--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price <bobpriced@> wrote:
> >
> > Turq,
> > >
> > > Just to clarify, I'm referring to the whole
> > > theory which I believe includes not just
> > > the discomfort caused by the conflicting
> > > ideas but the motivation people have
> > > to use ways to reduce the discomfort.
>
> Got it. Thanks for clarifying.
>
> > > If you're correct, which I believe you are,
> > > were does the predilection come from?
> > > Is it nature or nurture or both? Are there
> > > behaviours, say substance abuse, thatÂ
> > > push the predilection in one direction?
>
> You know me. Unlike some here, I don't "know" shit.
> I just speculate. My speculation is that it's a
> combination of both.
>
> And I base this on a belief in reincarnation. Some
> have 'paid their dues' along one path (sutra or
> tantra) in the past, and thus nurture tends to
> develop habits (samskaras) in them that cause them
> to lean in one or the other direction.
>
> On the other hand, some seekers I've met tend to
> glom onto a predilection from past lives, only to
> find that it doesn't work for them in this one.
> At that point they switch and start batting for
> the other team (which is not a euphemism for
> turning gay, no matter what some will say). :-)
> At that point, I think nature might be the pre-
> dominant operative force.
>
> > > If you, Fitzgerald and my first paragraph above are
> > > all correct would it be more accurate to say some people
> > > have less of a predilection to cognitive dissonance (CD)
> > > (motivation to reduce the discomfort) than others
> > > and are therefore more intelligent?
>
> I'm really not comfortable with the "more intelligent/
> less intelligent" thang. That's expressing things
> from a certain POV, as if that POV were "right." That,
> the belief that one and only one POV can be "right,"
> to continue my train of thought, is sutra. I really
> am more comfortable with tantra. For those who swing
> the sutra way, behaviors modeled on pat answers might
> make them more intelligent. For those who swing the
> tantra way, the *same* behavior might make them less
> intelligent. And vice versa.
>
> > > For me, one of the many interesting aspects of CD
> > > are the various denial techniques some
> > > people use to reduce the discomfort
> > > and if this is another layer of the predilection
> > > you described.
>
> I think it "follows from" the predilection. If you're
> a sutra kinda guy suddenly confronted with two contra-
> dictory ideas and thus experiencing CD, you might tend
> to react by trying to "make it go away," using denial
> or other techniques for doing so. A more tantra kinda
> guy, confronted with the *same* two contradictory
> ideas, might groove behind it and have no need to
> do this. They might get off on juggling the two ideas,
> keeping them both "in the air" at the same time.
>
> In other words, one would experience CD and perceive
> it as "discomfort-making." The other might experience
> the same CD and experience it as "comfort-making."
>
>
> > From: turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 8:53:36 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: cognitive dissonance
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price <bobpriced@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm curious what everyone thinks isÂ
> > > > the difference between cognitive
> > > > dissonance ("people have a motivationalÂ
> > > > drive to reduce dissonance")Â and whatÂ
> > > > F. Scott Fitzgerald said: "the true testÂ
> > > > of a first rate mind is the ability to holdÂ
> > > > two contradictory ideas at the same time".
> >
> > An excellent question, one of the best here in
> > some time. I would have to say that it probably
> > depends -- as does so much else -- on predilection.
> >
> > I think that for many people, possibly the majority,
> > cognitive dissonance is perceived as uncomfortable,
> > and thus the "rule" might be true. On the other hand,
> > I thrive on cognitive dissonance; it defines for me
> > some of the highest, most profound moments of my life.
> > I actually seek it, as much as I seek anything.
> >
> > > > If the theory of cognitive dissonance
> > > > and Fitzgerald are both right would
> > > > that mean the natural tendency
> > > > of the mind is to become less
> > > > intelligent?
> >
> > As stated above, I don't think that the "rule" is
> > applicable to everyone. I honestly think it's a
> > matter of predilection; some are comfortable with
> > sutra ("Every question is the perfect opportunity
> > for the answer he have already prepared") and others
> > are more comfortable with tantra ("WTF? Wow, that's
> > kinda neat!").
> >
> > Cognitive dissonance may make the former "less intel-
> > ligent," but the latter "more intelligent."
Cognitive Dissonance: The state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or
attitudes, esp. as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change. It is
an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously:
mental confusion and emotional tension caused by holding incompatible
values.The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a
motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their
attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Some have said cognitive dissonance is 'a
psychological disorder whereby people believe stupid things.' At any rate it
can lead to this, reducing the discomfort resulting in adopting some very
peculiar ideas.
Probably the major potential for cognitive dissonance in the TMO is holding the
idea that the philosophy and technology of Vedic Science has nothing to do with
religion.
Fitzgerald's statement 'the true test of a first rate mind is the ability to
hold two contradictory ideas at the same time' really only works at the value
of unity; if you are operating on the level of logic, you can think of two
ideas at the same time, but it is impossible to believe they are both true,
unless you mindfuck yourself into submission by twisting the meaning of one of
the ideas. You have to modify your belief system to reduce discomfort: it is a
way of going unconscious, of suppressing the perceived discrepancy. If you go
unconscious, you may not notice the discrepancy. You see this a lot in the TMO,
in politics, and religion.
Turqoiseb said something really interesting: 'On the other hand, I thrive on
cognitive dissonance; it defines for me some of the highest, most profound
moments of my life. I actually seek it, as much as I seek anything.'
I wonder if he might expand on this idea. Surely he thrives in trying to create
the experience of cognitive dissonance for others, at which he is quite good,
but what would be his reason for seeking it out? It is normally not natural to
seek out discomfort. The only reason I can think of is it is a tool for
highlighting faulty perceptions in one's own understanding of the world and
experiencing through those discomforts, rather than attempting to suppress
them. If one is successful in this, one feels freer afterward and is not
bothered by those discomforts again. This is not to say one is truly more free,
it just feels this way; the sense of individual self - ego - is diminished when
successfully and consciously working through difficult experiences. Even so,
the unity of existence is still stuck in its own process, which paradoxically
results in experiencing free will and determinism as the same thing.
Another method of using cognitive dissonance is the Zen koan, where a question
that has no rational answer is used to break down the overlay of a person's
conceptual formulation of experience projected onto experience with the raw
experience. Perhaps there are methods in other traditions that work the same
way that I am not familiar with. TM works like this in a less dramatic way by
taking one out of the experience of conceptual thought, but in the TMO, the
conceptual overlay that one faces when coming back to normal thinking tends to
work against the process of becoming free of one's conceptions.
As for reincarnation, if there is just one being, no individuals reincarnate,
their individual being rises and falls like a wave on the ocean, but they do
not repeat, even though there are similar waves. Only the one, if you want to
call it that, takes various forms, this is not a process of time but of
perception, it occurs only now, we have memories of change and this makes it
seem as if we have a past and creates the idea we might have a future as well,
that we might endure somehow as individuals. But that individuality is an
illusion caused by looking at individual waves on the ocean, having excluded
the ocean from our vision.
