We see what we want to see … we hear what we want to hear … we touch what we want to touch …etc
Illusions are the enablers!
Was it Kipling who said … something to the effect … you can rationalize anything if you try hard enough.
These ‘illusions’ make life tolerable … even enjoyable for some people … what St Augustine referred to as “temporal felicity”.
Despite the ‘numbing’ effect of our illusions … the ‘truth’ continues to lurk in the shadows … in the deep dark recesses of our mind.
Our greatest fear is that ‘truth’ … known to all … may percolate up into our frontal lobes … forcing us to acknowledge the deceptions that have duped us for so long.
I subscribe to Confucian Doctrine … particularly the pillar concerning education. Paraphrasing … a good teacher will suggest a direction for his/her students to look in … but … will not tell the students who agree to look in the direction suggested … “what to see”.
While I’m certainly not pretending to be a teacher … my OP was offered in the same vein as the Confucian Doctrine mentioned above. I offered ILP readers … in this forum … a ‘direction’ to look in. It matters not to me whether readers choose to look in the direction I suggested or choose to ignore my suggestion.
However … I will certainly not tell any who choose to look in the direction I suggested … “what to see”.
Well, to me this appears to have a binary truth/illusion assumption, whereas much of what we believe or what enables us is contructed, including things that turn to seemingly be true - whatever your method for getting at truth or ‘truth’ - and things that later seem to have been illusions. Models, useful metaphors, selective filtered perception (arguably always indirect), heuristics, meta-heuristics do not fall neatly to one side or other of a razor.
Another issue: I am not sure that the truth is lurking in the shadows of all minds. Minds seem to come in a variety of forms. Some seem utterly immune to nagging doubts - and this can be on any side of debates relevent to religion and spirituality. And this is not necessarily negative; I mention it because it would seem from the OP that all minds are structured - at least relevent to the issue of the OP - very similarly. I don’t think this is the case.
Further much of our rationalizations are not in place due to trying hard. Many are built in via child rearing. And this also cuts both ways. You can certainly teach a mind not to notice things that do not fit with current scientific models - or more relevently models from, say, 100 years back. The whole physicalist metaphysics.
I do agree that confusion or cognitive dissonence can be and usually is coupled to very deep fears. Confusion and noticing one does not or should not believe what one thinks one believes or should believe is very unpleasant. I think it is a good quality to have some endurance for that state and the emotions that go with it. But then people on the ‘rational’ team often think that they doubt and can deal with cognitive dissonence which is not my experience at all. Further you have to have good intuition about when to doubt and when to trust your own at least near certainty.
I would also question the implicit ideas around illusions being enablers, especially when coupled with the idea that this is about fear avoidance and intolerance. Illusions can create fear, plague one. Illusions can make one NOT do things that one, in fact, should be free to do. Guilt is one example. Illusions do tend to fit personality patterns. People with certain kinds of temperment will often have beliefs that fit that tempermet and implicitly support the idea that that temperment is the best. Or that the skill set of that person is the best skill set.
I would find it hard to believe that the group that is most judgmental of emotion allows enough empirical introspection to know why they believe things. But they tend to claim the reasons they believe things are based on logic, research and a firm grasp of epistemology.
I beg to differ. They seem as cultured as those they think they are superior to.
Moreno … a thoughtful and intelligent view … thanks for sharing.
Let me share some of “what I see” when I look in the direction proposed … without prejudice.
Many people see injustice(s) in our system(s). The same people believe the injustice(s) can be eliminated.
I see no injustice(s) … I see only “nature at work”.
Thucydides described it eloquently 1000’s of years ago. Paraphrasing … the strong will do pretty much as they wish and the weak will suffer as they must.
If we can’t ‘see the big picture’ … and IMHO we can’t … wallowing around in the ‘mud of the details’ is futile.
I read this recently … can’t remember the author … “The language of God is spoken to us through our experiences.”
Again … IMHO … those of us who are vigilant and constantly examine and contemplate our personal experiences will find ourselves being nudged forward on the “journey to awakening”.
It seems another aspect of human nature is the propensity to “cling to the status quo” … metaphorically … not let go of the river bank in order to let the river take you where ever!
But then the OP says that illusions are enablers. In general ‘enable’ and its related words are pejorative, negative, in the same way justice and injustice, the scale of these, are.
Would not ‘enabling’ also be ‘nature at work’, and hence this is simply your illusion focused on the illusions of others?
Illusions being natural.
But let’s put this in an action based model.
We have some people looking at, say society, and saying ‘that is unjust’.
You then look at them and say that their saying this is ‘enabling’.
Wouldn’t a true understanding of the first action lead to seeing no need for the second action?
There is no world where people are not reacting to illusions, so to judge this world, that has people doing this, is exactly the same kind of act.
Moreno … words are such a fragile communication device!
Let me start by attempting to clarify my underlying intentions for the words illusion and enabler.
Illusion: likely best illustrated by stating the opposites of the word illusion … fact, truth, reality, actuality
Enabler: synonyms of the verb enable … allow, permit, facilitate, empower, give someone the opportunity, give someone the means. The new test should enable doctors to detect the disease early.
IMHO … the above notions are human constructs
After checking the dictionary for the word ‘pejorative’ … a word beyond my limited vocabulary … I don’t see much
‘negative’ in any of the synonyms mentioned above.
Nature certainly seems to qualify as an enabler … for example, to the extent nature controls climate conditions … such
climate conditions control the ability of certain plant species to grow or not grow… holding all other factors constant.
I don’t understand your intent with the phrase … “hence this is simply your illusion focused on the illusions of others?”
The opposites of illusion … listed above … seem to me more natural. IMHO ‘reality’ exists at all levels Ultimate Reality is not available to the human sense perceptors.
The more I think about the term ‘illusions’ … the more it seems like a survival mechanism for some(many) and a manipulator mechanism for others(few)
Example:
We are born in the image and likeness of God
We are born corrupt.
Therefore God is corrupt!
Bollocks!
Some myths and illusions were propogated by the ‘strong’ … both religious and secular … to mask the ugly side of human nature. These same ‘strong’ propogated the myths and illusions in order to exploit our human nature for their personal gains.
Attempting to achieve the same ‘gains’ using ‘truth’ simply isn’t palatble … not even for sheeple.
Sure, though recently the term has come to mean negative things in the context of alcholics. Given that you were using the term in relation to what seemed negative, illusions, it seemed a fair take.
That I got.
It would seem like you have an issue with people having what you think are illusions. It is as if they imagine the world should be other than it is. But it seems to me you are wishing the world was not as it is, illusions being part of the real. You may simply be noting facts and illusions and not really care if there is both or more of one. We’ll see.
I don’t know what ultimate reality is, but it would seem that whatever we experience must be part of that. Including our perceptions. Whatever model you are working with must also be derived from this. IOW you have a model that our perceptions are indirect. Perhaps, for example, this is based on scientific models of perception. Well scientific models are built up via perpection. They are empirically based. So there must be some contact with ultimate reality here or you would not think your model was correct being the fruit of a poison tree so to speak. Not legally, but epistemologically.
That doesn’t seem like an illusion to me. Or, at least, there are other things involved. There is deduction and working with abstractions. One may have illusions that form some of the base of this, sure. IOW faulty sense perceptions or really interpretations of these. Delusion might be a better word since it incorporates more cognitive processes.
.I think some of those myths include myths
that undermine the range of viable epistemic approaches. Make us weak and that we must rely on their experts often these days technocrats under the control of corporations. These people often demean people who are right on in their intuition (and often also rationality) that something messed up is going on, but is judged as irrational, overly emotional and not based in science.
They want us to think the only way to arrive at truth is via incredibly expensive controlled studies run by experts in labs.
I think this myth is causing a lot of damage.
Yes, people can have messed up intuition, and science can also create false models based on data that is valid but misinterpreted. Differently epistemologies have good users and uses and the opposite.
But we are being pressured to be small, by people who in fact also use intuition but do not know or acknowledge this.
Moreno … I’m a poor communicator … in all modes of communication. Your thoughtful posts are helping me to flush out my honest feelings, thoughts and beliefs … thank you. Perhaps in time I will become capable of crisply articulating them as well. I’m thinking this may be what the Collective Wisdom Project is all about.
I’ve been living in a huge virtual monastery for 10 years now … I am surrounded by masses of people, I hear enormous volumes of conversation and I don’t understand a single word. I have come to accept this situation as a huge blessing. I have gobs of time for contemplation … yet … precious little opportunity to share the fruits … good or bad.
I accept that the big picture is comprised of countless details … each detail being an important part of the whole. In the same way that each person is a significant member of the whole of humanity … some 7 billion. Yet I find myself constantly nudged to step outside the details and look for the big picture … seems I can’t stop myself.
I regularly find myself falling into the trap of negative emotions by letting myself get embroiled in a discussion of some of the not so pretty details.
Overall I am very positive about life … humanity … and the future. A metaphor that resonates with my feelings is the life cycle of a butterfly. I believe mankind is a work in process and we are in the caterpillar stage … on our way to becoming a beautiful and graceful butterfly.
I will give myself some time to reflect on your most recent comments before sharing my intuitive reaction.
Moreno … word wrestling … like arm wrestling … doesn’t appeal to me. No doubt in large part because I lack the skills to engage in such a sport. I’m also not looking for a pen pal.
Having said that …
IMO the terms Ultimate Reality, God, Allah, Yahweh, Great Spirit, Nirvana, Dao, the ONE, Nameless etc all point to the same enigma. I particularly like Tolstoy’s term … “that it, that terrible it”. He penned it through the mouth of Pierre somewhere in his novel War and Peace. I subscribe to the school of thought that when you give something a name … you put it in a box.
Agreed
IMO only what we experience personally can lead us to a better understanding … the experiences of others may be sensually appealing and if similar to our own experiences … somewhat comforting/encouraging … but they are no substitute for personal experience. A Native American axiom comes to mind. Paraphrasing … hold your tongue until you have walked a mile in my moccasins.
For me, a personal ‘grail quest’ is a noble undertaking … despite the fact that success is less than slim to none. Seems to me the probability of success may be log-arithmetically higher with the right community of participants.
If you find a personal experience drawing you towards Chinese history or philosophy … let me know.
That was part of my intent. Not that I sat there and carefully worked out tactics. But I noticed your response to someone else, the confucian line, and felt like the OP probably functioned as an answer, an implicit one, and not just a nudge. But I wasn’t sure, so I probed.
OK.
For me there are no negative emotions, just unhealthy patterns where some are clung to to avoid others. Or where one does not allow the emotional body to evolve from where it is. But getting embroiled in certain discussions can also be a bad habit.
OKEY dokey. I appreciate the meta-comment here. If someone posts something that seems to have a lot of implicit messages, I can assume contexts that are not real. And when I say implicit messages these are to do with the act itself, not like cultural assumptions. IOW I often wonder what a person is doing, interpersonally, when they post, and consider this to have a dynamic relation to the content of their posts. Many people want to simply be taken as words on a screen, in a philosophy forum, but I consider the acts to be as of equal importance. So, its good to have context.
I’ve ‘studied’ Taosim, portions of Chinese history and culture, works comparing the Chinese mindset - a ridiculous generalization, but still useful when comparing to the huge generalization of the Western mindset, and then been friends with people who are part of the Chinese diaspora, so I picked up stuff just working with cross cultural confusions and more. I can’t say it is a specific interest right now. But who knows what some part of the potential information there might be interesting to me.
If we do not have connection to ultimate reality then all our images and understanding of the world are illusions. So either it does not matter which we have OR some illusions are closer or more useful.
But, what if, there is no such a thing as ultimate reality? Then, even holding to it is illusionary. But here is where the confusion seeps in. Just because everything is illusionary, does not mean that there is no reality to them. This may seem contradictory, and
leans on definitions of what the terms imply.
Both: attachment and separation are illusive, of the real. As soon as You move away, You are going toward, and vica versa. It’s more a Zen idea.
.
Ultimate reality appears to be the totality of all that you will ever perceive. For example, if you die, and rebirth as a flamingo, both you and the flamingo are part of Ultimate reality, as well as you and the flamingo’s dreams and conscious experiences.
Truth seems to be a localized phenomenon. We say that “A five legged 20 foot dinosaur who flys upwards against gravity in my living room” is not true, because it cannot nor ever manifest in reality. We can imagine it in our heads though. So what is is true seems to be whatever is consistent with outside reality. Thus, there seems to be a distinction between internal reality and external reality. Truth is only true if it is consistent with external reality, therefore physics is more or less about truth.
The distinction of attachment and seperation seem to be thus. Attachment seems to imply a kind of concious focus on somethng, localizing it in consciousness. Seperation seems to be based on contrast, ie. a brown syrup seperates the pancakes from the plate. But there is no actual seperation like nonexistent space, because nonexistence space does not exist, so all things are touching. Seperation between internal and external reality seems to be a prerequisite for discerning whether or not if something is true. If we cannot say it is in external reality, we say it is a fantasy, and only true in the sense that it is part of Ultimate Reality.
