Interesting.. why we believe in something..

[Catfish]

..and why it may be complete bovine scatology:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

And that.. explains a lot :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

That was good. I especially liked the "Tacos" dialogue. I have a minor problem, not with the presentation but that I was already familiar with all the questions he asked.

Still, it was fun.

[Rockin Robbins]

Yes it lacked in surprise factor there....

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine.

[Platapus]

The Oatmeal is one of my favourites.

Some of his comics make me laugh
Some make me cry
Some even make me think (what the hell?)
But all are worth reading.. even the dumb ones.

[Skybird]

Western psychoanalysis claims it is vital to form an ego (which in the first is true, we know many forms of psychopathologic syndroms that derive from ego constructions falling apart or being non-existend, being insufficient at least, and the result is always suffering). It also claims that it is impossible to avoid a causal linking between this cause and effect: we get a stimulus by perception or intellectual work, and we - do not just react, we JUDGE. We must judge, says psychoanalysis. We cannot evade it. Its a paradigm of Western psychology.

But if you are familiar with Eastern concepts of meditation and their underlying psychological models and concepts, then you know that in these different lineages, or in Buddhist thinking, the existence of an ego is seen as the cause of all suffering - and that by learning meditation one can learn to unlearn this automatic linking of cause and effect, sensory or intellectual input - and immediately judging it.

This is not meant to excuse unlimitedly and endlessly relativising things, excusing just anything to happen in an effort not to judge. That would be fatalism, and hinduism is full of it. See where it led them. What it means instead is to differ between observation, and judgement. Practically deciding we must, and we do it all the time, every day. And when we reject to decide, we still decide, like it was said that it is impossible to not communicating. One cannot not-communicate, and one cannot not-decide.

But when you have made it your automatic habit to differ between the two, perception/observation and judgement, you often find from then on that while you witness something to happen, see some person, observe an event, this now leaves you without reflex or desire to judge any longer. You may react, may intervene, may do something nevertheless - but maybe you find yourself doing so with a more sober mind, being less a victim of almost Pavlovian conditioning and resulting trained reflexes of "I perceive it, so I judge it".

Reacting, doing without getting emotionally aroused, engaged, is possible. It just takes some longer time to train this. I sometimes told people one of the main purposes of meditation is to learn to differ between the world as it is and the world we demand, expect, want it to be. Because if we judge something, somebody, we do so on the grounds of a standard that tells us that this event, this person either complies with said standard, or not. But the world does not and must not comply with pure intellectual brain-born standards of ours.

For it simply is like it is.

We must not necessarily want to judge. Determination in doing, and having our mind focussed on what we are doing right now - that is good enough. This is the meaning of true strength.

Two last words on all this: do not try now not wanting to judge. That does not work, will just get yourself entangled by your self. Be aware of that you judge when you judge - that in the long run will lead you to much greater good. ;) And second: do not mistake, as it is all too common in the West, psychological relaxation techniques and group sit-ins, with real meditation. The first is a feel-well-happening, the second is a struggle between life and death - and I mean it like this, and not any different at all.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

It's funny because it's true... OR IS IT!!! DUN-DUN-DUNNNNNNNNNN.

[vienna]

I didn't believe a single word of it...




<O>

[Catfish]

Also explains why the first "truth" you hear, forms your mind. Anything that comes after this first "initiation" will be challenged by your own mind.

Was really astonished why this backfire effect works so "well".
Facts do not matter, if you hear of them too late.

[ikalugin]

It is american centric, so it didnt really get me in terms of illustrating how arguments work.

[vienna]

Also explains why the first "truth" you hear, forms your mind. Anything that comes after this first "initiation" will be challenged by your own mind.

Was really astonished why this backfire effect works so "well".
Facts do not matter, if you hear of them too late.


Is that a fact?... :hmmm:




<O>

[Skybird]

Is that a fact?... :hmmm:




<O>
We got taught about it at university already in the early 90s, but back then it was not as substantially supported by neurological evidence from examinations as it probably is now, 25 years later.

There are quite some surprising things possible and happening on the level of neural hardwiring. We are more animals reacting to the functioning of our hardware, than most humans are enjoying to admit. Add to this the "secret tyranny" of hormones, and you lose even more of what man claims is a major difference between himself, and "lower" animals: the freedom to choose and to decide. Free will, sentiments and emotions, and decision-forming - these things are not at all as clear in their relation to each other as many people think, and since we started to scan the brain for its regional activities, we got evidence that would surprise, even worry quite some people: that we more often than we like probbaly get decided by our hardware - and after that formed the subjective conviction that that choice was our free will. Same is true for our emotional reactions to something, inclduing phyical status and body processes. The question whether we are sad and thus cry, or whether we cry and thus feel sad, already was asked by I think William James in the 19th century. And the answer is not as clear as you now might think.

My advise would be: never take it for granted that the other has "freely" decided it, whatever "it" is. He indeed could have gotten decided, being unaware of it, however.

And if you think of it, this opens an abyss of philosophical implications about ethics, morals and sanctions and penalties for criminal behavior. A nightmare debate, imo. For all rules and standards we base our morals and ethics and laws on, take the "free will" for granted. But what if there is no really free "free will"...?:timeout:

[Catfish]

Is that a fact?... :hmmm:<O>
Oh stop it, you.. :haha:


@Ikalugin: the "american dimension" of George Washington is only an example. It is about core beliefs, and more superficial ones (for the lack of a better definition). If any information or input violates your core belief, you will act with resentment or even hate automatically, even if it were a proven "fact" and absolutely logical. The information works like an acute physical threat, and your brain acts in that way to protect your "cardboard house of mind" as it would protect your body during a physical attack.

Or this is what my brain thinks i read. :hmmm:

[ikalugin]

I understood the idea they were pushing across, I just did not find their examples compelling due to the different background.

On the other hand their targeting is understandable - without it the emotional impact of their examples would be insignificant.

[STEED]

I didn't believe a single word of it...




<O>

Sounds good to me. :)