Sam Hunter's exploratory thread regarding the validity of fantastical projections

[Dreamtimer]

I failed to address the meaningless message. I suppose if someone finds meaning in nonsense and acts on it then there's meaning or at least significance which is directly tied to their action.

I witness cognitive dissonance w/my family on a regular basis. They believe conflicting things. They contradict themselves. They believe they're right simply when they're in a group of people who share their opinions. They confuse skepticism with cynicism and bias. They don't share the traits listed in the article. They'll accept pseudo-profound stuff if it comes from their political team.

I've witnessed charitable contributions made for selfish reasons. I watched someone nearly give away the farm because of the ego stroking he got every time he made one. The people who seek out rich donors are quite often very vulture-like.
If the money actually makes it to the people it's meant for and actually helps them then there's real meaning.

It's not merely a lack of reflection or critical thinking that leads people to believe nonsense. It can be emotions. My brother, for example, is atheist, very biased and highly cynical. He'll come right out and say, "I don't have time to think. I don't have time to listen." But he'll judge. He'll be highly cynical without having the facts. He'll blame the opposing team for the failings of his own.

He's a salesman and he's very good at what he does. He understands the power of persuasion. Yet he's blind to his own cognitive dissonance. Emotions combined with overconfidence.

If people give up their own responsibility to think for themselves then it seems inevitable they're gonna get caught up in confusion and end up misled.

I'm pretty convinced that our society is becoming structured more and more in ways that dissuade us from thinking for ourselves.

[Joanna]

lcam, isn't the acceptance of cognitive dissonance a normalized mode of social/cultural/psychological state of being in human civilizations? Not only the acceptance of it, but the entrainment of it at a subconscious conditioned level, by was of what is termed 'compartmentalization'. 'Unity consciousness' is basically the dissolution of compartmentalization in the psyche so that judgements, ideological positions and actions based on the premise of 'us and them' (whatever us and them is considered to be in various scenarios) become irrevelevant - and undesired.

Scientific empiricism is just as potentially tyrannical as religious, political and other ideological frames of reference when applied as the adjudicator and assessor of people's lived experiences, and equally arbitrary, as there is so much in the subtler aspects of lived experience that cannot be quantified or qualified in material terms.
At the egoic level, people feel far more secure when they can fit their experiences into this box or that framework, define it, categorize it, 'get a handle on it' from a logical and/or psychospiritual reference point.

It's not personally where I find freedom or happiness, in the privileging of the mind's frameworks and analyses, nor in attaching emotional wants, hopes and needs to 'proofless' hypotheses, stories or claims circulating in mainstream and alternative communities. There is another way, and it requires very high self trust....

[lcam88]

lcam, isn't the acceptance of cognitive dissonance a normalized mode of social/cultural/psychological state of being in human civilizations? Not only the acceptance of it, but the entrainment of it at a subconscious conditioned level, by was of what is termed 'compartmentalization'. 'Unity consciousness' is basically the dissolution of compartmentalization in the psyche so that judgements, ideological positions and actions based on the premise of 'us and them' (whatever us and them is considered to be in various scenarios) become irrevelevant - and undesired.

I'm not familiar with the area of research that elaborates compartmentalization and unit consciousness. I had to read the above paragraph about 5 times to understand what you mean.

Very interesting thesis.

Yes, I would agree that it seems acceptance of cognitive dissonance is indeed a "normalized" mode. Even an orthodoxy of sorts. So the suggestion you are making is that people accept non-sense as having meaning because of behavior or a habit or as part of some type of training? Maybe even a type of subconscious collectivism?

This notion of "Unity Consciousness" that you suggest made me think of LSD. hahahaha Dr James Fadiman made comments regarding the substance and studies he made regarding a mapping of brain activity that suggest that the individualizing portions of the brain, portions that deal with the me, mine and I, where less active when under the effect of the psychedelic.

Scientific empiricism is just as potentially tyrannical as religious, political and other ideological frames of reference when applied as the adjudicator and assessor of people's lived experiences, and equally arbitrary, as there is so much in the subtler aspects of lived experience that cannot be quantified or qualified in material terms.
At the egoic level, people feel far more secure when they can fit their experiences into this box or that framework, define it, categorize it, 'get a handle on it' from a logical and/or psychospiritual reference point.

It's not personally where I find freedom or happiness, in the privileging of the mind's frameworks and analyses, nor in attaching emotional wants, hopes and needs to 'proofless' hypotheses, stories or claims circulating in mainstream and alternative communities. There is another way, and it requires very high self trust....

That is so true. I'm going to dwell on this "aha" moment you have given me.

[lcam88]

It's not merely a lack of reflection or critical thinking that leads people to believe nonsense. It can be emotions. My brother, for example, is atheist, very biased and highly cynical. He'll come right out and say, "I don't have time to think. I don't have time to listen." But he'll judge. He'll be highly cynical without having the facts. He'll blame the opposing team for the failings of his own.

He's a salesman and he's very good at what he does. He understands the power of persuasion. Yet he's blind to his own cognitive dissonance. Emotions combined with overconfidence

In a way, what you describe is a protection mechanism from cognitive dissonance.

If you understand cognitive dissonance to be the acceptance of contradictory informations, the "I don't have time" and "I don't have time to think" is the rejection of an idea being presented to him that he is distasteful to. Almost to the point where he is protecting something that he is unwilling to share.

Blaming the opposing team is an ego thing plain and simple. <shrug/> Rejection of noise or "non-sense" depends very much on what and how you interpret signals, not about being right or wrong, initially anyway.

But within his mind, he does reject, as I state his strategy to be above, to avoid dissonance.

I find this is something at play in my personal relationship even now, I am much more aware of how much I reject ideas I don't like from people close to me (my partner) and how that doesn't always work out. The problems caused has gotten me to listen more, at the cost of greater dissonance; the cool part is that sometimes I find that I "fix" ideas or preconceptions that I hold that I hadn't questioned before.

[Dreamtimer]

Good move on your part lcam88.

I would say that my brother's defending himself from having to do what you did, think and admit a mistake.

I had decades of my dad telling me, "You were right. We should've listened." My brother can't even get to that point.

[lcam88]

It is a good move, Dreamtimer, not necessarily only because I might be wrong, but because being wrong harmoniously is less costly than being in disharmony.

EDIT

The dynamic of my relationship with my partner has a lot do with why harmony is so important. Relationships where a definite family leader plays the dictator role, disharmony is handled in a different way, more forcefully mostly. A relationship where you strive for more equality requires that reason is mutually seen, it is greatly helped where similar values and culture are held.

It is a more difficult equilibrium to maintain in my experience, mainly because the blame game is such a favorite. My partner and I are from different cultures, we have some very different values and as a result things that are obvious to one is not necessarily obvious to the other, even plain rational sometimes, especially through the use of the infamous "invincible ignorance" position.

Equality of leadership roles in a family requires harmony more than it requires being right [or wrong].

[Dreamtimer]

I need to get versed in fallacies so I can name them when they're thrown at me.

Maybe I'm being too simplistic. I think people are failing to take responsibility for their thoughts and actions. It's too much of a burden. They just point to leaders and authority.

I can't tell you how many times people get uncomfortable simply because I question or think critically. It's almost like I'm doing something wrong.

They don't want me to rock the boat or upset the apple cart or whatever.

[Joanna]

lcam said:

This notion of "Unity Consciousness" that you suggest made me think of LSD. hahahaha Dr James Fadiman made comments regarding the substance and studies he made regarding a mapping of brain activity that suggest that the individualizing portions of the brain, portions that deal with the me, mine and I, where less active when under the effect of the psychedelic.

I suppose what significance we assign such a finding might depend on whether we have the view that the brain and its chemical dynamics produce consciousness, or whether consciousness exists beyond the physical and expresses itself through the use of brain and body.
If it is the latter, then a drug's effect can be seen as mimicking an experience of unity/unified consciousness/feeling of oneness with all and non-separation - temporarily - but that is not the same as knowing yourself as unified consciousness expressing itself in the material level through chemical reactions, hormone messages, neurotransmitters, that can in fact be changed (or transformed) at will, without needing any external substance, and not dictated by the duration of a substance-effect. True unified consciousness can express itself through the 'polarizing' set-up of a dual hemisphere brain without identifying with that set-up.

Similarly, what you say about harmony and equilibrium in your relationship has to do with embracing a situation, or a person, within the outlook of a unified (very loving) consciousness, right? Feeling the peace and trust within that embrace, and choosing it continuously - until it 'settles in' - or you settle into it.

[lcam88]

I have become quite good at upsetting the apple cart around here; even this very thread earlier on, it seems. Maybe some good came of it, but maybe in hindsight it just doesn't actually matter. I don't even know what I wanted out of the whole thing.

Being versed in fallacies is only useful so you can know when your message is being stonewalled. Naming them as they are thrown at you would be argumentative, a waste of time, I think. And even if you could name it, and send a loud and clear message to try and fix an obvious problem, how much resistance against your help are you willing to face? Is there another way? Is it worth it?

Have you watched the movie "Revolver"? Very worth watching. The underlying message explains the Ego and what lengths people will go to protect their "investment" in a way I can only describe as unparalleled. If you understood "Natural Born Killers" to be a love story, you will certainly understand Revolver. I think it might shed some light on the following quote:

Maybe I'm being too simplistic. I think people are failing to take responsibility for their thoughts and actions. It's too much of a burden. They just point to leaders and authority.

I myself know that I am closed off to ideas that don't resonate with me...

Resonance is certainly a valid reason for explaining why some people are so open to non-sense type messages. Resonating with non-sense would be like requiring material to fill a "compartmentalized" comfort zone. Confusing the limits of that compartment with everything else [that is "real"] being the unexpected tragedy (greek sense of the word).

Then the face-saving, or "failing to take responsibility for their thoughts and actions", requires an appeal to plausible deniability; to the generosity people have giving the benefit of the doubt as means of absolving responsibility. hahaha!?

And so the issue of cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization as Joanna describes are indeed factors that create and fuel "non-sense" type issues like: "What is real?"

[Dreamtimer]

lcam88, you're right about the waste of time and energy. It might still be fun to tally them up and then tell whomever that they've thrown five different fallacies at me and their position has no merit. But that may be fun only in my mind.

I do have grave concern over people accepting nonsense. I don't have to look any further than the Bush Administration. I had a friend who really wanted to move away during these years. I said to him, "Do you really want to leave the most powerful country in the world to be run by the crazy and foolish?"

Cognitive dissonance may be a necessity for someone like my brother who is so die-hard. He can't see the failings of his own team. If he could he'd have to recognize his own role in it.

[lcam88]

Cognitive dissonance may be a necessity for someone like my brother who is so die-hard.

He has his own views. His attitude, as I see it, is probably to protect his views from what otherwise would be dissonance if that protection where dropped.

+1 to concerns about accepting nonsense...

I suppose what significance we assign such a finding might depend on whether we have the view that the brain and its chemical dynamics produce consciousness, or whether consciousness exists beyond the physical and expresses itself through the use of brain and body.

Both

If it is the latter, then a drug's effect can be seen as mimicking an experience of unity/unified consciousness/feeling of oneness with all and non-separation - temporarily - but that is not the same as knowing yourself as unified consciousness expressing itself in the material level through chemical reactions, hormone messages, neurotransmitters, that can in fact be changed (or transformed) at will, without needing any external substance, and not dictated by the duration of a substance-effect.

Some people feel they need the crutch. It can be helpful.

I understand what you mean overall. Being aware of self (the ego aspects) often is so "loud" that we might not notice the unified consciousness influence. Being able to manipulate "them" at will might be like riding a bike, you need to learn how to do it. This unified consciousness idea that I am getting is very similar to Kundalini. Is that about right?

True unified consciousness can express itself through the 'polarizing' set-up of a dual hemisphere brain without identifying with that set-up.

Can you elaborate more?

Similarly, what you say about harmony and equilibrium in your relationship has to do with embracing a situation, or a person, within the outlook of a unified (very loving) consciousness, right? Feeling the peace and trust within that embrace, and choosing it continuously - until it 'settles in' - or you settle into it.

Yes. It is also a proactive measure I take as well; sometimes a situation is so predictable that I choose to do something I may find undesirable just to avoid that inevitable. I'm not bothered at all by making mistakes or being in err. Perhaps that is part of the peace and trust?

[lcam88]

Another study on non-sense or BS information receptivity.

I found it on zerohedge here.

I'll have to read it before I comment.

[Dreamtimer]

I don't think I knew there was a Society of Judgement and Decision Making.

It's funny to me to see things like 'pseudo profound bullshit' and 'bullshit receptivity' as defined terms in a scientific journal article.

[bsbray]

I looked over the paper about "bullshit receptivity" briefly. This is from the abstract:

Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous.

I think it sums up their own paper very nicely.

They use the following statement as an example of a random bullshit statement they created: "Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena." They said that some people tended to find this statement more profound than statements such as "A wet person does not fear the rain" and "Newborn babies require constant attention." I don't consider these last two statements particularly "profound" at all and I wonder how they are defining the term "profound" and how they have determined themselves to be experts on profundity or "deep meaning." Some things that are not and have never been hard sciences include philosophy, metaphysics and spirituality. Anyone sticking strictly to the scientific method (which was derived philosophically) would have to admit that the methods of science do not apply to "meaning" as humans find it. Not only is there nothing close to a scientific way of measuring or even properly defining the "meaning of life," there isn't even a scientific way to define what it means to be "good" or "bad" or "intelligent" or "stupid," or "profound" or "bullshit." These sorts of things ultimately have to be arbitrarily determined by humans who are simply imposing their own subjective meaning on something that can't be objectively defined or measured.

To use their own example, "Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena," it's not impossible or even difficult to derive meaning and even "profundity" out of this statement, making its use as an example of "bullshit" in their paper a perfect example of why their method is fundamentally flawed for even trying to scientifically measure subjective meaning. "Wholeness" is a synonym of "completeness," "totality," and "integrity." In the work of psychologists like Jung, the process of integrating the various aspects of the personality (conscious and unconscious) into a unified whole is how individuation is accomplished. When a person is wholly integrated, in a state of psychological wholeness in this way, they are free of neuroses. To no longer suffer from neuroses is to experience a quieting of the mind in that there is harmony between its various aspects.

And finally, also according to Jung (just to remain consistent here), what a person "sees" in the external world is often a reflection of their own inner processes. Therefore if a person is psychologically troubled then they will tend to see the world as basically troubled. If someone is at peace in their own mind then they are more likely to see the world as being basically at peace. If we interpret the "external reality" as being equivalent to "infinite phenomena" (and why would this be unreasonable?), then we have completed the final step in getting a profound meaning out of the sentence "Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena."

So this is a statement which the authors of the paper above have assumed makes no sense, and then use to collect data to prove that people find profundity in things that are complete nonsense, when I have just shown how a Jungian interpretation of the same sentence makes total sense and is profoundly in accord with his take on human psychology.


Jung was also aware of the concept of projection, and how people habitually shift their own faults onto the outside world due to their inability or unwillingness to face their own inner demons. With that in mind I return to the abstract of this paper as a perfect representation of what the authors themselves have created:

pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous.

[lcam88]

bsbray:

I enjoyed your analysis.

"Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena" vs "Wholeness stimulates infinite phenomena"

Which is more meaningful? Is there actually any meaning? Or is it actually more like art, meaning in the eye of the beholder?

Just because you are in intelligent human being able to find meaning in that around you doesn't mean that there was intrinsic meaning initially. Or maybe the meaning is within you?

So we turn to messages in general. A sender sends a message and a receiver receives it. If the sender doesn't have something authentic and genuine to send, meaning is then devoid in the message. This touches on an initial posting I had sent to Dreamtimer: If a charitable act is done for selfish reasons, is it actually charitable? The context.

I will say though, I really enjoyed your analysis. I like your rational, way of thinking; and indeed I'm inclined to agree with your assessments. and... I haven't yet read the article though.