Advice: Good thoughts doesn't always tell you that everything is ok, but when they say that something is wrong then it is a insight, when bad thoughts say that something is wrong then it is a accusation. Thoughts battle for your attention; let the good thoughts win.
It's more of a advice, but it's always open for discussion. I think it is a good advice as some might hide away good thoughts just because they speak about bad things, but good thoughts isn't only about the good traits that people have, but also insights about bad things.
I think I understand what you mean, I'm not sure. If I understand right- I agree. I think sometimes negativity that is expressed can have a positive purpose. I think that something positive, expressed, can have negative consequences. But please clarify what you mean...
Constructive criticism is good for those who take it well otherwise it is a useless way to help others since they don't want to even help themselves.
Backfire -- Guess the word criticism can't be taken too literallyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well... on to the next experiment...
Today we often hear that we should think positive thoughts, and let negative thoughts slide, as if that was the cure to depression and anxiety. But repressing real issues isn't going to help anyone. Instead we should focus on the thoughts that express our issues in a way that doesn't make us feel uncomfortable and guilty, but instead makes us want to examine those issues further. Something positive expressed can also have negative consequences if what is expressed isn't actually true. If you hurt someone and say "that it was because he deserved it and I have done nothing wrong", then it might have a positive feedback on you, but the negative thought is repressed even though that thought was more true to what happened, perhaps the negative thought could have been expressed "I hurt him and it was wrong of me even though he deserved it". It is no accusation, it's no bad thought, it's a insight. A bad thought could then be "I hurt him, and I too deserve to be hurt". So in that scenario there was a positive thought (that liberated you from fault) and a negative thought (I deserve to be hurt too), but they were both bad thoughts. The negative thought "I hurt him and it was wrong of me even though he deserved it", is the good thought if you ask me, cause that leaves the door open to change the behaviour without having to feel opposition towards it (as we naturally do when we feel accused).
The only thing technically wrong with that sentence is missing punctuation between "well" and "otherwise." I would recommend a period and a capital letter, i.e., breaking it into two sentences. But a semicolon would be correct even if the result is a bit unwieldy. In unedited writing such as this, even a comma would be welcomed without criticism, although technically incorrect. Once that correction is made, a comma between "others" and "since" would also improve readability, but it is not mandatory. In other words, that sentence is better than average for this website. Now your sentence, on the other hand... That's very informal speech and does not deserve to be transcribed in writing. It can't be salvaged by punctuation alone, although a colon after "about" would at least elevate it to the level of a comic strip dialog balloon--if the milieu of the comic strip were a Depression-era Mafia hideout--and if the vocabulary of a wise guy included the word "punctuation." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There's a fundamental lapse in grammar. Even in vernacular, "How about" is followed by a noun: How about those Dodgers? How about that freak rainstorm? How about Peggy's pregnancy? Or a gerund clause: How about those Dodgers winning in the bottom of the ninth? How about that freak rainstorm ruining the parade? How about Peggy announcing her pregnancy in front of her grandparents? In other words, in American standard vernacular, your question would be: How about you learning some punctuation and grammar? But it would be proper English (as well as easier) to just say, "How about learning some punctuation and grammar?" How about people living in glass houses and throwing stones? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! -- The Linguistics Moderator
There are two sets of good and bad thoughts. One set is based on rational thinking, while the other set is based on emotional thinking. Sometimes these two sets overlap, but often they will not. As an example, addictive behavior is not good for you, if one thinks about it rationally. But if one is an addict, the postive and euphoric feelings one gets from their addiction will help them justify this as good; it feels good so it has to be good. The first is universal good and evil based on cold hard facts and reason, while the second is subjective and shorter term good and evil based on an emotional connection. To continue the example, if the addict was to quit cold turkey, as their first step in healing, this would be rationally good. However, at the short term subjective level, this cold turkey choice can get painful and therefore will be avoided as evil and postponed. Often the subjective battles between two sides, relative to behavior and what considered good and what is evil, is based on emotional thinking, since rational thinking does not polarize based on feelings, but unifies without any connection emotions. If you told a lie to someone, to make them feel better, this might be good at the level of emotional thinking. But at the level of rational thinking, detortion of reality is not good in the long term. The rational thinker tend to think longer term, while an emotional thinker uses a shorter timer span, where long term bad can be good. It is possible for something to feel good in the short term and then become rationally bad in the long term, or feel bad in the short term but rationally good in the long term. Depending on which orientation you are, you may become skewed one way or the other. Sometimes there is an azeotrope in good and evil thinking; inversion in the middle between.
When talking about addiction it would be useful to be rational, but we do have a emotional drive for the long term good as well. Those that have addictions often feels anxiety that follows the short-term good feeling, since they deep-down know that it isn't good for them in the long run. Bad things as a result of bad behavior often present themselves early, but are often ignored because we can live with it (at least for the time being).
Sounds like the old maxim: "Long-term planning is great, but somehow the short term always seems to happen first."
Because of that I think it's better to set goals that are easier to reach first, and that they eventually lead to the long term plan. It's also good because short-term goals might open up possibilities that eventually change the long term plan that you had in mind earlier. I think that this is the biggest problem with long-term plans, that we eventually shift interest, with short-term goals you have always achieved something, even if you never reached the long term goal.
Battle of good and bad--angels & devils---positives & negatives..meant to bring balanced state of these. Truth lie in balance not in odds/imbalances/excess on either side.
I've thought about it and I don't agree. I don't think that having a equal amount of good and bad thoughts leads to balance. Nor do I think that the battle of good and bad necessarily leads to balance. Rather I think that bad thoughts are a result from the lack of balance. You seem to think that good thoughts are like a weight on the positive scale and bad thoughts are like a weight on the negative scale and that the battle between them causes balance. I don't think like that. I think that good thoughts is a result of a good balanced way of thinking and that bad thoughts aren't necessary if you have a balanced way of thinking. The good thoughts are the way to bring balance. I don't blame you though, I've heard the argument before and in the past I have agreed to it. But I no longer agree. What I do agree to though is that as long as we have bad thoughts then the battle is needed. But the good thoughts is the way to win that battle, and excess of good thoughts is a indication that you are balanced. Note though that I don't necessarily mean that all good thoughts are positive in value, good thoughts can just as well be negative characteristics of a person, as long as it allows for that person to reflect on it in a positive way. The way to keep balance can all be good thoughts, no bad thoughts are needed - in fact, it is the good thoughts that will eventually lead to a balanced state of mind.
I do not agree and on a very simple premise: You do not know whether thoughts are "good" or "bad." You label as such based on how you want them to be. You would need to be omnipotent to know whether the results of those thoughts would really be positive or negative. Nothing can ever be all of something- and be balanced. Something that might easily be labeled as "Negative" can have very positive outcomes, (positive being our basic meaning of it that we invented) such as saving a life.
