# Beginner's guide to "Perspective Logic"

Although we can think and evaluate because of our awareness and its focus, I don’t think we learn/teach enough about focusing. So, I’m writing a brief guide so that we can reduce the amount and degree of confusion caused by sticky focus, scattered focus, and so on. As I do think focusing of awareness (Perspective) is the base of logical evaluation, I’ll call this “Perspective Logic”.

Often people think of “Logic” as to play with different propositions, to study the relations between them, to make theories/hypothesis about them, and so on. What I want to talk here is about propositions themselves. It’s because “propositional logic” wouldn’t produce useful result unless the propositions are well founded. I think there is too much emphasis in constructing “card castles” with hollow premises and not enough attention upon the premises themselves.
Also, learning the very basis of logical evaluation does help when we want to analyze and manipulate more complex ideas and structures.

The first material in the Perspective Logic is the Awareness. Without awareness, there would be no observation, no information, no focus, no evaluation, no relation. Also, awareness changes its “density” or “level” at each moment. If you think about dream awareness, or when you are tired, sleepy, etc, I think it’s pretty easy to understand that the density of awareness isn’t constant.

The second element is the Focus of awareness. Although awareness can be somewhat round and omnidirectional, often its focused on something. For example, when we have an injury, awareness can be focused on the sensation from the injury. Similarly, we can focus awareness to certain physical or non-material thing and we call it “concentrating”. Without this focusing, we wouldn’t be able to compare and to evaluate. And each focus is a Perspective.

Next is the property or the criteria of the focus, in other words how we focus. We can focus on an object based on its location. So the property of the object in the particular perspective is its physical location. We can focus on something red, something long, whatever. We can focus on sensations we perceive as positive, negative, as well. We can focus on warm feeling emotion, depressing thought, and so on. And the criteria used in the focus, to hold the perspective is what we call property in Perspective Logic.

Then here comes the movement of perspective or adopting different perspectives. With a single perspective, we can be aware of the focused matter but we cannot evaluate it. It’s there. Something is there. That’s it. Not much more. When we have two or more perspectives, we can start comparing them, measure one using another as a unit, and so on. So, the ability to shift and to adopt different perspectives at will is pretty important. If you can’t move your perspective, you can’t think, as far as Perspective Logic goes. Religious people can’t think well because their perspectives are dictated and fixated by religious dogma and/or scripture and their perspective is confined and limited. There are different types of blocking that limit one’s perspective movement. More about this, later.

After the movement, here comes the degree of concentration. Just like the differences of density, the focus can be of different degree of concentration. When fully concentrated, we would see/think only the focused area and nothing else. Strong interests, desire can cause highly concentrated awareness, naturally. But we can practice to concentrate, too.

And finally, we can have a perspective that regroup multiple perspectives. Even a simple proposition or notion may contain lots of basic perspective, when they are well conceived.

Now, let’s see a little more about the nature of perspectives.
Following points are basically the same thing shown from slightly different angles.

1. Focusing, adopting a perspective is the act of separating, dividing.
For example, let’s think about a white paper with a small round black area painted on it. When we focus on the black area, we are separating the area (circle) from the rest. We are dividing the whole.

2. Focusing, adopting a perspective is the act of affirming, identifying, allotting positive certainty,
In the same example of a white paper with black round area, we are affirming the blackness of the area, identifying the area with the blackness, and noting positive certainty about the blackness when we focus on the black area.

3. Focusing, adopting a perspective is the act of magnifying, seeing the part as if it’s whole, overrating,
In the example of the paper with the black area, we can first focus on the entire paper. Then we can focus on the black spot. When we keep our perspective shifting between that of whole paper and the black spot, the black spot is evaluated as relatively small compared to the whole paper.
But If our focus is held totally concentrated, we would only see the black spot. So, relatively small black spot is now occupying the entire perspective, and thus considered as a whole, for the moment. So, it’s as if the spot is magnified, overrated in comparison to the previous evaluation.

4. Focusing, adopting a perspective is the act of virtualization
When we focus totally on something, it occupies our perspective and thus it becomes virtualized world, so to say.

5. Focusing, adopting a perspective is the act of dividing conscious and sub/unconscious ares.
Totally concentrated focus divides the whole into two parts. Focused areas and the rest. And we wouldn’t be aware of the rest while the perspective is held.

6. Focusing, adopting a perspective is the act of dividing positive and negative.
Since focusing is done so by affirming and by positively identifying certain property, the rest is considered as negative, negating.

7. Focusing, adopting a perspective is to project awareness forward.
Since our focusing ability grows with sense organs like eyes, focusing has the strong directional beam pattern highly oriented in front, so to say. Combined with other natures, the ares in front of us is often focused and thus conscious areas while the back side remain sub/unconscious and negative region.

8. Our focus has strong bias for positively perceived/interpreted things.
Just like any other creature, we don’t like pains. sorrows, etc, and it’s normal/natural to face away from them. So, a little like magnet aligning itself in the magnetic field, our focus has the strong tendency to align with our biologic, emotional, and mental preferences. This tendency creates and maintain vast sub/unconscious region because of dividing nature. It means we have to practice adopting negative perspectives if we would like to have freedom of perspective movement and more balanced view.

I think it’s enough about the nature of perspectives, for the moment.
I’m going to stop this for now, and add another post, or edit and add to this one, later. Maybe I should add simple illustration. It can make things a lot easier.

Thinking is an act of evaluation in Perspective Logic.

Certain types of thinking, such as simply following associative linkage, isn’t considered valid/useful thinking from the POV of Perspective Logic although many people “think” in this way.
You can see the example of “associative thinking” in action, in this thread.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=148786

Also, all concepts and notions are the result of evaluation and they contain some sort of logic in them. So, let’s see how we evaluate.

To evaluate, we first need to identify and set the focus on something.
As we have seen that having a perspective is an act of separating, we need to have the way we can positively identify and distinguish the object against the rest of the world. It can be done by identifying the spacial location (relative to ourselves or other reference point) and the contour, area, shape, etc in case of physical object. It can be done by pattern matching like focusing on something with certain color, for example, or any other property.
In case of focusing on immaterial thing like a concept, we can identify by the dependency, reference to certain properties. Unlike usual human thought process, Perspective Logic requires clear awareness of the properties used to identify the subject matter. It’s simply because we can’t identify anything without clear awareness and we wouldn’t be able to think (evaluate) without properly identifying things. When we use a word to indicate a particular focus, the criteria of the focus, the property is the definition of the word for the given perspective. In other words, we don’t think with words in Perspective Logic, but we do it with perspectives, evidently. And then, we choose and employ words to indicate the perspectives. Although this might be foreign to some people who have habit of thinking with words, I think we all are actually thinking in perspective, at least subconsciously. However, due to the way we are educated, some of us become so unaware of perspectives underlying words, concepts, notions. Because of this human condition, we need to examine and decode the perspectives of others expressed by (often confused) words when we talk to people without any notion of Perspective Logic. With some practice, we can guess underlying perspectives of others, including the perspectives in the sub/unconscious region of other people. However, exposing these subconscious perspectives to them would often cause emotional reactions simply because they were hidden in the subconscious region so that they don’t have to see. So, you are advised to be careful in explaining things to others if you want to keep the situation “cool”.
In other words, to practice Perspective Logic, you may have to examine and decode your own thought and face things you may not want to see. Otherwise, you can’t be aware of your perspective and thus you would remain ignorant of your own mental activity and composition. Although it’s pretty normal for a human to live and die without being very aware, it can be frustrating because you may not know what you are really thinking. hoping, and especially desiring. It should be very easy to understand the difficulty one would face in satisfying oneself when s/he doesn’t clearly know what s/he want. Perspective Logic can clarify things like our own desire and thus it can contribute to better overall satisfaction, by paying the price of facing things we may not want to see.

Next, the act of evaluation is to compare two or more perspectives.
If we have only one focus, we cannot evaluate it in any way. We can simply be aware of it. For example, when we focus on only an apple, we evaluate if it’s big, heavy, etc. We need to have the secondary focus such as another apple to compare the common property like size and then we an evaluate it to be bigger than the other one.
There are a bit (or a lot) more on this, but i think it’s enough for now.

Now, we can identify and then compare and evaluate things. We shall see the problems we may encounter in practicing Perspective Logic, in the next post (or edit).

Although we are (supposed to be) relatively aware during our waking state, the degree of awareness varies, A LOT.

Among different type of awareness, what I call “Perspective Awareness” is highly important in Perspective Logic. Perspective Awareness is the awareness of one’s own thought and emotion, and especially the awareness of the focuses we have in our thoughts and emotions.

When someone doesn’t have Perspective Awareness, the person doesn’t know what s/he is thinking, and often her/his thought wouldn’t be very organized nor coherent. In addition to these tendency, we can often observe “self criticizing syndrome” in this case.

“Self criticizing syndrome” occurs because of simple mechanical/geometrical principles. When people without Perspective Awareness tries t criticize something (other than oneself), they do it based on their values/beliefs and point out what is bad/wrong (for them). Since the value/belief are often constructed and kept in subconscious area, they tend to be things they didn’t want to face and moreover the tendencies of theirs they didn’t want to face. Thus, in trying to say bad/wrong things about others, they often end up telling/pointing their own problems. If they had Perspective Awareness, they would have noticed the fact that the criticizing perspective matches their own thought/act, and they would rethink/revise what they do and what they say. But without Perspective Awareness, they remain unaware of what they are doing, self criticizing. This is funny to watch.

Another reason people who doesn’t have much Perspective Awareness have problem seeing situation like this is the lack of freedom in adopting different perspective. When we have Perspective Awareness, it becomes evident and easy to adopt different views to examine things from different angles. In addition to this, it becomes usual/normal to apply the same logic/evaluation to different things. Thus, it becomes rare to criticize something without adopting different perspective, without applying the same logic/evaluation to one’s own thoughts/acts. But without Perspective Awareness, the mental focus tends to be sticky and it’s somewhat difficult to apply the logic on oneself.

Perspective Awareness is a required element in Perspective Logic.

The signs of Perspective Awareness are:
The ability to adopt many ( and really any) perspectives including extreme one, the one that goes against personal preferences.
The ease of perspective movement, including the facility to reverse/flip the focus.
The ability to track one’s own perspective movement (and that of others with some effort).

Perspective Awareness can be fostered through logical thinking, and especially by trying to be aware of dependencies, conditions, and limitations of each logic/notion.
Also, it can be sharpened by higher general awareness level. So, it means meditation and other activity that can enhance awareness level helps it.

In general, it seems there are two type of situation where Perspective Awareness is triggered to ignite.
The first one is intense though process of doubt and questioning about everything and all, for sustained period of time. I guess some part of brain develops during this type of activity. When the tendency to presume absoluteness/permanence in nearly all notion is burnt/used out, the perspective (or the awareness) pops, and the awareness isn’t held on each perspective, anymore. Rather, the awareness oversees each perspective motion, after this perspective popping.

The second type is by the insight of relativity of logic. The insight is actually not just about the logic but about everything. But here, we focus on the logic and perspectives in it. Clear understanding of relativity would reduce the tendency of our perspective and awareness to stick due to the presumption of absolutes and permanence. And freed awareness an perspectives will gain the ability to move, and the the perspective on the perspectives will result in Perspective Awareness.

Maybe there are other ways, too. But I haven’t observed them, yet.
If you think you have clear Perspective Awareness and you gained it with other venue, let me know.

This looks a bit like organized religion.

Call it “organized something” when there are thousands of people practicing it.

I don’t think it would happen, though.

And where so you see something religious?
I mean, there is nothing to worship, to believe, to hope, to buy.
It’s just a freebie information about a perspective of perspectives.

Does smirking at others count?

Can you explain your perspectives, a bit more?

I guess you are seeing “smirking at others” as something similar to criticizing others. If so, depending the perspective awareness of the smirking person, we may see similar situation.

you see it as something bad/undesirable/negative,
you were not very aware of your own perspective,
you do smirk (occasionally or more).

I was referring to your perspective. Why do you find it funny?
I,for instance, might find it sad to watch.

Does the other’s lack of so-called Perspective Awareness make you feel good? Why?

Yes.

In my case, it feels funny when the perspective(s) makes sudden movement, crisscross, or make odd angle. It’s caused by the essence of perspective geometry.
So, when I follow someone’s perspective and become aware of another perspective that shows self-criticizing structure, the geometry (which is a bit foreign to me) appears “funny”.

For me, geometries (of perspectives and other things) may appear a bit like cartoon, and thus funny. I’m not so sure if you get the feeling of it, but this is how it is for me. Maybe you can think about what makes you laugh/smile.
I do think there is unexpected perspective movement or dynamics, almost always in the situation we find funny.

As I’ve explained above, it’s not the lack makes it funny, but the geometry.
And I don’t usually have much emotion about the lack itself, since it’s more or less normal and there is nothing specially sad nor rejoicing about it, for me.

Also, we are talking about the posts in internet discussion forum.
If someone lacks a bit of perspective, there is nothing very important/serious/depressing about it.
And I would simply explain how I may see things if/when I sense sincere desire of someone I’m talking with. At the same time, I may use certain emotional ingredients to loosen stiff perspective, though.

If you see yourself as knowledgeable in behavioral patterns [as can be seen in your claim that the people who criticize others are in effect pointing to their own problems] then how can you still be surprised by them? If you are famliar with people’s reactions and what they mean in terms of behavioral patterns and they still manage to surprise you then I am thinking that the unexpected geometric pattern of behavior, as you would call it, that manages to surprise you, in effect highlights your unfamiliarity with it, even as you claim to be familiar with its workings. This is like saying that you know that the bishop moves in a diagonal line but you find it funny and are surprised every time it actually makes its move.

Why do you claim that feel sad? What I presented was a hypothetical example.
Although cases of miscommunication can be funny (usually after they are cleared up) I think there are also situations in which people get hurt due to misunderstandings or miscommunication. Such cases are unfortunate, not funny. Perhaps unlike you, when there is pain or joy involved I do not usually think in terms of patterns (although I could choose to), I simply experience them; because when I am in pain, I do not ponder on geometric patterns so much as I feel pain, if you know what I mean.

My counter point is that I do not want to see life as a big Etch-A-Sketch and observe patterns in a detached manner, as a form of amusement. I think there are some people who live in a similar detached manner (I think certain autistic people would be included, and perhaps some trained Buddhists); I prefer to experience life first hand, even if it means being emotional and being hurt from time to time.

That’s good.

First of all I have really enjoyed reading this post. Nah, many parts of your thinking method are insightful and exciting. I like the freedom inherent to your conception of the self. I hope I am not interrupting your discussion with Pandora, but hopefully what I have to say will be somewhat related. In your first post you say:

“Religious people can’t think well because their perspectives are dictated and fixated by religious dogma and/or scripture and their perspective is confined and limited. There are different types of blocking that limit one’s perspective movement.”

I find there have been many religious people who have been highly intelligent and lucid thinkers, within their perspective. The religious mind is, as you say, quite confined as it is distinguished by its belief in God, which gives way to dogma. So, if the Perspective Logic mode of thinking is distinguished by being able to shift perspectives freely, and religion produces a mind with a fixed perspective, Perspective Logic is inherently atheist. My concern is that a person who follows Perspective Logic cannot really take the perspective of a religious person, and if they truly did, they would no longer be following Perspective Logic, because they would no longer be atheists. If you solved this problem in your post, perhaps in the second or third part, I may not have gotten it.

When I re-read the part in the first part of your post about shifting between focusing on the black splotch on the piece of paper and the entire piece of paper, it almost seems like it is about going into a trance. Maybe that is what makes it possible to take on another perspective? Anyway, I have really enjoyed reading this post.

Have you ever laughed watching comedy show that you’ve already seen and you knew how it goes?
It’s a bit similar to this.

Although I’m generally familiar with certain types of perspectives, I dip myself in the mindset (imagined by me) of the person I’m trying to follow so that I perceive different nuances and as accurate picture as I might be able to obtain from the perspectives (and their movements) of the person.
By doing so, my focus of attention isn’t with the perspective patterns I already know of, but within the (imagined) perspective of other person.
However, I don’t stay in the mindset of others, forever.
I would pop out of the exercise, and take other more or less familiar perspective of mine, which includes basic situation awareness.
Then, I would see that the logic of the person would match with the actions/words of the very person, and the sensation of the “match” is somewhat like a “surprise” or a “shock” (although subtle).
So, even though I had this many times, the situation still manage to amuse me.

Also, you missed an important part in what I said.
I didn’t say that “the people who criticize others are in effect pointing to their own problems”. I said it depends on the Perspective Awareness and I said they “tend to” do so.
I didn’t imply unconditional occurrence of it, at all.

I think you can explain the hypothetical understanding about your hypothetical case.

I think I do get what you are saying.

But is misunderstandings always painful?
Isn’t the pain caused by (possibly excessive) seriousness attached on the issue?

Also, can things be painful and funny at the same time?

I do feel physical (and/or emotional) pain, daily. But I do feel funny at the same time, pretty often, even when I have strong pain.
For example, I went to a dentist and the doctor tried to clear up an area with the air gun. As I don’t like drugs much, I usually have treatments with live/sensitive nerves and the doctor would go a bit slowly to let me get used to the pain input, gradually. But he forgot that time, and my body jumped from the seat, literally. And we laughed, as it was quite funny, even I was still feeling the aftershock of the strong pain signal.
Just you feel joy and pain, we felt it funny at that time.

Words, why would you feel “against” the emotion be it amusement or not?
What’s the reasons, beliefs, preferences behind your reaction?

I have nothing against your preference, and I do agree with it.

Actually, depending on the moment, I do retain multiple perspectives.
In my core, I’m totally detached. It’s just a observer without any reactions.
Then, geometrical perspective and also down on the road, I have emotion like everybody and thoughts and sensations, possibly occurring (nearly) at the same time.

So, it’s not just detached perspective. I do have lots of emotions, although I may not express them (especially excessively) as I consume the emotional energy mostly by myself.

And I’d say trained Buddhist monks are as emotional as anyone else, although they may appear calm. It’s just some Asians aren’t very expressive about their emotions and some Europeans/Americans are a bit too expressive.
So, from Asian POV, Euro-Americans may appear crazy emotional people while Asians may appear emotionless zombie to Westerners. And (the image of) trained Buddhist monk can be the summit in this type of perspective gap.

And even among western cultures, Parisians may appear to be crazy.
Even many of French people would say that Parisians are high tension nerve wrecked wackos.
They are actually strange when you don’t understand (and even after having some understanding). But it’s rather funny and lovely to me. I don’t hate them although I agree that they (some of typical Parisians) can be a bit annoying depending on the situation.

I do know some intelligent religious people. And there are religious people who isn’t so confined. But I think they are exceptions.

Also, when I talk about religious people, it includes Monotheists as well as ALL other religions and often ideologies and movements such as ecology.
They tend to have fixed/confined mindset, although there are lots of variation in degree and type of perspectives they prefer.

From my POV, it’s a bit simplistic as a logic.
With Perspective Logic, we would conclude that the notions attached to Monotheistic God are contradictory and thus it makes the possibility of such entity unlikely.
But it would not deny the possibility of super entity that might have created universe or what so ever.

Unlike typical Atheist, Perspective Logic is a lot more open. Otherwise, it means we have problem in adopting and examining certain perspectives.

Since the premise of a person with Perspective Logic being an atheist isn’t guaranteed, your theory above doesn’t stand.

Also, in Perspective Logic, you can adopt even wrong/illogical/baseless perspective, and examine.evaluate from the POV.

So, even if Perspective Logic denied Monotheist God, it doesn’t mean we can’t adopt (for the moment) Monotheistic views.

As you can see, there is no problem.

I’ve heard that people saying/describing different state of awareness being similar to trance. But adopting different perspective doesn’t require any special state of awareness, most probably.

I grew up playing with different state of awareness because it was funny and interesting, as well as useful for certain things.
I do think it’s beneficial to know that there are many different state/possibilities, but it may be better to let things happen as it goes.
Some people tend have too much expectation and hope. And it can hamper level headed evaluation of different matters.

But the more you watch the comedy the less funny it becomes. The element of surprise, which as you state is the reason for humor, is no longer there. The element of humor is dependent on the element of surprise, which is dependent on the element of unfamiliarity. Your explanation does not make sense; if that were so, the opposite would be true, the comedy would no longer be as funny and the actor’s funny mannerisms would no longer be seen as funny (in fact, after enough exposure, they may risk turning into being perceived as annoying).

I don’t know, Nah, buy it sounds like you haven’t experienced this feeling [“matching sensation”] you describe enough times to habituate yourself to it to the point where it no longer has such an effect on you.

Yes, but you cannot always be detached from a situation, too. If you think of life as a theater then maybe you do see everything from a high balcony, but if you see life as something that you participate in and are involved in then there is a higher risk of possibility of pain involved.

But you laughed after the initial sensation of pain, not at the same time AS it started. Perhaps laughing for you was a coping mechanism after the initial sensation of pain, but it wouldn’t make sense to laugh as an instinctive reaction to pain. It just would not make sense (to me anyway). I have never seen a person laugh at the very moment of beginning pain.

You striked me as a kind of person who thinks he sees himself above life and smirks at people who live and make mistakes as they participate in it. You have your own explanations for your reactions but I find many of your explanations contradictory.

I do not believe that you are totally detached at the core. This sounds more like a person who pushes his feelings under his immediate awareness and eventually becomes an unaware and unwilling subject to them. At the core, all people want to interact and express them selves openly.
(But that’s based on my own knowledge of human psychology)

I guess you never experienced good comedy, nor observed someone who watch the same comedy and manage to be amused.

The key is in the attraction (or the absorption in the case of following someone’s perspective).
The comedy we can watch many times and still we can’t help but laughing lure us into certain perspective, only to be derailed, afterword.

Of course, when you watch is a few time, you know what would happen and the element of “surprise” shouldn’t be that strong. However, in some comedy, there is something hat attract our attention and pulls our perspective to be in certain state (even if we knew). So, when the shift occurs, we get the sense of derailment or surprise.

Similarly, when I try to follow the perspective of someone, I do use lots of attention in doing so, because I want to understand as much perspectives as possible from the exercise. During the tracing effort (when I read the post), I’m in the perspective of others, as much as possible. And in the perspective, I don’t usually conserve my usual situation awareness till I finish the post or certain block. So, popping out of the operation, the sensation of match is as if it’s new, first time.

Can you see?

If you still can’t understand, tell me when you feel funny.

What makes you laugh?

I first noticed it …, maybe I was still young.
But it was like 10, 15 years ago when I started to participate in forums that rally noticed this self-criticizing phenomena.
And I’ve seen it pretty often.
Although I don’t react in the same way, every time, I do find the match amusing, often, I’d say.

Also, I think I lost the notion of time, partially, along with the effect of memory. I don’t care much about the past, compared to when I was younger.
I don’t think much about future, either. It’s more or less like when you have lots of things at hand, but I’m like this even without lots of things.

Again, we are talking about posts in the discussion forum.
Is it that much difficult for you to have perspectives of perspectives?

If I were in love with you and you misunderstood, I’d say that can be painful. But I don’t think we have that much of emotional loads or expectation/hope attached on forum posts, in general.

However, if you say you are always emotionally involved in your posting, I’d understand your perspective.

Sure, the laughing can be seen as the coping mechanism to the derailed perspective. I think we might have an automatic expectation of continuous flow (and/or smooth shift) of perspectives. And when the perspective shift/jump/derail, the expectation system is in trouble and cause laughter/smile/etc to neutralize the deviation of track.

So, the laughter comes after the deviation (in this case the initial pain), just like it comes after the matching sensation in the case of self-criticizing situation.

Having said that, I was still feeling lots of pain signal when we (me, dentist and his assistant) were all laughing. It was funny.

Do you want to understand what I’m saying or do you want to simply affirm the image of “smirking” me in your head?

And what’s the matter with smirking?
Why is it a big deal for you?

Oh well. If you go behind your “believing” so that you can retain your image of me, you can do it as you want. You are free to imagine whatever you want.

What is this something?

The same thing as you, an element of surprise in a chain of events. But if I were to encounter the same surprise in the chain of events over and over again, it would no longer be funny. That’s why I want to know about this something you mentioned that attracts your attention over and over in comedy.

When I read posts, I prefer to maintain my own perspective, which I use as a guideline.

The love of another is an extension of the love of self, and along the scale with degrees of self-expression, it could be said that everything we do is an expression of love of self. There is attachment involved in any action, regardless whether you’re in love or not. Absolute detachment is impossible (until you’re dead), that’s why I believe you are not totally detached at the core, despite your claim.

I want to understand you, but your contradictory explanations make it difficult (which I pointed to in previous posts). I cannot abandon my perspective and just accept yours unconditionally because I will not completely understand your point of view until I incorporate it into my own perspective.

I normally do not like smirking attitude. It’s a personal thing. I know people have a right to smirk at others and see themselves as above others and maybe it compensates for their own insecurity and sense of mediocrity.

However…if it is the case that you completely abandon your perspective for the time being, for the sake of understanding the other’s then I can see where the element of surprise can come in as you come out (or pop out, as you call it) back into yours. It is not my method of knowledge acquisition, though. My approach is more streamlined.

An analogy of this could be learning about rice-farming in South China. One can read up on the methods of cultivating rice paddies, the climate, culture, history and etc. and then take a tour of it and observe it from a visitor’s point of view. Alternatively, one can simply abandon one’s usual lifestyle and go and live on a rice paddy for a year and learn about it that way (first-hand perspective). The former would be my choice as it would preserve the continuity of my own perspective. If the latter were the choice, and given enough time, a possible switch could occur in which one would adopt the visited perspective as his primary one, and end up incorporating his own former perspective in his newly-acquired one.

I must maintain own perspective and attempt to incorporate yours into mine (and not just take your word for it).

i said:

I take that as a complement. Good logic should be simple, easy to follow. Later, you imply that my logic is fallacious. Not interchangeable with with simplistic, my friend. You may say I am nit-picking, that’s fine, but I disagree.

It’s good to stay open-minded.

I guess you can follow me if I say it’s a kind of artistic talent/training that allows some people to pull and attache our attention to where they want us to see, till the right moment when they derail the perspective track.

It’s like what magicians do. By their talk and gestures, they grab our attention and glue it to exactly where they want us to see (and away from what their tricks are hiding). Some of us know very well the principle and may try to stay alert and to see the things they don’t want us to see. But skillful magicians may still manage to manipulate our perspectives.

Some people know, instinctively and/or by training, the exact spot to tap. They probably do so by common human tendency to follow moving things, mysterious, or seemingly important things, and so on. And this kind of skill can be applied in different fields, such as comedy/drama/magic/politics/education/etc.

Sexual attraction and any other attraction/appeal/charm/interest-provoking-quality can be seen as something similar. Certain person (or thing/feature) hits the right spot, sweet spot for provoking sexual (or any other) reaction chains. It pulls our attention, and has sticky and cluing quality.

I think I understand what you are saying. But things can be funny, time after time, to me.
Also, it may depends on the sensitivity to the amusement. I mean, certain people can be amused with slightest shift of perspective. I wasn’t so sensitive, before, but I can find almost anything to be funny, sometime. Things like hearing an ordinary sound of car or anything may trigger smile and laughter in certain state of awareness. Most probably I’m not doing so much of (deeply subconscious) verification to maintain situation awareness matching against memory (and future projection/prediction from it), and thus things appear as unexpected event. I think it started to happen more or less at the same time I lost notion of time to some degree.

From my personal sensing/feeling POV, it feels as if you are keeping a wall. And the wall appears to be made of “hypothetical” thinking/views buffer.

It might be simply your preferred style. It can be your way of placing your emotion in safer space. I’m not sure, and basically it’s your choice, although I’m a bit curious.

I think I’ve already explained this, a bit, last year, to you.

This is how I see/feel:

At the core, there is no movement, no action, nothing.
Going outward, there is awareness, next. But awareness itself is pretty vegy, and not active “doer”. There is no emotion, yet. It doesn’t have sticky/gluing quality,yet, either.
Then, there are many layers I’m not so interested and I’m not so precisely aware of.
Finally, there is “human layers” starting from sub/unconscious region, surface consciousness, and (seemingly) external world.

In each moment, I may have multiple awareness/perspectives in these areas, although I can be more concentrated in one particular layer.

So, anything in the layer outside of “awareness” does have sticky/gluing quality and the attachment factor hat comes with it. But at the core, where I feel the most “reality”, there is no attachment nor anything. And it’s my base perspective that resets and neutralize any other perspective, allowing me to shift/move from one sticky perspective to another, so to say.

In other words, the strongest reality for me is total detachment. But I do have (almost) all other humanly sticky perspective, too.

So, in action, I do things with whatever the perspective of the moment. But (probably) all my perspectives aren’t very sticky nor persistent. I can be deeply concentrated on one particular focus for a moment or even hours, and then I may adopt and shift through many different perspectives, very quickly.

Well, if you stick to the perspective that would create the appearance of contradiction, it’s normal to see the contradiction.
Although I understand your preference of maintaining your own sets of POV, I don’t think you can really understand logic/thoughts of others without tracing/adopting their perspectives.

When I don’t like something, I usually have the very element, myself. Without the same element, I can’t identify it and wouldn’t care at all.
So, you might have a bit of smirking tendency in yourself, possibly.

And often, I do think that I can do certain particular things better compared to a specific person. I’m a trained professional in a few areas. So, it’s simply normal to have better understanding in certain specific fields compared to someone without training/experience. And I may say so if I think it’s beneficial for the discussion or for other reasons.

It’s about limited, particular, specific matter, and not “generic”, “overall” evaluation. But certain people may not pay enough attention to the details and get impression as if I’m pretending to be “superior” in all area.
Some people may interpret any superiority/inferiority as if it’s general superiority/inferiority, too.

I think I do understand what you want to say with the analogy.
However, I don’t think we can trace perspectives of others without getting wet.

Understanding someone else isn’t an easy task. Especially when we want to trace subtle shift/jump/leap/confusion of perspectives. It requires lots of attention.

Aren’t you thinking (maybe subconsciously) that perspectives are somewhat persistent (or even permanent) ?

To certain degree, the preferred set of perspectives is a part of oneself, and maybe we have natural tendency to protect it.

But, with the understanding and familiarity with the shifting/adopting different POV at will (including the POV that might be foreign or painful/scary), leaving the “house” POV for a while to adopt and to trace other perspectives presents no threat to the “house” perspectives.

You don’t have to incorporate mine.
You can just adopt temporarily, and then go back to your preferred position to evaluate from there, if you prefer. Then you can forget perspectives I presented when it’s done.

I said it’ a bit simple because your perspective was constructed on simple “(Mono)Theists vs. Atheists” type split, and then considered the perspectives to be somewhat permanent.

In Perspective Logic, perspectives are like commodities. You can swap, compare, analyze, and so on as you feel like. It’s not one (or more) perspectives dictating how you see things, but to see thin from many perspectives that may come into contact with you.

In other words, you can adopt any perspective, including (Mono)Theist, Atheist, agnostic, whatever, as well as any seemingly absurd, illogical, crazy perspectives, for a while, to understand to dependency, the possible cause, logical fallacy, lack of required elements, potential consequences, and so on
Once it’s done, yu don’ have to remain in the particular perspective.

Actually, you would understand impermanence of perspectives when you have enough Perspective Awareness, and things I explained will be obvious to you.

I may say that it creates less of involuntary friction caused by sticky pigeon-holed view while it does create friction when we adop perspectives that is foreign or against one’s preferred POV. But latter friction (and thus a kind of suffering) is voluntary and it’s even helpful understanding ourselves and other things.

fair enough. well i guess to me perspective logic is kind of like walking a mile in another’s shoes. not sure if that’s what’s intended but that’s basically what i get from it. as a whole it may need some editing and refining but it’s a good start.