--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > turq, I like how you emphasize fun and playfulness which Whedon > > didn't bring up til the very end of his address. And there's > > nothing for me to forgive. Well except I never used the word > > distress. I said uncomfortable but Whedon himself kept talking > > about tension and CD. To me it seemed like he was saying that > > without any tension, there's no CD. > > You are right, cognitive dissonance is *defined* as a > conflict of ideas or perceptions that creates tension and > discomfort. Often the conflict is between an idea and a > perception (i.e., between a thought about something and > the experiential reality of it). > > Bardo-vs.-nothing after death is not, for Barry at least, > cognitive dissonance. They're just two theories, either of > which might be true, and both of which are OK with him from > his pre-death perspective. If he were to decide that the > bardo idea was nonsense and that "nothing" was surely the > after-death circumstance, and after death found himself in > the bardo, *that* would be cognitive dissonance. ;-) > > If he reads this, he will proceed to explain why that > would not cause him any tension or discomfort. Just in > general, he avoids entertaining conflicting sets of > ideas/perceptions that cause him tension or discomfort. > He finds a way to achieve cognitive consonance just as > fast as he can--which is what cognitive dissonance > theory predicts, that we will do whatever it takes to > resolve cognitive dissonance. >
*bzzzzzt* and *plonk*...no, make that double *plonk*...IMHO of course. > > > PS I do think your discussion of bardo vs no bardo was a theoretical > > discussion which in another thread you said you don't like. But probably > > I'm just being picky wicky (-: > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 1:27 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] A rap about Cognitive Dissonance > > > > > > > >  > > Share will have to forgive me for not answering her questions "in line," > > but I have been pondering them, so I will try to explain what I mean by > > "cognitive dissonance," and why I don't think it's in the least > > upsetting or uncomfortable. As defined, CD is holding two or more > > conflicting and in many cases opposite ideas in one's mind at the same > > time." For many people, this causes them some upset, confusion, or > > distress. Many react *to* CD by "stuffing" the opposite idea or concept > > they don't want to deal with, and pretending it isn't there. > > > > Me, I prefer to bring it into the foreground of my thinking and deal > > with it, "juggling" it alongside any other ideas I might hold that it > > might seem to be the opposite of. For me, CD is FUN. > > > > One of the reasons for this is that I owe no allegiance to any > > particular philosophy, school of thought, religion, or tradition. I am a > > member of no spiritual group or cult or religion or lineage, and hold no > > teacher or guru or saint as an "authority." For me, they were all Just > > Human Beings, doing their best to suss out the nature of life, given > > their own experiences and what they had been told by other people. > > > > This FREES me to some extent from the *attachment* that causes so many > > people distress when encountering CD. For example, if you have spent a > > long time in the TM movement, you might have come to believe that MMY > > was an "authority," knowledgeable about many things, and thus To Be > > Believed when he talked about them. I hold no such belief. I also hold > > no such belief with regard to the original Buddha, or any other > > spiritual teacher in history, living or dead. I consider them ALL just > > fellow human beings, spouting their opinions. > > > > But if I *did* believe what I've suggested about MMY, I might be tempted > > to *resist* examining certain ideas that run counter to his beliefs and > > teachings. When these ideas come up, a MMY TB might be tempted to think, > > "Well, that is completely contrary to what MMY said, so of course it > > can't be true. Therefore I shouldn't even waste time thinking about it." > > Doing this, they avoid the potential distress of CD. > > > > Me, I examine the ideas. I don't owe MMY or his ideas or teachings any > > loyalty, and I don't owe them belief in these ideas of teachings. I make > > my own decisions. Thus, for me, seemingly contradictory ideas are an > > opportunity to PLAY, to examine seemingly contradictory ideas from many > > different viewpoints, and see which of these POVs strike a resonance > > with me. I'm not trying to determine "Truth" because I don't believe in > > the concept. I'm only playing with the ideas to see which seem most > > reasonable to me, based on my life experience and the general guidelines > > provided by Occam's Razor. > > > > Let me give you a couple of examples. They are both questions that some > > people feel are "weighty," and that many of them have *very* strong > > opinions about, and thus attachments to. They are: 1) "Is there life > > after death?," and 2) "Is enlightenment real, and worth pursuing?" > > > > For the first, I get to deal with everything I've ever heard or read on > > the subject, plus my own subjective experiences. I tend to believe that > > there *is* life after death, and it pretty much follows the Tibetan > > model -- dying, followed by a period in the Bardo. The Bardo period > > includes ALL of other religions' or other belief systems' ideas about > > both Heaven and Hell, but then opens up into a new life in another body. > > I tend to believe that this is what happens. > > > > At the same time, I have NO PROBLEM examining and thinking about the > > more materialist view, that when one dies there is a big CLICK, followed > > by eternal darkness, and no more existence. I don't have any problem > > with this, because 1) neither I nor anyone else will ever know which is > > more correct until we actually die, and 2) if the latter scenario > > happens, there won't even be any "I" or "me" there to be disappointed > > that there is no Next Life. :-) > > > > So I can juggle these two ideas simultaneously in my mind, without being > > either repulsed by or attached to either. The CD is there -- holding and > > appreciating opposite concepts -- but there is no distress because I am > > attached to neither one of them. > > > > Take the second issue, whether enlightenment is worth pursuing as a > > goal. Now here I have somewhat of an advantage, in that I don't have to > > deal with the question of "Does enlightenment exist?" I've had > > experiences for weeks or months at a time that convince me it does. BUT, > > is it worth pursuing as a goal? > > > > Many teachers say it is. Bzzzzzt. I consider none of them "authorities." > > Many people who claim to be enlightened say it is. Bzzzzzt. I don't > > consider them authorities, either. I've been there, done that with some > > of the states of mind they talk about and I don't consider them any > > "better" than other states of mind. Like Curtis, I do not believe that > > referring to these states of mind as "higher" states of consciousness is > > either accurate or a favor to those hearing it. They're *different* > > states of mind, that's all. So there is no belief in a "hierarchy" or > > higher/lower, better/worse for me to pay attention to or consider. > > > > So the bottom line when dealing with this question, for me, is "Would it > > benefit anyone else on planet Earth but myself to become enlightened?" > > The answer to that, as far as I've been able to determine, is a big, fat > > NO. Therefore, for me, it isn't worth pursuing as a goal. End of story. > > > > I honestly don't know what you think of as cognitive dissonance, Share, > > so I can't comment on why you feel that the experience is distressing. > > All I'm trying to do in this rap is to make a case for why I do not. > > >
