[FairfieldLife] Re: A rap about Cognitive Dissonance
The Honest Liar: What Does a Villain See in the Mirror? by Jamy Ian Swiss 'In which I consider why villains like phony mediums still like what they see when they look in the mirror, thanks to the workings of cognitive dissonance. From psychic frauds to faith healers, talk-to-the-dead mediums, or even the filmaker Vikram Gandi who posed as an Indian fakir for him documentary film, Kumare, with the help of cognitive dissonance, nobody looks in the mirror and ever sees a villain.' http://youtu.be/OoQZCyNeyhs
[FairfieldLife] Re: A rap about Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonence: ...the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Rama/rama-appendix-1.html I studied with a guy who could turn huge rooms in convention centers gold, to the point where even the security guards saw it, but that never made me think he was enlightened, only that he could do cool things with light. From: Uncle Tantra Subject: Re: Two simple questions for the bhakti supporters Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: 2003-03-16 13:29:48 PST
[FairfieldLife] Re: A rap about Cognitive Dissonance
--- 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. *bzt* 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: A rap about Cognitive Dissonance
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@... wrote: --- 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. *bzt* and *plonk*...no, make that double *plonk*...IMHO of course. Eloquent. Do you not know what cognitive dissonance means either? Or are you expressing disagreement with how I said it was defined? If the latter, be careful, because I was confirming what Share thought.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A rap about Cognitive Dissonance
As a rude followup to my own post :-), but said to forestall people suggesting opposites that I should care about and be attached to, I have zero interest in theoretical questions. Such as Does consciousness give rise to manifestation or vice-versa? or Is Einstein's Unified Field the same as what people refer to when they say the Absolute or Transcendence? These questions do nothing for me at all. They don't even register on my Worth Examining Meter. The reason is that IMO no one on Earth will ever know the answers to any of them. Therefore, why bother to even bother with them? I'm a fairly pragmatic person. If the questions have to do with how I or other people can lead a happier life and cause more happiness or fulfillment or satisfaction for other people, then I'll examine them. If they have to do with Pure Theory, why bother? That's just ego-fodder, IMO. Let the egos play with that shit. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: A rap about Cognitive Dissonance
--- 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. 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: A rap about Cognitive Dissonance
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: 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. Bzt. I consider none of them authorities. Many people who claim to be enlightened say it is. Bzt. 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
