No announcement yet.


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts


    Is it true that humans are more adoptive to the surroundings/environment/situations in troubled times than in a state of comfort?


    Noticed your thread "what about meditation??" in Religion.
    But I chose to post my response here instead - hope it's okay with you.

    I was listening to Deepak Chopra, talking about his new book "How to know God", and in one instance, he defined meditation as the state when we "listen to God".

    In my understanding, moments of complete surrender to HIM......

    As opposed to, the actual praying, in which we are engaged in, recitation and/or some type of activity....

    And are not necessarily completely silent, serene and "focused"...for the lack of a better phrase.

    This book may have some answers.


      Maybe when you're too comfortable you don't see any need for change, But when you are unhappy you're willing to re think your situation...
      But of course few difficult situations are a result of deliberate choice. I think that the way one adapts to them depends very much on the person. Someone who has gone through difficult times might be able to look at this saying, "I got through a hard time before, and I can do it again" (good dose of optimism needed) whereas someone who has no experience of overcoming difficulties and is a pessimist probably will have a harder time.


        So what about the people who don't believe in God? How would Deepak Chopara's definition apply there?

        I have heard Deepak Chopara couple of times on TV. In my personal opinion, he starts off pretty good. But as he moves on, his emphasis becomes more and more on the self-involved spirtuality based purely on the belief of God, and I think at that point he leaves off some of the audience behind who don't not want to believe in God just because it's a given thing by his narration.

        His narration of belief in God is very common and unappealing. However, his account on the subject of human existence and its journey in this physical world is quite sensible and scholarly.

        This is just an impression I have of him based on hearing him on TV couple of times, don't hold me for it as I haven't read any of his works.

        Shirin, I am gonna have to wait a little to talk about what you said.


          I have also seen Deepak Chopra a little bit, and I agree with Roman, he is a little too introvert, and his philosophy at looking at solutions, etc, through individual efforts (to discover oneself) is too simplistic. There is a growing population of “anything spiritual goes” in the west, as they are tired of more holistic views about the environment. I personally find his approach very patronizing.

          What Roman said, “adaptability in dire circumstance” is an issue that has been around for a long time, going back to protohistoric times. It is very real and it is very surreal. My take on this is that we as human species are ever evolving and no one solution fits our needs. We constantly need to look for improvements. What may have worked yesterday may be obsolete today. Nothing is forever.

          Roman: In terms of not being proactive at times of comfort. Why should we?


            'Necessity is the mother of invention'

            With that in mind, I would say it is only normal for humans to languish their their comfort zones until their surroundings/ environment/ situations change. But even when we're enjoying the statud-quo, I think we're still changing but at a more gradual or even snail's pace rate. We just might not realize it. This delicate transformation which continously goes unnoticed maybe the reason why we develop needs. Hence, invention or 'adoption' follows.

            But I like the other folks answers better. Good thread Roman!


              Adoptibility, in my personal view, exists at different levels.

              I think it is most strong at the human instinctive level, not at the degree of premeditated whims. The reason is that a planned goal will always have varying degree of productive input from different people but when it comes to survival or uncontrollable circumstances, the force of survival will always be relatively more strenuous and even above the conscious strength level of an individual. I think instinct level is where adoptibility is most strong and even unpredictable.

              But it does not imply that whatever others said is not applicable. I personally think that there are certain ‘placeholders’ for degree of adoptibility. These placeholders help define or distinguish the source/reason/nature of adoptibility. These placeholders come in the order of instinct (NYAhmadi’s mentioning of prehistoric times; I take it it was in terms of survival), necessity (like ghalib mentioned; The level after survival), aspirations (what Shirin said; next to necessity), and interest (life in one’s comfort zone and interest in terms of habits, hobbies, personal liking etc).

              Now, a very good question by NYAhmadi: Why should we be proactive at times of comfort? If I look at my personal view of different degrees of adoptibility, I don’t think necessity or instinct applies to answer this question. I think it depends more on the level of one’s aspirations and/or interests.