The self as foundation of all truth

Become a part of the TranceAddict community!

Frequently Asked Questions - Please read this if you haven't

TranceAddict Forums > Main Forums > Chill Out Room > The self as foundation of all truth

Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Last Thread Next Thread

Author

Thread

Lira
Ancient BassAddict

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Brasilia, Brazil

The self as foundation of all truth

There are no atheists in foxholes. Everyone is a racist, and if you claim otherwise, you're a liar. If you support <instert ideology here>, you're either stupid or crazy..

Why is it that, when confronted with different points of view, some people tend to dismiss these new ideas so harshly that they're unable to believe someone like them could have come to a different conclusion on a specific issue?

Religion is a good example. In a highly secularised country, such as Sweden, I've been told religious people are seen as uneducated fellows, whereas an atheist in many religious countries can be seen as someone with some sort of cognitive dissonance. I vividly remember of a co-worker of mine who once told me that, although I didn't know I believed in God, I did believe, but I just happen to have a different God (I hope she was not talking about Tiesto

). Why I couldn't be godless is beyond me.

Naturally, this is not restricted to religion. Racism, money, and most ideologies seem to influence people to such an extent that, if you don't agree with them, there must be something wrong with you... which is kinda odd, because you could just have been exposed to different sets of arguments (making none of the people involved less intelligent than anyone else). Why can't that sort of explanation work?

Just as an illustration of what kind of person I'm talking about, here's a quote from Akridot:

quote:

Originally posted by Akridrot
This is an interesting aspect to the thread, maybe we should start addressing this, because I'd like to understand it too. My mother is the same way. She has extremely strong convictions about money and various social issues: everything ever is about money; everyone in the world wants to win the lottery -- and you are a gigantic, lying idiot if you don't (but in her mind, you secretly do); she thinks that Muslims are bad people and that any sane, normal person would back her up she thinks that all women, no exceptions, want to be equal with men (the only ones who aren't are just weak to her) and that who successful women who occasionally embrace a very submissive side behind closed doors do not exist, or that they don't have an iota of intelligence. The main theme behind all her convictions is that she believes with complete certainty that everyone else backs her up and that anyone who doesn't is crazy, stupid, or lying.

Most people aren't big on critical thinking. I hate to say something so general, but that's just a statement I'm making to illustrate what I am trying to get across. I think that ideas such "Being rich is the most important thing," spread so easily because they're good at spreading... not because they're good ideas. Like a gene can be good at spreading, even if it's not good for the species. Here's an explanation selfish gene theory. (It might be wrong in some contexts [ NY Times article: A Challenge to Gene Theory, a Tougher Look at Biotech ], but the concept is still useful)

Again, ideas don't really spread because they're good, but because they're good at spreading. The people who buy into the the material wealth the most (and therefore, spread the idea the best) tend to make statements like: "You're lying if you don't agree with me," "Everyone wants to be rich, who doesn't?" They just put those statements out there, and they all agree with each other and they all try to make it look like you already agree with their opinion even if you don't. That tactic doesn't work on everyone, but I don't doubt that it's worked on lots of people throughout history. It's a powerful concept.

If most people share a viewpoint and ostracize, mock, or lash out towards anyone who simply disagrees with them, then I'm willing to bet that you will begin to share it too if you don't think critically about things. Either that, or you just don't want to take the risk of people behaving negatively towards you, so you conform to what society does. You will just go with the flow, even if in the long run, accepting the popular opinion simply because it's popular doesn't benefit you that much. Just following the crowd opinion simply because it's the crowds opinion, most certainly benefits others more than it benefits you. How many people are willing to seriously ask themselves why so many feel so strongly about a topic? I think those of us who don't wholeheartedly agree with the financial wealth have the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it, and never accept ideas that are popular unless we make sure that... we actually accept those ideas. Unlike most people who will just see everyone all riled up or excited about one thing and will get riled up and excited themselves.

It's like society is one big mob. You know how that goes.

I'm sure this is not new to any of you, though.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

Oct-24-2008 17:23 Brazil

Click here to Send Lira a Private Message

RickyM
*

Registered: Sep 2004
Location: Northern Ireland

I'll post something here once I have finished getting my burger and chips

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive

Oct-24-2008 17:29 United Kingdom

Click here to Send RickyM a Private Message

nefardec
Tranceaddict in tranning

Registered: Oct 2004
Location:

I think taking a definitive stance on anything "There is god" "There is not god" is problematic and illusory

Oct-24-2008 17:44

Click here to Send nefardec a Private Message

Meat187
Diese scheiß Katze

Registered: Dec 2007
Location: The Night's Plutonian Shore

Geee, why write so much text, when the truth can be formulated in such a simply way: I'm right, everybody else isn't.

___________________

Then stop coloring and visit Meat187's mix archive!

Oct-24-2008 17:47 Germany

Click here to Send Meat187 a Private Message

winston
ultraviolet catastrophe

Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Yggdrasill

Re: Nefardec's contribution (video)

I agree. God should be regarded as an entity, a force, a science beyond our realm of understanding.

it's hard for us to believe in something that can't be proven by science, just as much as it is hard for us to believe in something that has no physical shape or form & that most of the time, exists in the minds of those who seek higher levels of consciousness.

Similarly one could regard “consciousness” as referring to a component or aspect of reality that manifests itself in conscious states and creatures but is more than merely the abstract nominalization of the adjective “conscious” we apply to them. Though such strongly realist views are not very common at present, they should be included within the logical space of options.

Last edited by winston on Oct-24-2008 at 17:58

Oct-24-2008 17:52

Click here to Send winston a Private Message

PETRAN
Like Antennas To Heaven

Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Volos, Greece

quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
Geee, why write so much text, when the truth can be formulated in such a simply way: I'm right, everybody else isn't.

CoR Version

So, yeah, what can you say, it seems that everything orbits around the self.

But you are right, why people become so harsh to ideas which seem to be different than theirs? I believe the answer is simple. Because there is no self which is independent of ideas. The self itself is (partly) a collection of ideas ("bundle theory of the self?")at least the social or the interpersonal aspect of the self. So, when you challenge one's ideas, and these are probably "emotionally-charged" ideas which mean a lot to the person,its like you challenge the other person's self. This parallel's Blackmore's view of the self as a huge "memeplex", that is, a network of memes-of ideas that survive and pass from person to person (minds not bodies). So, in the same way that a genome canno't be independent of its' genes, so there can be no self (memeplex) without its' memes.

Oct-24-2008 18:02 Greece

Click here to Send PETRAN a Private Message

Lira
Ancient BassAddict

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Brasilia, Brazil

quote:
Originally posted by PETRAN
But you are right, why people become so harsh to ideas which seem to be different than theirs? I believe the answer is simple. Because there is no self which is independent of ideas. The self itself is (partly) a collection of ideas ("bundle theory of the self?")at least the social or the interpersonal aspect of the self. So, when you challenge one's ideas, and these are probably "emotionally-charged" ideas which mean a lot to the person,its like you challenge the other person's self. This parallel's Blackmore's view of the self as a huge "memeplex", that is, a network of memes-of ideas that survive and pass from person to person (minds not bodies). So, in the same way that a genome canno't be independent of its' genes, so there can be no self (memeplex) without its' memes.

Got any reading material to recommend on this topic? (the memetic structure of the self, or something of that sort)

I know you're a grad student of psychology, you're bound to know more about this than a smart-ass student of linguistics like me

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

Oct-24-2008 18:04 Brazil

nefardec
Tranceaddict in tranning

Registered: Oct 2004
Location:

also i think when you challenge ideas that are contrary to your deepest beliefs, what PETRAN says is "challenging the other person's self", you are in fact reinforcing your own self. (this is more important to the issue IMO)

I think the self is a product of environment and relationship. In this case, one reinforces ones own illusion complex by contrasting and understanding it in relation to another's.

Oct-24-2008 18:13

Lira
Ancient BassAddict

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Brasilia, Brazil

quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
also i think when you challenge ideas that are contrary to your deepest beliefs, what PETRAN says is "challenging the other person's self", you are in fact reinforcing your own self. (this is more important to the issue IMO)

I think the self is a product of environment and relationship. In this case, one reinforces ones own illusion complex by contrasting and understanding it in relation to another's.

Interesting... why can some people be more tolerant in this sense, though? Would you say this is related to how secure one is about oneself?

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

Oct-24-2008 18:20 Brazil

nefardec
Tranceaddict in tranning

Registered: Oct 2004
Location:

maybe

i don't think it's quite that simple

Oct-24-2008 18:34

RickyM
*

Registered: Sep 2004
Location: Northern Ireland

Your point about religious folk is true...a lot of them can't actually grasp the fact that you don't believe their god exists. They therefore accuse you of 'denying' or 'rejecting' their god, and you do that because you want to live in sin. Personally I think this may be due to a slight insecurity about their beliefs, they don't like the fact that someone can reject their belief system for being a load of nonsense. For example christians can often be very cutting towards atheists, yet don't hold the same animosity towards folks of other faiths, basically because they 'believe in some higher power'. They have something in common with people of other faiths.
I am generalising about christians here, but I think there may be some truth in it...

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive

Oct-24-2008 18:44 United Kingdom

Akridrot
Suspended User

Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Free Candy! Yay! (Only available in select vans)

Here is an expansion on what I wrote in the OP. Thanks for making this thread. You really shouldn't have, but I guess it might get more participants if it's a fresh thread.

Here are 8 points I use to evaluate the people we're focusing on. I think these are a good way for anyone on either side to better understand why each side is like that.

Exposure to an idea or viewpoint for so long that the alternative never even crossed their minds or that they couldn't even come up with an alternative if you asked them.

How much the individual truly values conformity over individuality, even if they explicitly, and vehemently state the opposite in every conversation about the topic that they have.

Their ability to 'entertain a thought without accepting it.'

Their willingness to think about, investigate, and discuss issues that are: uncomfortable (for any reason, even it makes them uncomfortable with themselves), confusing and difficult to understand for them, embarrassing, disturbing, emotional, unknown, or dangerous.

Ability to calmly and rationally communicate or socialize with people who openly disagree with and/or actively oppose the issues that they openly agree with and/or actively support, even if the degree of disagreement and/or opposition is relatively harmless or minor.

How easy it is to get a rise out of their emotions with words alone.

Do they trust others too much? Do they honestly believe that a smiling face from someone in the same community, the same ethnicity, the same background, the same age bracket, the same level of education, the same gender, or who has any other combination of superficial similarities -- would never lie to them, so they have no reason to even think about whether or not something is right or wrong, since it obviously must be right by default? Do they believe that they should agree with someone just because that someone looks, talks, or acts like them?

Do they ever sit back and just think about things to better understand themselves, others, and life in general? Do they ever think about complicated things in their spare time, like what's out there, or what does it all really mean? Or do they get bored easily and are unable to entertain themselves without something to interact with?

All of these things are good ways to evaluate how ignorant, stubborn and unwilling to change a person is. Ignorance isn't a bad thing, mind you. We're all ignorant about many things, even the most intelligent and educated amongst us. It's not a bad word. Being able to admit you're ignorant on something is a good thing. Not being able to is what's bad. The stubborn and unwilling to change parts are bad. Stubborn people are difficult to even begin reasoning with because if you're not talking about what they want to hear, they're not going to listen to you. People who are unwilling to change are even worse, because you know they understand what you're saying, and you have the feeling that they should at the very least start seeing things differently, but they outright refuse to. Point blank. They also won't justify themselves than you because they feel they don't have to.

How many of us are willing to change our ideas on things if we are presented with a logical, well-written or well spoken argument against it that is so exhaustively composed that we're unable to disprove even a single point within it no matter how much we concentrate on it? That's basically the definition of someone being right, and you being wrong. You can't prove them wrong because -- it's literally impossible to do so logically.

How many of us are willing to continue holding on to our ideas simply because we've always held those beliefs (or because we're too proud to be proven wrong, or are scared of being embarrassed and exposed) even if we acknowledge that the opposition is, in fact, right?

It makes sense. You believed something your entire life. For as long as you could possibly remember, you and everyone around you (the people you love, the people you had children with, the people who care about you, unlike... this stranger trying to change your mind) held this belief. You encounter an extremely powerful argument against it and it shatters what you've known and loved for your entire life. Many people would rather just not let that happen -- even if we know we're wrong, we have so many people on our side, that it doesn't matter. Why would we give it up now? What's the benefit? Satisfying some intellectual's ego because he got us to finally admit that we were wrong? We'd rather be wrong and happy than right and depressed!

How many of us out there won't ever acknowledge that the opposition could be right, whether publicly or privately in our homes, or even more privately in our minds only? Even worse, how many people are out there who actually can't ever acknowledge or actively deny acknowledging the merit of their opposition's arguments and truly believe that the people against them are wrong because they're literally unable to even entertain a contrary viewpoint after all this time or simply because they don't, and never will have mental ability to do so even if they wanted to?

This is a tough subject. It's complex, but I am trying my best to understand these people, even if they don't care to ever understand me. Why do I feel the need to write all of this up, why do I feel the need to understand them, and why do I even care so goddamn much, you might ask? Simple: because these people, in my mind, can also be called most people, and I think it's good to understand those who surround me in my day to day life.

___________________
"If she's old enough to crawl, she's already in position." -- Pedobear