how does the discrete become the continuous? Even if there is an answer to this impossibility, I should stress that my model of thought is mostly metaphorical and designed mainly to give at least some intelligibility to everyday mental phenomena. I certainly did not intend it to be scientific.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

, I should stress that my model of thought is mostly metaphorical and designed mainly to give at least some intelligibility to everyday mental phenomena. I certainly did not intend it to be scientific.

:clapping:

I think your model has a lot going for it. I see places that I’m tempted to tweak it, but first I want to make sure I have what you’re saying. :yup:

Right now it’s time for me to log out; I just wanted you to know I read your post and I’ll plan on giving you a more detailed answer.

To me, now, the main purpose for having a model is so I can investigate its behavior to the point I can control, improve, or otherwise affect it in a way that meets the specs of what I’m trying to accomplish. Like for example can I use the model to score me some fruit of the spirit? This is how I think. Like I think the mind can actually automate contemplation, but I’ve never mentioned it before now much less try to explain it. As an design engineer, such are my dreams – to fix things whether they are broke or not.

Alan

 

[Gaber]

I’ve never really analyzed it too much but limited experience has taught me that thoughts like grunts and syllables are either like my “atomic” memes or are my atomic ideas. On further reflection I think that atomic ideas are sometimes less than these though since one can imagine having multiple feelings connected with synonyms and grunts (and connected substantially with them and not simply following upon them as if in a series of things coming one after the other). Essentially then an atomic idea is an idea which is indivisible and is not composed of elements. Further it seems that ideas which are molecular, could become atomic to the degree that their elements are identified together. For instance, 2 is made up of 1’s and since this is so self-evident to us and since it expresses a mere identity relation, it follows on my opinions, that the idea of 2 can become atomic. So additionally, the atomic idea is also an ultimate idea and one that is taken for granted. As a corollary, the size of an idea seems based on existential factors. For instance in perfect lucidity a person probably won’t think of an atomic idea like the cogito but when he is tired, his mind might drift to such an idea and so, make it into a molecular one. I hope that wasn’t too exhausting. Also note another corollary: one idea can be, at some time, an atomic one and at another time, a molecular one and vice versa.

A molecular idea I will also call any idea that is simply non-atomic.

Now that I have my own ideas established I’ll get down to some of your questions.

(1) Some atomic ideas are unique and some are not unique because sometimes the same idea can change from molecular to atomic and later back to molecular.

(2) So it is not in the nature of atomic ideas to be unique since sometimes they are identical to molecular ones. But in the set of atomic ideas, are all these ideas unique? I think that there is no strict necessity that they should all be different but I suppose they could be.

(3) I think that every molecular idea does eventually break down to into the same underlying structure (that is, into atoms).

Finally, one sees the inconsistency in my account of “atomism”. I characterized atomic ideas as being the opposite of continuous, that is of being discrete. But atomic ideas and molecular ones routinely transform into each other. So how does the discrete become the continuous? Even if there is an answer to this impossibility, I should stress that my model of thought is mostly metaphorical and designed mainly to give at least some intelligibility to everyday mental phenomena. I certainly did not intend it to be scientific.

My model is kind of simple, compared to that. Here it is:

Consciounsee is the Light to the awareness of ideas and thoughts. ~ KG Mills

In your, and other, analyse thought, you have an unending task as you are in the realm of thinking thoughts about thoughts: A nthought-a thought-a thought. Then you have a train of thoughts and no idea what the locomotive is and your caboose is in the fire.

How do you know you have thoughts? Are you aware of then? Yes, unless Fakename is a very very sophisticated piece of hardware! So thoughts are contained in awareness. And unfortunatel commonly mistaken for self. Now, if you seek the source of that awareness, you can get somewhere. What you can get to is past the DOS of the mind. Then you have arrived at something useful in terms, you might say, of something fundamentally unitive and not relative to only your own parochial internal mechinations.

This is what one of the banned topics is actually about. I understand it was banned by the request of someone who understood what it is, so that those attacking it from a position of ignorance would hurt themselves no further. That, my friends, is admirable and mature.

So what I’m saying is that if you want to manipulate thoughts, the tech is availble to a high degree. So is the tech for penetrating the thought feild. But like many things that are simple and actually work, it is disdained by the many while the few go smilling on their way, like Hoeti. You can chase thoughts all you want, but will sound like so many of the dogmatists on here wh remind me of the parable. You can guess which one.

 

[fakename]

:clapping:

I think your model has a lot going for it. I see places that I’m tempted to tweak it, but first I want to make sure I have what you’re saying. :yup:

Right now it’s time for me to log out; I just wanted you to know I read your post and I’ll plan on giving you a more detailed answer.

To me, now, the main purpose for having a model is so I can investigate its behavior to the point I can control, improve, or otherwise affect it in a way that meets the specs of what I’m trying to accomplish. Like for example can I use the model to score me some fruit of the spirit? This is how I think. Like I think the mind can actually automate contemplation, but I’ve never mentioned it before now much less try to explain it. As an design engineer, such are my dreams – to fix things whether they are broke or not.

Alan

the mind automates contemplation? In what sense is that true? In a way it almost sounds as if the soul has a soul

Obviously that can’t be right. Perhaps you mean something else?

 

[fakename]

My model is kind of simple, compared to that. Here it is:

In your, and other, analyse thought, you have an unending task as you are in the realm of thinking thoughts about thoughts: A nthought-a thought-a thought. Then you have a train of thoughts and no idea what the locomotive is and your caboose is in the fire.

How do you know you have thoughts? Are you aware of then? Yes, unless Fakename is a very very sophisticated piece of hardware! So thoughts are contained in awareness. And unfortunatel commonly mistaken for self. Now, if you seek the source of that awareness, you can get somewhere. What you can get to is past the DOS of the mind. Then you have arrived at something useful in terms, you might say, of something fundamentally unitive and not relative to only your own parochial internal mechinations.

This is what one of the banned topics is actually about. I understand it was banned by the request of someone who understood what it is, so that those attacking it from a position of ignorance would hurt themselves no further. That, my friends, is admirable and mature.

So what I’m saying is that if you want to manipulate thoughts, the tech is availble to a high degree. So is the tech for penetrating the thought feild. But like many things that are simple and actually work, it is disdained by the many while the few go smilling on their way, like Hoeti. You can chase thoughts all you want, but will sound like so many of the dogmatists on here wh remind me of the parable. You can guess which one.

In a way I’m not even looking for the locomotive of thoughts, I’m just saying that some cars on the train are such-and-such qualitatively while others are not.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

the mind automates contemplation? In what sense is that true? In a way it almost sounds as if the soul has a soul

Obviously that can’t be right. Perhaps you mean something else?

Sometimes I type ahead of my thoughts, so I’m reading this the same time as you, seems like.

I gotta go do stuff for my honey-do list so I’ll get back to it.

Alan

 

[fakename]

Aquinas did say that some thoughts were more voluntary and so these would be harder to control. He said that lustful thoughts were more voluntary.

But a doubt could exist about this which is “are lustful thoughts harder to control and always more voluntary?”

For instance, I’ve had such thoughts before and yet I’ve been able to avoid them and keep them involuntary. However that brings up a new problem, if I can suppress lust at each moment then I would never feel lust. But then Aquinas would be wrong and it is unlikely that he would be wrong about the strength of lust.

So is there some midpoint here or reconciliation between the two ideas or am I really actually more lustful than I thought and I’m just deluding myself in essence?

 

[tonyrey]

However that brings up a new problem, if I can suppress lust at each moment then I would never feel lust.

It is necessary to distinguish between sexual desires and thoughts arising from sexual desires. Lust only occurs when there is **consent **to those thoughts. In other words if they are unintended they are not lustful in the true sense of the word because they are natural and not evil. They become evil only when they are not controlled.

Jesus said:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

“looks” implies a deliberate decision not an impulsive action. It is quite different from seeing a woman and feeling sexually attracted to her. Normal persons are capable of controlling their thoughts even when they can’t control their desires. We can say to ourselves “I’m very attracted but I’m a fool if I think I can’t control myself!” A sense of humour is always useful…

 

[Gaber]

It is necessary to distinguish between sexual desires and thoughts arising from sexual desires. Lust only occurs when there is **consent **to those thoughts. In other words if they are unintended they are not lustful in the true sense of the word because they are natural and not evil. They become evil only when they are not controlled.

Jesus said:

“looks” implies a deliberate decision not an impulsive action. It is quite different from seeing a woman and feeling sexually attracted to her. Normal persons are capable of controlling their thoughts even when they can’t control their desires. We can say to ourselves “I’m very attracted but I’m a fool if I think I can’t control myself!” A sense of humour is always useful…

As far as the English language and being a particular Catholic allow, that’s not too far off mark. We can surmise from ferral children that the untrained person is more animal-like not having the advantage of culturization. It is training that develops and reveals potential, and points in the direction of what humans may someday be like in their spiritual journey. But that potential is developed only so far as there is an actual correspondence between the training and the structure of Realty. If a human is given a poor map by “virtue” of an incorrect paradigm of who and what they are, and what the world is, there will be to that degree commensurate turbulance, lack of holisitic integrity, and buch angst and suffering about the meaning and Nature of Life. That can change, albeit accorcing to ripeness, by the effort of anyone willing to inquire as to their own nature beyond the superficial, and beyond the mentality they are trained into beliving as constituting their self. Religion may be useful in some respect in that endeavor up to a point, but the Saints and Sages at the highest level had to overcome even that. I praise them and thank them for their prodigious efforts and their grace in pointing a way.