4
   

The Essence of Freedom

 
 
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 06:56 am
@vikorr,
An improvement in your perceptions would indeed come from you, that's the point in him posting. He wants your perceptions to change through the 'thinking' you get from reading them.

Now, if you would like to argue with your own potentiality-of-being(thinking) that you 'get' from reading his posts, then that's your doing. Don't attempt to blame it on 'Dasein', you're wasting your time by dis-covering your own flaws and trying to blame them on him. This is why he ignores you.

YOU only know of YOUR convictions. Whether he questions his or not is none of your business.

You already know who you are, there isn't any'thing' to know about it. The 'truth' can never be spoken but 'heard', it's just that when most people hear it they don't like it and spit it back in the face of the one who spoke it.

How the hell can YOU possibly see 'self-deception' in SOMEONE ELSES post? That's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Doesn't the word 'self' imply that which is personal? So how are YOU going to know when SOMEONE ELSE is deceiving their self?
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 08:33 am
@JPLosman0711,
JPL:

You're way off base here. Since it is impossible for you to speak for me, what you wrote is more about what you're attempting to do and not about me.

1) Nobody can improve their perceptions, they perceive what they perceive. The only thing they can do is to think or not.

2) I'm not interested in changing anybody's thinking. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, I'm extending an invitation. This is why I don't participate in the 'banter'.

3) If you look in the dictionary at the definition of 'language' you will find that the definition doesn't include 'hearing' or 'understanding', that means the speaker isn't required to include the listener in what is spoken about he is only required to make sure what he says is 'true', accurate, or authentic.

4) Therefore, language is a communication device totally dependent on the ability of the listener to hear and understand, i.e., think.

From the amount of posting you have done on this forum it should be clear to you by now that no matter how hard you try, you have absolutely no control over the 'hearing' and 'understanding' of others and you have just a little control over you own 'hearing' and 'understanding'.

I suggest you stop jerking your 'self' around and focus on your own 'hearing' and 'understanding' (only if you do).
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 12:55 pm
@Dasein,
Thinking, or “thought” is part of perception, or we could say that there is an element of thought in perception, inasmuch as what one thinks, and how one is thinking, will have an effect on how one perceives things. Therefore, to say that nobody can improve their perceptions isn’t quite right, because if someone cultivates awareness of their own thought processes, and maybe engages in “self-examination”, then they can learn to think differently about things, which ultimately alters their perceptions of things.
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 07:33 am
@existential potential,
"cultivating awareness of their own thought processes, and maybe engaging in “self-examination”, learning to think differently about things, which will ultimately alter their perceptions of things"

IS CALLED THINKING!!!

Perception can lead to 'thinking' but its not guaranteed. You still can't 'improve' your perception, you can only think about what you perceived.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 07:41 am
according to mr k. kristofferson , "freedom's just another word, for nothing left to lose"

according to mr b. bragg, "freedom's just another word, for nothing left to sell"

of course i've always believed that a hero ain't nothing but a sandwich

Confused

i guess that doesn't really have anything to do with freedom now that i think about it, except of course the freedom to think about it
0 Replies
 
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 07:51 am
@Dasein,
So in other words, your perceptions are your perceptions and you have no control over them, all you can do is to decide whether or not to think about them?

Ahh and I see, freedom is making sure that that 'thinking' which is done after the initial uncontrollable perceiving is 'your own' and wasn't 'planted there' by the rest of the world.
0 Replies
 
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 10:55 am
@Dasein,
I would say you can improve your perceptions, precisely because you can improve the way that you think, and what you think, because thought and perception are interlinked.

thought/thinking and perception are not mutually exclusive, they both contribute to each other and inform one another.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 03:56 pm
@existential potential,
And what about feelings?
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 04:00 pm
@JPLosman0711,
JPL,
I’m glad Dasein is at least honest enough to set you straight on you attempting to speak for him.
Quote:
An improvement in your perceptions would indeed come from you, that's the point in him posting
Dasein appears to be talking about root perception, while most people talk about the ‘conscious perception’ that you become aware (or conscious) of. What we see/hear/sense undergoes translation as it is filtered through various systems in our mind, until it reaches our ‘consciousness’ where we become aware of our perceptions. As many of those filters (beliefs, values, emotional attachments etc) are constructed, we can improve our perceptions by improving the constructions, and also by improving our awareness of the systems intimate to the thing we are viewing. All of these will affect our end perception. From this viewpoint, Dasein is in error that you cannot improve your perceptions.
Quote:
Don't attempt to blame it on 'Dasein', you're wasting your time by dis-covering your own flaws and trying to blame them on him. This is why he ignores you.

I’m not particularly worried to be on ignore – having been polite but disagreeing with him, it is his loss to shut out outside thoughts and challenges. And I do think you’ll find that (challenging his line of thinking, and asking him to justify the labels he attaches to others) is the reason for his choice to ignore Smile

Your perception of ‘blame’ is misplaced (though what exactly you mean is unclear, but I will take a guess at it). Considering he apparently believes he is perfection (the ‘don’t argue with me, I’m extending an invitation for all of you to grow’ attitude) it’s still amusing to post how he isn’t...so I’m still currently happy to cut/paste/analyse his posts as they have contained quite a number of obvious flaws.

Quote:
How the hell can YOU possibly see 'self-deception' in SOMEONE ELSES post? That's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Doesn't the word 'self' imply that which is personal? So how are YOU going to know when SOMEONE ELSE is deceiving their self?
Self deception is the belief that what you are saying is true, while some part of ‘you’ must also know it’s not true. In writing it is implied in tone and message.

So lets look at the post he wrote after you post :
Dasein wrote:
I'm not interested in changing anybody's thinking. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, I'm extending an invitation. This is why I don't participate in the 'banter'.

He says he’s not interested in changing anybody’s thinking....but he’s extending an invitation. That invitation is obviously for what he ‘says’ to end up changing their thinking...though I'm guessing he would qualify that with ‘if they so choose to listen and understand’ (which wouldn't make a difference to the reason he posts - what he is interested in trying to do). As both sides can't be true at the same time, we are left with two possibilities. Now he can just be being deceptive if he doesn’t believe that claptrap himself and just wants others to believe it, or if he actually believed it when writing, then he was also being self-deceptive. Considering his ‘certitude’ and attitude in his writing (don't argue with me or I'll put you on ignore...I'm extending an invitation to you), and the numerous other examples of similar writing, it’s fairly safe to assume he believes his own deceptions.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 05:11 pm
@vikorr,
You said:

''Self deception is the belief that what you are saying is true, while some part of ‘you’ must also know it’s not true. In writing it is implied in tone and message''

The flaw in this statement is 'you' claiming to know what he 'implies'. Using the word 'it' beforehand gives the thought of universality to whatever would follow. You 'created' what was implied, also 'tone and message'.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 06:30 pm
@JPLosman0711,
vikorr wrote:
''Self deception is the belief that what you are saying is true, while some part of ‘you’ must also know it’s not true. In writing it is implied in tone and message''
JPL wrote:
The flaw in this statement is 'you' claiming to know what he 'implies'.
Implications by their very nature involve interpretation, which is purely stating the obvious, which makes your interpretation that I claim to 'know', in error - rather I see implications that are apparent and obvious to me.

JPL wrote:
Using the word 'it' beforehand gives the thought of universality to whatever would follow.
This is poor understanding of the English language - the word 'it' always refers to a previously mentioned thing. In this case 'it' refers to the word/concept 'self deception'. Replace the word 'it' with 'self deception', and how does your statement make sense?

Quote:
You 'created' what was implied, also 'tone and message'.
You somehow managed to remove dasein completely from the communication equation with that statement - how ironic that he hasn't tried to convey a message, and that his message (that he didn't try to convey) cannot have implications. It is also misleading to imply that his writing has no tone to it. After that, I certainly interpreted the message, the tone, and the implications (the interpretation can be called a creation of mine)

I do notice you don't challenge the example I gave. I tell you what - ask your guru what 'invitation' he was extending, and try and come up with an interpretation that doesn't invovle him being interested in changing peoples thinking.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 06:43 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
Implications by their very nature involve interpretation, which is purely stating the obvious, which makes your interpretation that I claim to know, in error.


You attempted to pass off your interpretation of what you read under the title "Dasein" as what he implied. The 'implication' comes from you and you alone.

Quote:
This is poor understanding of the English language - the word 'it' always refers to a previously mentioned thing. In this case 'it' refers to the word/concept 'self deception'.


By the very nature of the word 'self', it is personal. You have never been "Dasein" and you never will be. So, how are you going to 'detect' someone elses own 'self deception'?

Wouldn't it take being that 'self' in order to deceive it? As well as detecting this deception?
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 06:47 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:
You attempted to pass off your interpretation of what you read under the title "Dasein" as what he implied. The 'implication' comes from you and you alone.
Correctly phrased, this should read 'my interpretation of what Dasein implied is..' That's correct. That's not an attempt - that simply is. And again, it's stating the absolute obvious. Hence I can say 'Daseins writing implies...' if you disagree that's fine, but I'd suggest you look at the whole.

Quote:
By the very nature of the word 'self', it is personal. You have never been "Dasein" and you never will be. So, how are you going to 'detect' someone elses own 'self deception'?
It's unclear what exactly you are referring to here...I presume the word 'it' ? If so, then again, this is simply poor understanding of the English language on your part.

But to answer the question of detecting other peoples self deception - how does a psychologist do it? It's not impossible to do.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 06:56 pm
@vikorr,
You simply cannot know someone elses implications. That's why they're called 'someone elses'.

Same goes for 'deception'.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 07:02 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Hello, implications by their very nature are interpreted. It's almost like saying 'you can never know how someone else is truly feeling' which is quite true, but you can have a pretty good idea of how they are feeling if the signs are obvious enough...same with implications. Some implications are so obvious as to be very unlikely to be wrong. Implications that pop up over and over again, are even less likely again to be wrong.

Deception can have obvious clues - hence people get caught out in lies. Self Deception can also have obvious clues.

vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 07:06 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Again, I would challenge you - ask your guru what 'invitation' he was extending, and try and come up with an interpretation that doesn't invovle him being interested in changing peoples thinking.

That is an obvious deception on his part, and most likely a temporary self deception (no sane person can seriously hold that self deception for long)
0 Replies
 
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 07:07 pm
@JLNobody,
Feelings can be difficult to identify as such-you may have a feeling about an experience you have, or you may have a feeling about a belief that someone else holds, but feelings themselves can often be confused with "felts"-feelings that one has directly experienced in the past that have been brought forth by memory, and which are therefore confused to be "feelings", something that one is experiencing in the present.

that process can distort ones perceptions about the present moment, in that memories of feelings, "felts", are being imposed on ones present experience as feelings, without conscious awareness.
0 Replies
 
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 07:43 pm
@vikorr,
The implications are your own that you project when you look at/hear someone else.

Same with deception, it's your own.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 07:50 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Not taking up the challenge?

If you can't understand the different between what is known from a persons writing and what is implied from a persons writing, there's little more I can do to explain it to you. I would suggest you go back and relearn the difference between knowledge and implied conclusions.

Quote:
Same with deception, it's your own

Let me get this straight - you are saying if someone steals $1,000,000 cash from a bank, is caught on CCTV, and walks out into the street to be caught by a policeman (with the crook having the million dollars in his carry bag) and that crook tells the policeman 'I won this in the lottery'...and the policeman discovers the deception (witnesses come out and say 'he just stole that money' and CCTV shows the same)...then it is the policemans deception?

Personally, given the bizarre claims you've made over a long period of time, I'm starting to wonder about your sanity. Like the other post, I think this one has run it's course with you.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 07:58 pm
@vikorr,
All these words come and go........same with everything else I suppose.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/24/2021 at 11:43:44