The time travel

For Christmas a little walk ! :) But to travel in the past or in the future we must first well understand what is the time …

And in fact intuitively everyone has a pretty good idea of ​​what it is, for example, we all know that if the time stopped suddenly, everything would become simply immobile at once. What we know perhaps a little less is that we could no longer see this « immobile » world, since light itself would be stationary and would not reach us anymore, but hey, that’s alright, and basically we all have a good « intuition » of what is the time… Because time is not so complicated, time is the movement of everything in the universe, if we « slow down » these movements (we’ll see how further) then time slows. And if the movements are « reverse » then the time go back. Finally, if movements are accelerated time accelerates.

There is another thing that should be noticed, and this is important because this is what will allow us to travel in time, it’s that the speed of these movements are not necessarily the same everywhere in the universe : the movements can stop only in a well defined area of ​​the universe and continue normally elsewhere. Or they can go « faster » in an area, and then the time is passing more rapidly in it than in the rest of the universe.

So time is not « absolute » in the universe, this is not something abstract, that embrace the whole universe, almost « separated » from the universe even, no, the time is very concrete, it is the movements, if we stop them all, then we stops the time !.. Quite simply if I may.

And here it is our « means of transport » in time ! If we keep the « normal » time in a machine and we do go back all the movements of the universe (or only the solar system to remain modest :) ) then we « travel » in the past !

But many fantasies are related to travel in the past, to « meet oneself » for example … This is misunderstanding how the time travel in the past is working because as we have seen if a traveler wants to go back in time in a region of the universe then it must reverse all the movements of this area except his own… Indeed the traveler should not go back, otherwise he would not travel in the past finally, he would return with the entire area (and not even being aware of what happens…). So the « matter » of the traveler, inside the machine continues its normal path in time, but it means that this « matter » of the traveler, is no longer « part » of the universe that goes back outside the machine…

And that’s extremely important to take into consideration because that means that this area go back into a different past from what it was ! a past without the « matter » of the traveler… To well understand an example : imagine that the traveler just before boarding his machine had a discussion in a bar with a friend. At the beginning of the trip all the matter in the area of ​​the universe comes back, so the friend « heads » backwards towards the bar. The traveler does not heads backwards to the bar, he’s in the machine, he’s excluded from the area turning back. When the friend arrived at the bar he do not encounter the traveler, the « matter of the traveler, » as it is in the machine… So he talks to alone ?

No, he’s not, he « will » not speak « anymore » we can say, since he has no more interlocutor… Even if the universe evolves in reverse direction the rules of the interactions of matter continues to be be respected, they are just in reverse : for example, if an object had bounced on another, so if we go back this area and remove one of the two object, the one that remains does not rebound alone in this « new past », he continues his course, in the reverse direction of course, but this time without bouncing, so in a different past from what it was, because the matter in presence itself is different.

More generally, excluding a part of the material from one area of ​​the universe that comes back is a butterfly effect « in reverse » in that area, the « reversed » events will change more and more compared to what they were as the « initial difference » will spread, and gradually all the events « will » be different from what they had been.

So what about killing a « parent » !? it makes us disappear suddenly ? Let study this case : a traveler travel back in time, in fact we saw, we should say instead « all the movements of a region of the universe return back except those of a traveler. » The parent goes back, but in a world WITHOUT the traveler who is in the machine. As we saw, gradually interactions that the traveler made do not occur in reverse as they had been made by him and this leads to a different past. To such an extent that even the mother does not gives birth to the child !! Indeed the matter of the traveler did not come back, and thus he did not become back a baby, and her mother is not « going » to be « pregnant » of the traveler because the baby did not « come » back… She will do something else :) … All the « parents » of the traveler are gone back, but in a past that ended up to be completely different from what it was when the traveler was there. In short, if the machine stop and the passenger kill any of its parent, well nothing happens, he or she does not disappear .. (he just goes to jail because you can bet that the police of that time will not believe his history !! :) )

OK, enough with theory, now to practice ! :)

So, to travel in time in a region of the universe, we must influence the movements in the area, slow down, speed up, or even reverse… But how ?

One of the central « parameter » of movements, so of time, is inertia. Inertia is the resistance to the speed change of an object, the acceleration or slowdown. Usually we are not very aware of inertia because it is proportional to the mass and generally we are moving relatively light objects, but for example you can feel it well when you have to push someone on a swing, especially if the person is heavy. Inertia, proportional to the mass, is the « center » of the way movements behave and therefore inertia/mass is in the « center » of how time passe.

Then, one of the central problem to solve to travel in time, to change the mouvements of one region of the universe, is to change the inertia in this area.

There is two possibilities : either we change the inertia of an entire area and the passenger keep his, or it is the traveler who changes his own inertia in its machine and the entire universe keeps his. We see immediately that the difficulty with the first solution is that you have to influence the inertia of an entire region, large enough (about a solar system let’s say), to increase it or decrease it compared to a traveler who would keep his… In practice it is a little difficult to implement…

On the other hand influencing the inertia of a confined area is much easier to imagine… If we were able to increase the inertia/mass in a machine that would effectively make harder all mouvements changes, for example pushing at the same force the person on the swing would move him more slowly. All movements change in the machine would be more « difficult », the time would be « slowed down ». And since outside of the machine in the world, time always passe normally, well this is it ! we travel in the future !! :) .. The traveler in the machine see everything in the world moving very quickly, and seen from the world, in his machine, he seems almost immobile.

But beware, as for the trip in the past we do not travel in the same future as if we had participated in this world, inevitably, because we are in the machine, so we are away from the world, we have no influence on it, and it evolve without us. But still, it evolves « in the future » relatively to the traveler, this is the most important, and we will arrive 20 years later discovering new technologies, and of course people will have 20 years more than us he he :)

At the opposite if we reduce the inertia in a small area, in a machine, all movements will happen faster, and thus the time passe faster than in the universe.

There it is :) In conclusion, I think that going back in time to the past, even in a small area, is almost certainly, and unfortunately, impossible, and even if it was possible, we saw that it would be under certain conditions, for example in any case it wouldn’t be instantly, it would take « some time », a « backward time », the time to do EVERYTHING « move » in the area back, in any case a « door » that would project us instantly years back could not exist, it would simply misunderstanding the time itself to imagine that way of traveling back in time.

On the over hands traveling in the future is probably possible, by just « simply » increasing the inertia/mass of a traveler in a machine as we saw, time of the universe would passe normally and the traveler would remain « standing still » so he would travel in the future. Applications can be imagined : a new kind of fridge : the inertia fridge !! it stops the time of the food :) that’s the progress ! At the opposite you can also design an inertia prison, in this case we reduce the inertia of the « traveler prisoner » one minute in the world is for him one year.. prison sentences are executed right at the end of the jugement ! in five minutes :) But for the wine, it’s simply a revolution !! :D ;)


The reflexion of light

One mistake that had the hugest impact in physics come from a very simple phenomenon in appearance : the reflection of light on a mirror. That said the error may be due precisely to this impression of simplicity…

In early optical experiments, at the end of the nineteenth century, we postulated (without explicitly saying it, as it was so obvious (!!)) that the light was reflected by mirrors at the same speed it arrived… As if it was a simple « ball bouncing on a wall » in classical mechanics. All experiments at that time have be made on this postulate, and therefore all conclusion and current theory have been build upon it… It’s a little scarring if we become aware that this postulate is probably false, and that for several reason :

First the light has nothing to do with a ball made of matter, it has no mass, it’s just energy and therefore it obeys to none of the effects of inertia, main responsible of the conservation of speeds in rebound of objects with mass at our scale.

Then the apparently simple reflexion of the light on a mirror is in fact a relatively complex process, a sort of « reaction » with the material. The light, composed of electromagnetic wave, will not always be reflected, depending on the nature of the material it touches it can also be absorbed, thus « disappear » (in fact turn into another form of energy) or refracted. In short light « interferes » with the atoms of the material it encounters in a totally different way than a ball against a wall.

The postulate of the conservation of speed in the reflexion of light is then probably false, and should be replaced by this one : whatever is the speed of light when it attain a mirror, it will interact with its atoms in the same way, and will be re-emitted at a speed of light « relatively » to the mirror itself.

Note that the frequency, quantifying the energy of an electromagnetic wave, is preserved since the « retransmission » is made at the same « rhythm » of the incident light, therefore the energy is preserved also. And since the light has no mass, this speed reduction (or increase if the light was « relatively » less quickly than the object) does not cause either variation of energy.

Here we are, we always considered that light « keeps » its incident speed « bouncing » on a mirror but it is almost certainly not the case and this error had important consequences because after some important experiences » we postulated nothing less than « the speed of light C was always the same, whether emitted by an object in motion or at rest »… Yet we understand why as the assumption is « half true » : the light is effectively always ré-emitted (or produced) at the speed of light C in the reference frame of the emitter (which is in motion or at rest), but the speed of light is certainly not the same in ALL reference frame.

The nightmares

The definition of the wiki is simple and factual : « A nightmare is an unpleasant dream that can cause a strong emotional response from the mind, typically fear but also despair, anxiety and great sadness. »… Anxiety ? « great sadness » !? While sleeping ? How about that ! :)

The state of knowledge on this subject is disparate, we find dozens of explanations, all completely different… I put some of them that I found:

– For Galen, it is a nocturnal asthma (…)
– For Boissier de Sauvages, the anguish of the nightmare is only the consequence of an obstacle to breathing
– For Dubosquet, it is a nervous disease (too strong, all the same are sick! ..)
– For Baillarger Jules, the nightmare is a painful dream (that one is Rantanplan :))
– For Ernest Jones, the nightmare expresses a psychic conflict related to an incestuous desire (…)
– For Michel Collée 1987, the nightmare is related to an unnameable suffering of an alterity that desire arouses, an image that signals the inaccessibility of speech to account for it (humm.. the technique of that one is to make us forget the question :D )

It’s funny at least no ? :) Ok, so, no : the nightmare is one of the notorious symptoms of a significant sensation imbalance, we’ve got them when we are in « lack » of significant amount of « sorrow« . It is a textbook case indeed, it symbolizes by itself all the consequences of the equilibrium constraint

In general we have some control over our feelings, if we « feel bad » we can « hide » it, or « contain » it in a way, but when we sleep this control is « released » and if a large « amount » of « sorrow » has been accumulated and is contained somehow when awake, it « explodes » when we are asleep, when our control is weakened. It wakes us most of the time because we can not feel sensations exceeding a certain threshold when sleeping.

Children of our « modern » societies are the most susceptible to be affected by nightmares, because they have, in general, no reason to feel bad in their nice life. They « have fun » all the time, they play, they don’t really have « real » worries, they are protected, and it’s very good like that. But as a result, they are frequently in a great sensation imbalance, like those Sunday evening for example after having had all that weekend of fun (and not only the children ;) ).

It is with children that we often notes the greatest sensations imbalances, their crying tears are disarming by their lack of « real » of causes, of « explanations »… A little thing will make them sink in a deep sadness incomprehensible for us… Some adults (not necessarily the parents) will get angry by scolding them for crying « without reasons » !… This is one of the most serious mistakes to make with children, it’s terrible to realize that it’s adding pain to someone who already suffers a lot…

Advised parents will know that it is wise in these moments of major crises (such as nightmares, therefore, but not only in fact) to limit their sadness, without hoping to stop it immediately. By a simple presence, taking them in their arms, talking to them, explaining to them that there is nothing to do, and that we understand them, that it is hard yes, but reassure them, and explain that it will pass, because it’s important to teach them how to manage all alone their « sorrow » too. And while waiting we should try to avoid the child to go too far in a strong anguish for example because it mark spirit, especially at this age, and leaves bad traces once an adult, seriously affecting self-confidence for example.

It will be good also later when finished to bounce back on what happened, to continue to explain to them gently, to make small remarks from time to time, on the functioning of our sensations, balance, and all that « equilibrium »… Kids understand right away it’s pretty amazing, much more than all those adults who were cradled with lies based on fairy tales where everyone is happy « forever » at the end…

I said that we can not live sensations exceeding a certain threshold while sleeping, but nevertheless I think that to a certain extent the balance is restored softly during the sleep, but not for « big volumes » therefore, it would be too easy :) ;)

Find a culprit !

Sometime we have good reasons to feel good or bad and we can say that it is because of something that has just happened to us, bad or good news, the simple fact of being Monday morning for Example or simply the weather outside, sunny and rainy. But there are other times where it’s much less obvious.. even not clear at all :s

Generally when we feel good without having any identifiable reason it’s not a problem to us, we just say that life is beautiful, and we take advantage of it ! On the other hand, when we feels bad without having any « obvious » reason, we tends to look for the cause. Indeed we are convinced that our state is the direct result of « something », even if it is unconscious, and of course we think that by « finding » this « thing » we can solve the « problem » and improve our state, stop feeling bad, our ultimate priority in these moments.

But sometimes it’s not easy to find something ! Not easy at all ! Simply because there is NO reason, we are just in imbalance and our bodies/spirit compensates softly, or brutally if the imbalance is too big… But anyway we seeking for a responsible, inside us by introspection, and outside in the world, or both, we suspect, it’s like an investigation… We need to find a culprit !.. absolutely… To have a chance to feel better. It must also be a decent « candidate », we can’t accuse the silent neighbor that we never sees.. whatever.. if he or she has an identifiable « difference », some will not hesitate :(

If we lives with someone we can easily fall into the trap of making him/her responsible in one way or another, we can make some reproach on details, seek the quarrel, disagree with him/her on everything… It is difficult not to be led to destroy something, a relationship, a love, or any other thing when you are in great imbalance

It can take violent forms, some focus on objects, get upset on things they don’t succeed, on their computer :), or less funny some put themselves in a group to discriminate another one weaker and accuse it in hatred and aggression to be responsible… A French song says that we must « put hatred somewhere » but I do not agree, « hate » is far from being the only « way » to « flow out » the « feel bad ».. fortunately.

Among the Bonobos, monkeys very close to us, there is something similar (it almost look like our caricature) :

    The social organization of bonobos in captivity has a peculiarity. The peace of the group is also maintained by the existence of a scapegoat (or pharmakos). When a group of researchers removed a bonobo injured and struck by the other members of the group, an increase in violence and a decrease in sexuality could be noticed. Conversely, when it was re-integrated into the group, the group’s peace was re-established.

We should not blame our-self too much because it is an « instinctive » reaction to look for a culprit, it is « automatic », primitive, and very difficult to control. Even I, if I get in a great imbalance (which is kind of rare these days), even if I’m very aware that there is nothing to do but to « feel » this pressing « sorrow » and to wait for it to pass, I sometimes find it difficult to reason me, and I sometimes find myself searching among innocent reasons a « responsible » for my « bad » state (it’s so silly, it really annoys me !)

The best proof that a « false guilty thing » has been accused is to realize once the « sorrow » has « passed » that we do not care anymore ! I remember this friend who after a very happy evening party, deeply worried a lot for some friends who just leaved by car (the driver was not drunk), she was imagining the worst scenarios on the road, she was feeling a real « anxiety » and for quite a long time! But the next day… nothing left ! :) She did not even phone to find out if there had a problem, finally she suddenly assumed that everything was all right for them ;) (which was the case ..)

The most classic « false reason » remains in the couple, it is even one of the preconditions in the formation of the couple : to agree on false reasons of argue! A very jealous person will not be able to pair with someone who can not stand jealousy, it’s so obviously that it’s almost silly to say it… A person who becomes violent when he/she is in great imbalance, when he/she has an urgent need for strong « sadness« , will be able to put himself in a couple only with someone who « accepts », or « endures » rather, that :( Whether it is a man or a woman, because men are rather physically violent but there are many women equally extremely violent in their words…

In short, it would be much more objective and it would be much more constructive to identify the « real problems » and find some « good » solutions to them at a time when one would feel good. But.. at this time, we do not want to think about it, at this moment we find that life is beautiful ! ;)

The masochists

What we seeks most often in life: pleasure, joy .. happiness! ;) Through our actions we try to create a situation in which we hope we will feel good. Actions and situations often among those that have already given us a form of « pleasure » in the past. This is the most common behavior. It is rare to hear someone openly declare that he is trying to feel bad … Why would we want this? That would be incomprehensible?

Well, no, not that much when we know the intimate functioning of our sensations, indeed, after having « suffered » we will « logically » feel a form of well-being, resulting from the « re-balancing » quite simply. Since the two groups of sensations literally « feed » each other, when the imbalance becomes too great, a re-balancing in favor of the other group is inevitable (and it also works in the other direction: After a series of intense joy one may find oneself « constrained » to anger, violence or anxiety according to your « usual » mode of operation.)

If the suffering occurs in a sufficiently rapid and intense way, the « re-balancing » can even occur in a brutal way during the session of « torture », in « rush », it is called « masochistic ecstasy » (wiki link in French, did not find the corresponding English one)

Masochism thus becomes an action in order to feel good, but a little upside down, beginning with « pain« , by « creating an important imbalance ». One can have seen the effect of this behavior empirically : « I suffer, but it causes some sort of bursts of pleasure and in any case « after » I feel good… ». (Precision: I’m not like that, but since I’ve been aware for a while of how the sensations work I quite understand the principle obviously)

Feeling bad is a very strong taboo in society, it seems to be even a reason for exclusion. Understandably, the moods are very « communicative », there is the « emotional contagion », in both directions… Then we have a sort of « obligation » to give the impression of feeling good ! (This is the biggest « obligation » in society I think, but again it is « understandable ».) People who practice masochism by accepting to feel bad (even very bad) in a first time, not only « re-balance » their level of « joy« / »sorrow » if they were in « imbalance » of « sorrow » before but in addition they probably « get ahead ». But it requires to accept to suffer a lot, which is not so easy I guess…

La contrainte d’équilibre

Les sensations se divisent en deux groupes bien connus : d’un coté le groupe des sensations qui ont rapport au « bien-être », à différentes intensités, par exemple : le rire, le sourire, la plénitude, la simple bonne humeur, la contemplation jusqu’aux plaisirs physiques. De l’autre coté, le groupe du « mal-être » : tristesse, souffrance, mauvaise humeur ou mélancolie simple, jusqu’aux pleurs et même l’angoisse par exemple.

Il n’y a pas de noms qui désignent précisément ces deux « groupes », et j’utiliserais souvent les mots « joie » ou « bien-être » et « peine » ou « mal-être ». Le vocabulaire me fait un peu défaut ici, mais chacun comprend ce dont il s’agit, un groupe relatifs l’un aux sensations « agréables » et l’autre aux sensations « désagréables ».

On a toujours suposé vrai, sans en avoir la preuve, qu’il était possible de ressentir uniquement les sensations du groupe « agréable » (et donc de ne ressentir aucune sensations du groupe « désagréable ») si les conditions étaient entièrement réunies du point de vue de l’amour, de la famille, des amis, du travail, de la richesse, etc, . Mais il semble que personne n’atteigne ce but…

Pire, tout le monde ressent, de façon chronique, les sensations du groupe « désagréable », et souvent dans des proportions importantes et étranges au regard des conditions de vie « sur le papier » des gens concernés… Même les gens riches, beaux, célèbres et/ou puissant, semblent souffrir, et plus que nous parfois même ! Il suffit de jeter un oeil à la presse people pour voir la catastrophe…

Quelque chose nous échappe donc, nous faisons une erreur quelque part, et c’est forcément sur la « croyance » qu’il est possible de ne ressentir que des sensations d’un des groupe, « agréable » ou « désagréable ».

D’ailleurs on sent tous bien qu’on serait plus proche de la réalité si on partait plutôt du principe qu’on ne peut pas ressentir les sensations d’un des deux groupe, « agréable » ou « désagréable », de façon permanente, et qu’au bout d’un moment, à force de ressentir des sensations d’un de ces groupe on atteint une sorte de « maximum » dans le groupe concerné. Ce qu’on sait moins c’est que le seul moyen de nous redonner la capacité de ressentir a nouveau les sensations du groupe ayant atteint son « maximum » est de ressentir les sensations du groupe opposé.

Une assez bonne analogie de cela est de nous considérer attaché à un élastique : en montant nous ressentons une forme de « bien être » et en descendant une forme de « mal-être ». L’intensité des sensations ressenties dépend de la vitesse à laquelle nous allons dans un sens ou dans l’autre. Mais quand on s’éloigne du centre (où est attaché l’élastique) en montant il se tend et nous attire de plus en plus vers le bas, et nous avons donc de plus en plus tendance à descendre « facilement » ce qui se traduit par une plus grande « sensibilité à la peine ». Dans cet état la moindre « mauvaise nouvelle » déclenche immédiatement de façon importante de la « tristesse » par exemple… Dans l’autre sens si on descend en dessous du « centre », de l’endroit où est attaché l’élastique, il commence à se tendre également, à nous attirer vers le haut et nous avons donc de plus en plus tendance à monter « facilement », ce qui se traduit par une plus grande sensibilité aux « joies », dans cet état la moindre « bonne nouvelle » nous affecte également de façon importante, nous rend instantanément « joyeux » par exemple.

On pourrait donc résumer cela par l’existence d’un lien particulier entre les deux groupes de sensations : notre esprit, notre conscience, a une « contrainte de fonctionnement » plus ou moins « cachée », et on ne peut ressentir les sensations du groupe agréables que dans la même mesure de celles du groupe désagréables, et inversement.

Si un déséquilibre commence à apparaître en faveur d’un des groupes, si on ressent trop les sensations d’un des deux groupe, alors il y a une sorte de « sensibilité » à l’autre groupe qui se développe de plus en plus, à ce moment le moindre événement en rapport avec ce groupe déclenchera alors instantanément la « sensation manquante ». Comme si « l’élastique » s’était tendu et cherchait à revenir à son point d’équilibre.

Enfin si le déséquilibre devient très important, par exemple si vraiment tout est parfait et rien n’arrive de négatif dans notre vie, dans les cas extrêmes de déséquilibre donc, l’esprit deviendra tellement en « manque » et « sensible » qu’il va aller jusqu’à « inventer » quelque chose, de totalement imaginaire, pour ressentir la sensation du groupe manquant. Ce sont les phénomènes d’angoisses par exemple pour la tension extrême vers peine ou d’hystérie pour la tension extrême vers la joie.

Ca parait choquant au premier abord car il y a une telle « culture du bonheur », du toujours souriant, toujours de bonne humeur, que la peine, le mal-être, la souffrance sont presque devenus « tabous », alors les présenter comme des choses « normales », et même les « anticiper » dans le même « volume » que le groupe des sensations agréables, est très.. à contre courant on va dire…

Evidemment la durée ET l’intensité des sensations sont très importantes. Les deux doivent être pris en compte et on aura donc par exemple, une égalité entre « une peine légère etlongue » et « une joie forte et courte ». Ou bien encore l’égalité entre « une peine forte et courte » et « une joie légère et longue ». D’innombrables combinaisons se suivant, provoquées par la vie, le hasard, la chance, la malchance, s’additionnant, se soustrayant, à toutes les intensités, de toutes les durées, mais, avec cette contrainte, une sorte de « tension » qui nous pousse a revenir « vers l’équilibre » quand il y a trop de l’un des deux.

Pourquoi cette « contrainte » ? Je ne sais pas. Que ce soit chimique, ou structurel, mais probablement à cause du mécanisme de fonctionnement intime de la conscience largement méconnu…

Mais avec cette nouvelle idée on comprend « logiquement » de nombreuses choses difficilement explicable comme le masochisme, les cauchemars, le fonctionement des drogues ou l’impossibilité apparente de trouver le bonheur qui occupe nos philosophes depuis des milléaires. Il y a tellement de choses qu’on peut expliquer grâce a ce nouveau point de vue que je n’ai certainement pas épuisé le sujet. Toute la gamme des situations et sentiments humains pourraient y passer je crois…

Je conviens que ce n’est pas très « sexy » comme « idée », et c’est peut-être pour ça que c’est généralement assez mal accepté par les gens qui l’entendent pour la première fois… On a toujours ce petit rêve qui traîne quelque part d’être « heureux à jamais ».. un jour.. comme à la fin des contes de fées… Mais non, ce n’est pas comme ça que ça marche… On s’en doutait un peu.

The equilibrium constraint

The sensations are divided into two well-known groups: on one side the group of sensations that relate to « well-being », at different intensities, for example: laughter, smile, plenitude, simple good humor, contemplation, up to physical pleasure. On the other side, the group of the « unease »: sadness, suffering, bad mood or simple melancholy, crying, up to anguish for example.

There are no names that specifically refer to these two « groups », and I’ll use the general state designation « felling good », « well-being » or « joys » and « felling bad », « sorrow » or « sadness ». The vocabulary is not perfect in that domain, but everyone understands what is it about, a group relating to the « pleasant » sensations and the other to the « unpleasant » sensations.

It has always been assumed to be true (without any proof), that it is possible to feel only the sensations of the « pleasant » group (and therefore to feel no sensations of the « unpleasant » group) if the requirements are fulfilled, in love, family, friends, Work, wealth, etc.. But yet it seems that nobody reaches this point…

Worse, everyone feels the sensations of the « unpleasant » group in a chronic way, and often in important and strange proportions with regard to the living conditions « on paper » of the people concerned … Even the rich, beautiful, famous people and/or powerful, seems to suffer, and even more than us sometimes ! Just take a look at the press people to see the disaster…

So we are obviously missing something, we are making a mistake somewhere, and it is necessarily on the belief that it is possible to feel only sensations of the « nice » group (or only some of the « bad » one).

We all feels well that we would be much closer to the reality if we start from the principle that we can not feel the sensations of a single group, « pleasant » or « unpleasant », permanently, and that after a moment of feeling the sensations of one of these groups we reach a sort of « maximum » in the concerned group. What we may not know is that the only way to restore the ability of feeling again the sensations of that group which have reached its « maximum » is to feel the sensation of the opposite group.

A fairly good analogy of this would be to consider ourselves attached to an elastic band: by going up we feel a form of « well being » and descending a form of « sadness ». The intensity of the sensations felt depends on the speed at which we go in one direction or the other. But when one moves away from the center (where the elastic is attached) it stretches and draws us more and more downwards, and we therefore increasingly tend to descend « easily » what is translated by a greater « sensitivity to sadness », in this state the slightest « bad news » immediately triggers important « bad feeling » immediately … In the other direction if one descends below the « center », where the elastic is attached, it begins to tighten also and we are increasingly inclined to climb « easily », which translates into a greater sensitivity to « joys », in this state any little « good » New « also affects us in an important way, makes us instantly very joyful for example.

We can therefore summarize that by the existence of a particular link between the two groups of sensations: our mind, our consciousness, has a « constraint of functioning » more or less « hidden », and one can not Feel the pleasurable group feelings only to the same extent as those of the unpleasant group, and vice versa.

If an imbalance begins to appear in favor of one of the groups, if one senses too much the sensations of one of the two groups, then there is a kind of « sensitivity » to the other group that develops more and more, then the slightest event related to this group will instantly trigger the « missing sensation ». As if « the elastic » had stretched and tried to return to its point of balance.

Finally, if the imbalance becomes very important, for example if everything is perfect and nothing happens negative in our life, in extreme cases of imbalance so, the mind will become so « lacking » and « sensitive » that it will goes up to « invent » something, totally imaginary, to feel the sensation of the missing group. These are the phenomena of anguish for example for extreme tension toward « sadness » or hysteria for extreme tension toward « joy ».

It seems shocking at first because there is such a « culture of happiness », always smiling, always in good humor, that pain, ill-being, suffering are almost « taboo », then present them as Things « normal », and even « anticipate » them in the same « volume » as the group of pleasant sensations, is very .. against the current one will say …

Obviously the duration AND intensity of the sensations are very important. Both must be taken into account and thus there will be, for example, an equality between « a slight and long » and « a strong and short joy ». Or else the equality between « a sharp and short sentence » and « a light and long joy ». Countless combinations following each other, provoked by life, chance, luck, bad luck, adding up, subtracting, at all intensities, of all duration, but with this constraint, a kind of « tension » which pushes us to return « towards the balance » when there is too much of one of the two .

Why this « constraint »? I don’t know .. Whether it is chemical, or structural, but probably because of the intimate mechanism of functioning of the widely unknown consciousness …

But with that new idea it’s possible to understand « logically » many things that are difficult to explain otherwise, like masochism, the nightmares, the problem with pleasures drugs or the apparent impossibility of finding happiness that keep our philosophers busy for millennia. There is so much that can be explained by this new point of view that I have certainly not exhausted the subject. The whole range of human situations and feelings could pass there I think…

I agree that it’s not very « sexy » as an « idea », and maybe that’s why it’s usually pretty badly accepted by people who hear it for the first time … Always this little dream that drags somewhere to be « happy forever » .. one day .. like at the end of the fairy tales… But no, this not how it work… As one would have suspected.