Wednesday, 20 May 2009

Worldview Warfare (weltanschauungskrieg) & the Necessity of Illusion


“We are greater artists than we know.” Nietzsche.

  • Everyone has their personal version of reality and everyone believes theirs is not only the best version, but the only one that really counts
  • Our version of reality is dependent on our physical, emotional, psychological imprinting as infants, and has little or nothing to do with conscious processes.
  • It never seems to occur to us, however, that our version of reality is built up from material that comes directly from other people’s versions of reality (the books we read, people we respect, and so forth).
  • We cling to our version of reality as if our life depends upon it. Maybe it does. Yet we know that any version of reality is incomplete, and never can be complete.
  • The way we view the world defines who we think we are, our constructed identity. We cannot see ourselves from the outside, except through the eyes of another.
  • We agree the sky is blue without ever wondering if we are seeing the same color, knowing only that we have agreed to give it the name “blue.”
  • We all desperately need others to agree with our version of reality, even while we insist that we are special and unique.
  • Does anyone ever really upturn their version of reality in a way that is meaningful? It is akin to identity-suicide.
  • Our versions of reality are our defense systems, our armor, against an incomprehensible, and probably hostile, Universe. It began as a necessary survival response to those first childhood experiences, the ones which presented the original threat to our well-being, so shaping the identity-armor that was later fully consolidated as a version of reality.
  • Parents are the first to override our sense of reality by telling us that monsters do not exist and that our invisible friends are imaginary, that we are not hungry when we say we are, and so forth.
  • We are looking for allies, most of all in our illusions. Complicity in denial. The rejection of conspiracy “theory” (a telling term, since it is often as fact-based as anything in the consensus realm) perhaps stems from our unconscious awareness that we are all conspiring, all of the time, to keep ourselves in the dark about this one, all-consuming fact: that we are the authors of our own beliefs.
  • Friendship is opposition.
  • When worldviews, versions of reality, go to war, the potential for breakthrough is great
  • What we believe to be real becomes real. We forget that we chose to believe a version of reality because we had to. It was a necessary illusion.
  • Jason Horsley

(full piece here)

8 comments:

Karl L Le Marcs said...

Jake: There are several comments in this post that I must, at the very least, offer an alternate view.....

"Everyone has their personal version of reality and everyone believes theirs is not only the best version, but the only one that really counts."

Whilst everyone indeed does have their own version of reality through their phaneron of qualia it is not correct to then assert that everyone believes theirs to be either the "best" or "the only one that really counts" for such is a deeply nihilistic and solipsistic position existing in a purely subjective framework. I, for one, certainly do not think that my perspective of reality is in any way better than any other nor the only one.

"Our version of reality is dependent on our physical, emotional, psychological imprinting as infants, and has little or nothing to do with conscious processes."

Again, yes, our perspective is conditioned by our infanthood but to suggest that continual conscious processes in adulthood have nothing to do with how these perceptions can alter is, I would say, very wrong.

"It never seems to occur to us, however, that our version of reality is built up from material that comes directly from other people’s versions of reality (the books we read, people we respect, and so forth."

Are these the "other people" whose personal version of reality "doesn't count" from your first statement??? And in your second statement you suggested our version of reality is dependent on our infant conditioning and no conscious processing. The three statements contradict each other.

"We cling to our version of reality as if our life depends upon it. Maybe it does. Yet we know that any version of reality is incomplete, and never can be complete."

Hmmm, do "we"? Again, whether this makes me unique in the world I don't know but I certainly don't cling to any version of reality, which is why I seek alternate ideas of ideologies and formulate my own theories of Consciousness (together with Tony and also as my own work).

"We all desperately need others to agree with our version of reality, even while we insist that we are special and unique."Can I opt out of all this "we" generalisation! *smile*

I appreciate that a LOT of what you state here comes from your own personal position but it becomes dangerous when an assumption is made that such is a universal condition. It is not!

"Does anyone ever really upturn their version of reality in a way that is meaningful? It is akin to identity-suicide."

Yes they do and no, it is not akin to identity-suicide, it is akin to identity-birth.

"Parents are the first to override our sense of reality by telling us that monsters do not exist and that our invisible friends are imaginary, that we are not hungry when we say we are, and so forth."

Ok, so by informing the children that monsters do not exist is overriding our sense of REALITY? Is it not framing our sense of reality away from a fantastical non-reality? Whilst childhood inquisitiveness is indeed bashed out of children at every opportunity from the first uttering of "why?", this doesn't mean that parental advisement is detrimental to our fundamental physiological and psychological compulsions.

I'll stop there for now but whilst I admire and am interested in many of your thoughts here I'm more afraid that they stem from a deeply subjective psyche and have many flaws (especially in ITLAD/CTF/CtCw) but as always, I'm very happy to enter discourse and hear your replies.
*smile*

stacy said...

i, too, had to comment on much of what the previous comment already said (albeit from my own unique perspective, which differs from his as well)! "we" simply do not agree. perhaps you should rephrase your statements in first person singular, so as to avoid what william james called the psychologist's fallacy, that is, the confusion of your own subjective thoughts with what might be going on inside other people's heads.

i was listening to your talk at red ice and followed the link here. you speak of things which i have experienced, but what you say about those things doesn't quite match my experience.

i am, however, very interested in hearing what you have to say about it. thank you!

aeoli kephas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Karl L Le Marcs said...

Jake:"there is no difference between any of us, that is the fundamental illusion; the reason is that we do exist as individuals at all, but rather as processes which consciousness is undergoing.Have you missed a "NOT" out here, Jake?

You said, "....the reason is that we do exist as individuals at all....", should this read "....the reason is that we do NOT exist as individuals at all"???

It's either a semantic omission or a Freudian one!
*smile*

Either way it is plainly incorrect.

I entirely agree that collectively we are all of a transcendental oneness far greater than can be comprehended by the masses (indeed much of that is reflected in my CtCw theory of Consciousness) BUT to suggest an homogenisation of subjective consciousness to the degree to which you assert is very dangerous.

I think it is quite clear that the very fact of the only two comments on your post being of a contrasting position to your own is testament to the fallacy within your original premise.

As stacey rightly pointed out in her comment, this fallacy is an absolute classic texbook example of psychological transference.

No-one is, for one second, suggesting that you (Jake) don't think what you are saying is real, but what we are saying is that neither of us agree and that, in itself, rather eradicates the collective "we" argument of your suppositions.

"I stand by all the above statements and see no contradictions in them; Karl's counter-points are intellectually based but don't come from a deeper place of Knowing, at least in my impression. And I use we because yes, from my perspective, these truths apply universally to everyone, even if only those who are ruthlessly honest with themselves will ever admit this."

As I believe that you (Jake) entirely believe what you say I would fully expect you (Jake) to stand by the statements; indeed I'd have far less respect for you if you did not but I'm not sure you are accepting the basic points that I made and that Stacey agreed with, fundamentally that your assertions that simply because you (Jake) have a formed opinion and ideology (be it based on theory or practice) it necessarily equates that "we" ALL share the same is vastly erroneous.

What can we "know" other than self? Whilst I thank you for acknowledging the intellectual position of my comments I question your rebuttal of them NOT stemming from a deeper Knowing.

I (Karl) know I do NOT share the same view of consciousness as you (Jake) do in your collective "we" statements and thus, by very definition, that very "we" collective is somewhat contradicted.

Your assertion that this then leads to you concluding "these truths apply universally to everyone" is thus not only what Philosophers call a false syllogism but is also false logic.

Again, Jake, I firmly accept that these statements of yours reflect how you (Jake) and your subjective consciousness of your psyche sees the world but this is not relected "universally to everyone" as the responses to your comments show.

"That, of course, is my version of reality and mine alone."

Absolutely, and in this one sentence alone you have proven my whole point!
*wink*

Karl L Le Marcs said...

Jake: (continued from above)

"Karl has stated his version, but by disagreeing with my own, he has only confirmed it and made it stronger."

Hmmmm, interesting, please expand on this and explain how, exactly!

In your previous sentence you admitted that your version is "mine alone" and then here state that my disagreement actually confirms your statements??!!
(although I never disagreed with solely your statements, moreso the assumption that everyone sees things the same way that you do)

"Karl is speaking theoretically, and theories are often quite pretty; I am speaking experientially, and that is never quite so reassuring."Can you then chronicle here some of the experiential evidence you have for this universal consensus because right here, on this BLOG, the experience of the only two replies to your statements opposing your generalisation rather leads one to the precise opposite conclusion.

I would also appreciate your thoughts on all the other part of my original comment that you have not addressed and also the comment of Stacey which, again, you appear to have allowed to pass uncommented upon.

To end, in your original post your final statement is somewhat prophetic when read in the light of your second comment...

"What we believe to be real becomes real. We forget that we chose to believe a version of reality because we had to."You (Jake) believe to be real those statements that you have made. You therefore are making that reality your own. You (Jake) are then forgetting that you chose to believe that version. But you don't have to. You can listen to what the others are saying (unless you really believe that yours is "not only the best version, but the only one that really counts")??

Dave Richards said...

I think Jake is right, by and large. It's a question of levels, really. I don't know why you are so keen to bust him, Karl. It's a description of the way we operate. Reminded me of R.D. Laing's stuff. Full of wonderful insights. Thank you again Jake.

Karl L Le Marcs said...

Dave Richards said:
"I think Jake is right, by and large. It's a question of levels, really. I don't know why you are so keen to bust him, Karl."

I'm certainly not "keen to bust him", I'm barely trying!
*smile*

What I am saying, which you subtly agree with in your opening statement, "I think Jake is right, BY AND LARGE", is that he certainly cannot say that we ALL think this way and/or behave this way/have this viewpoint for such is a very common Jamesian psychologist's fallacy, as Stacey righty said.

If you fully agreed you wouldn't have said "by and large".

There is much of interest in Jake's thinking but it is weakened by its assumptions in presentation.

Dave Richards said...

Maybe you're right Karl. But what is interesting is that Jake's ideas might be right, and you might be wrong, or vice versa but we can't prove it. Same with most things and most ideas, including eternal return. Ultimately any idea is a fixed position, no matter how long it is fixed for. Can we live without ideas? That is the question. If one idea undermines another, all our ideas get start to get wobblier, and eventually we experience reality without the filter of ideas. Jake's ideas need not be adopted (or rejected) as a new filter, just experienced for the insight they give into the processes of conditioning.