Full Notes:You know this thing where you can’t tell the violation from its justification—do we just say that certain things go together - depression and failure to forgive oneself, sin and it’s attendant self-justification, uh, what else?  Basically everything where you’d say you do the bad thing and then you justify it by self-deceiving. That’s everything. So rather than one happening first, they both come together somehow and you can’t tell which one comes first. Very confusing. But sometimes the truth isn’t immediately intuitive. Take the theory of relativity and quantum physics. But do we just say they come together?  And if so exactly how - is it a necessary relationship?  The theory I’ve been putting forward is that it is.You might say it like this—any time you go against the light you self-deceive. That way you’re not making it a cause and effect thing, as if it were two separate things. Seems like other cause-and-effect stuff is actually like this—not separate things so much in actuality, just in our way of speaking and conceptualizing. I think of my old writing session at BYU where I talked about how words don’t necessarily represent different isolated things, but rather all “objects” are really connected, and the words we use just kind of conceptualize a different element of them. Guitar, guitar strings, wood, steel, whatever. How do you separate the object from the parts of the object, and everything else?  It’s an artificial separation. It’s a linguistic thing. It’s a conceptual thing. There’s no such actual thing as “things”.So cause and effect are not really separate either, everything’s connected.  Is that too strong to say?  For that matter everything is one big connected blob?  It’s just however we want to categorize things for our purposes. You can categorize them however you want in order to understand them and communicate and so forth.So this cause-and-effect relationship between acting against the light and justifying it is, strictly speaking, not cause-and-effect at all, since nothing is cause-and-effect strictly speaking? Or because just it isn’t cause-and-effect?  How do I always run into these things?  In any case, it’s not cause-and-effect. The choice you make brings you into the self-deception at the same time any act is committed. Man, this is so central to everything, it would be nice to understand it.I guess for right now it will have to be sufficient to say that it all happens at the same time. But it also seems like sometimes there is a state of mind/perception/self-deception in the absence of an act that you can track down.   This is central, too!  Is that possible?  A person can be a thief in their heart without actually committing a theft?  A person can be a murderer, an adulterer, whatever, without ever committing the act?  Or will it always manifest, sooner or later?  Isn’t this an important question?  And I don’t know.Tuesday, January 5, 2021I was listening to Jody Moore's podcast, Better Than Happy, and she said that she teaches that the thought comes first and the emotion comes after that, or whatever.  Well if she can teach that, can I?  I mean is that close enough?  What about the "soft seat principle"?  Where physical things can influence your emotions?  Am I confusing stuff too much here?  Don't prophets and apostles teach that, too?  I'd need to check that, I guess.  But surely I can say that yea, other things influence your feelings and all that, including soft seats and uncomfortable ones, but it's still your thoughts that influence your feeling of well being, or something like that.  Right??  Does this mean I can also say that going against the light, whether in thought or in deed, causes…What am I getting wrong here?  Pushing through a paragraph.  Going against the light, whether in thought or in deed, is all in though