RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deceiving ourselves
Subject: [FairfieldLife]
Re: Deceiving ourselves
Patrick,
Thats an interesting, thought-provoking article.
The cunumdrum is like
the paradox of fish -- they are surrounded by
water, but don't notice
water because thats what is always there. Or like
a complex loop,
built on layers and layers of deception,
genetically refined over
time: we are skillfully programmed to both deceive
and to not see the
deception. Or if we get through layer one, there
is always layer two. ...
Think about two major areas of secular life: work
and relations. The
successful, and thus those that typically breed
more and/or their
offspring have higher survival rates and future
propogation rates --
are um, good, smooth BSers.
How many couiples, dating, go straight for
honesty? In i) presenting
themselves ("how long can I keep up this
facade til he/she figures out
who i really am. Well, this new suit or car may
help throw them off
guard." ), ii) providing feedback to
the other ("you look gorgeous."
"you are SUCH a good lover" ), and
iii) privately evaluating
therelationship ("I think this might be the
ONE!!".
And once in a relationship, does deception
decrease? Deception can
certainly bring stability to the relationship --
and thus increase the
chances for propagating progeny: "Honey do
these slacks make my butt
look big?" "NO!, They make your ass
look petite and hot and
totally sexy, You look like you are 18 yr
olds".
In business, law, service professions -- the
ability to spin, paint
the partial truth in dazzling ways -- foregoing
the deeper reality --
is a hallmark of success. Charlie L. used to tell
the story of making
his sales calls (he sold cement) with a bright
young apprentice. After
some discussion of the merits of his
product, Charlie closed the
sale. Thr apprentice said to the customer, "
You know that is such a
wise decision Mr. X. You know our competitor's
product has xyz and
ours doesn't but you overlooked that because you
like our service. The
customer began to waiver and aked questions about
xys. Charlie grabbed
the signed contract and hussled the apprentice and
he out of the
customers office.
While the school of Professional
Selling, which sincerely tries to
understand and meet the customers' need, still
ends up employing spin
and deception, in smooth ways, to put the product
or deal in the best
light. And of course the seller, promoter,
presenter, etc, rationalize
their subtle slight of hand as being whats best
for the company,
goodfor society, etc.
Service professionals whose income is based on
client sessions --
whether its a doctor, psychologist, ski isntrucor,
yoga instructor,
contractor, etc, will always face a grey line when
asked to recommend
if more or less sevices are best.
Higher dating and relations success, coupled with
higher work success
and thus, often higher incomes, are two driving
factors in successful
propigation -- and ensuring the propigation sucess
of ones progeny.
Go down this path for 10, 100, 1000 generations
and you can see how
deception may well be so inately wired into our
system, its hard to
even see the water.
Thats one reason I think a sharp and
discriminating use of intellect
is useful, if not vital. It won't in itself bring
higher realiations,
but it can get you closer to the door by helping
to seperate the wheat
from the chaff, and to keep the charlatans at bay.
Akasha,
You make lots of good points.
Regarding the ethics of dishonesty, your
examples might consist of two separate categories. Shmoozing or falsely complimenting
someone for profit is probably on the low end of the harm-to-another scale,
where misrepresenting your product or your service for profit is on the high
end of the scale. Inversely, one could categorize the two strategies on a
wisdom scale. Shmoozing is usually consequence-free (wise); misrepresenting is
asking for trouble in the long run (unwise). Harmful = stupid.
Of course, “spin” would
include both overt lying and strategic omission, and a whole plethora of other
techniques that would need to be sorted into categories. (Omission is not
misrepresentation; lying is.)
The “honesty” subject is
interesting and has lots more territory to cover. But I’m not sure a
whole lot of this is directly related to self-deception.
-Mark
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deceiving ourselves
akasha_108 wrote: > those that typically breed more and/or > their offspring have higher survival rates > and future propogation rates -- are um, good, > smooth BSers. Isn't ignorance itself largely a function of the ego fooling itself into believing it's the one in charge? Or that it even exists? Talk about self-deception. The notion of a self is by definition a deception, from what Peter Sutphen and others have said. Trying to keep it relevant, I am Patrick Gillam --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Patrick, > > Thats an interesting, thought-provoking article. The cunumdrum is like the > paradox of fish -- they are surrounded by water, but don't notice water > because thats what is always there. Or like a complex loop, built on layers > and layers of deception, genetically refined over time: we are skillfully > programmed to both deceive and to not see the deception. Or if we get through > layer one, there is always layer two. ... > > Think about two major areas of secular life: work and relations. The > successful, and thus those that typically breed more and/or their offspring > have higher survival rates and future propogation rates -- are um, good, > smooth BSers. snip > > Patrick Gillam wrote: > >> A while back, Akasha and I kicked around the topic of whether people who >> have >> deceived themselves into believing bullshit are actually liars, or if their >> belief in their position changes the case. Well, yesterday the Boston Globe >> ran a profile of evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers, whose work addresses >> self-deception from the point of view of its value in propagating genes. So >> I >> thought this post might interest Akasha and L B and maybe a few others. >> >> A sidebar worded the thesis this way: >> >> "Whether it's convincing a predator that you're a leaf or fooling another >> bird into raising your young, deceit is an evolutionary strategy with a long >> and innovative history. But as evolution selects for better and better >> cheaters, it should also select for better and better cheating detectors. >> For >> example, Trivers argues, humans might have evolved to detect the sort of >> nervous tics that betray a lie. But there's a counter-strategy: >> self-deception. If we don't know we're lying, then we won't act like we're >> lying, and are more likely to get away with it." snip >> >> The full article is "The evolutionary revolutionary: In the 1970s, Robert >> Trivers wrote a series of papers that transformed evolutionary biology. Then >> he all but disappeared. Now he's backand ready to rumble." >> >> By Drake Bennett | March 27, 2005 >> >> http://tinyurl.com/457kj >> >> - Patrick Gillam To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deceiving ourselves
Patrick,
Thats an interesting, thought-provoking article. The cunumdrum is like
the paradox of fish -- they are surrounded by water, but don't notice
water because thats what is always there. Or like a complex loop,
built on layers and layers of deception, genetically refined over
time: we are skillfully programmed to both deceive and to not see the
deception. Or if we get through layer one, there is always layer two. ...
Think about two major areas of secular life: work and relations. The
successful, and thus those that typically breed more and/or their
offspring have higher survival rates and future propogation rates --
are um, good, smooth BSers.
How many couiples, dating, go straight for honesty? In i) presenting
themselves ("how long can I keep up this facade til he/she figures out
who i really am. Well, this new suit or car may help throw them off
guard." ), ii) providing feedback to the other ("you look gorgeous."
"you are SUCH a good lover" ), and iii) privately evaluating
therelationship ("I think this might be the ONE!!".
And once in a relationship, does deception decrease? Deception can
certainly bring stability to the relationship -- and thus increase the
chances for propagating progeny: "Honey do these slacks make my butt
look big?" "NO!, They make your ass look petite and hot and
totally sexy, You look like you are 18 yr olds".
In business, law, service professions -- the ability to spin, paint
the partial truth in dazzling ways -- foregoing the deeper reality --
is a hallmark of success. Charlie L. used to tell the story of making
his sales calls (he sold cement) with a bright young apprentice. After
some discussion of the merits of his product, Charlie closed the
sale. Thr apprentice said to the customer, " You know that is such a
wise decision Mr. X. You know our competitor's product has xyz and
ours doesn't but you overlooked that because you like our service. The
customer began to waiver and aked questions about xys. Charlie grabbed
the signed contract and hussled the apprentice and he out of the
customers office.
While the school of Professional Selling, which sincerely tries to
understand and meet the customers' need, still ends up employing spin
and deception, in smooth ways, to put the product or deal in the best
light. And of course the seller, promoter, presenter, etc, rationalize
their subtle slight of hand as being whats best for the company,
goodfor society, etc.
Service professionals whose income is based on client sessions --
whether its a doctor, psychologist, ski isntrucor, yoga instructor,
contractor, etc, will always face a grey line when asked to recommend
if more or less sevices are best.
Higher dating and relations success, coupled with higher work success
and thus, often higher incomes, are two driving factors in successful
propigation -- and ensuring the propigation sucess of ones progeny.
Go down this path for 10, 100, 1000 generations and you can see how
deception may well be so inately wired into our system, its hard to
even see the water.
Thats one reason I think a sharp and discriminating use of intellect
is useful, if not vital. It won't in itself bring higher realiations,
but it can get you closer to the door by helping to seperate the wheat
from the chaff, and to keep the charlatans at bay.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> A while back, Akasha and I kicked around
> the topic of whether people who have deceived
> themselves into believing bullshit are actually
> liars, or if their belief in their position changes
> the case. Well, yesterday the Boston Globe ran
> a profile of evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers,
> whose work addresses self-deception from the
> point of view of its value in propagating genes.
> So I thought this post might interest Akasha and
> L B and maybe a few others.
>
> A sidebar worded the thesis this way:
>
> "Whether it's convincing a predator that you're a leaf or fooling
another bird into
> raising your young, deceit is an evolutionary strategy with a long
and innovative
> history. But as evolution selects for better and better cheaters, it
should also select
> for better and better cheating detectors. For example, Trivers
argues, humans
> might have evolved to detect the sort of nervous tics that betray a
lie. But there's a
> counter-strategy: self-deception. If we don't know we're lying, then
we won't act
> like we're lying, and are more likely to get away with it."
>
> More, from the article:
>
> "The book on deceit and self-deception that he's now starting grows
out of a brief
> but widely cited passage from his introduction to Dawkins's ''The
Selfish Gene.'' If
> deceit, he wrote, ''is fundamental to animal communication, then
there must be
> strong selection to spot deception and this ought, in turn, to
select for a degree of
> self-deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so as
not to betray-
> by the sub
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deceiving ourselves
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > A while back, Akasha and I kicked around > > the topic of whether people who have deceived > > themselves into believing bullshit are actually > > liars, or if their belief in their position changes > > the case. > > By whatever method one deploys to raise one's awareness, the most > obvious elements to tackle are issues of veracity. Many see adherence > to truth as one of the fundamental pre-requisites for spiritual > development. Surely, self-deception is a sign of low or selective > awareness. > > Though self-deception seems to be a strength for those who resort to > it, it will ever be an impediment to higher awareness. * Although there may be prerequisites to spiritual development for those who have chosen a path reliant on intellect or emotion, (MMY lists 5 paths to God realization in his "Science of Being and Art of Living," saying that TM is a mechanical technique) there are no prerequisites to spiritual development for one who has chosen the mechanical path to realization, TM -- which is why TM is so suitable for enlightening a world where nearly everybody is a lowlife unsuited for spiritual development by means of purity of intellect or emotion. In the practice of TM, one transcends limitation , which is where all falsity resides, and gains unlimited awareness, which is the truth about everybody's nature. Repetition of this mechanical process automatically leads to a stable state, Cosmic Consciousness, in which one never loses the truth of one's unlimited nature of bliss consciousness. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deceiving ourselves
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A while back, Akasha and I kicked around > the topic of whether people who have deceived > themselves into believing bullshit are actually > liars, or if their belief in their position changes > the case. Well, yesterday the Boston Globe ran > a profile of evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers, > whose work addresses self-deception from the > point of view of its value in propagating genes. > So I thought this post might interest Akasha and > L B and maybe a few others. > I am sure Pinocchio will find it enlightening, it would be the final proof that he is a 'real' boy. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deceiving ourselves
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "crukstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "crukstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > (snip) > > > Well then, this hypothesis may be an explanation of the George W. > > Bush phenomena. > > > > > > Rick Carlstrom > > > (for any of you teachers out there, yes it should be "phenomenon")>> Unless he is refering to plethora of phenomenon? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deceiving ourselves
Drake Bennett on the work of Robert Trivers: > > self-deception. If we don't know we're lying, > > then we won't act like we're lying, and are more > > likely to get away with it." Rick Carlstrom wrote: > > Well then, this hypothesis may be an explanation > of the George W. Bush phenomena. Yes, the GWB phenomenon was what sparked my original exchange with Akasha. It's fascinating to see it at work in politics. However, I certainly don't think self-deception is limited to politicians. It appears to be very relevant in the TMO, for instance. And then we get into the whole "how do I know what I know?" epistemological go-round that has engaged so much of my time at Fairfield Life. Self-deception is an interesting topic as it relates to ideologies. But some people apply it to the larger subject of enlightenment as a whole. Dana Sawyer, who doesn't post here directly but is heard from via Rick Archer, believes that people who say they're enlightened are simply deceiving themselves. As evidence for this position, he cites the utter disagreement about what enlightenment is like from culture to culture. One would think that enlightenment, an ultimate state of self-evident reality, would be described in similar ways across histories and cultures. But no, says Sawyer: all the accounts seem to echo what the culture says they *should* sound like, and those accounts often take polar opposite positions. (The Hindus describe it as fullness, for instance, but the Buddhists describe it as emptiness.) I'm not saying I agree with Dana, and I suppose it's a cheap shot to post his notions here without a knowledgeable explanation and defense. I'm merely pointing out that the topic of self-deception may interest some of the philosophers around here, and Robert Trivers throws another log on the fire. - Patrick Gillam To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deceiving ourselves
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "crukstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (snip) > Well then, this hypothesis may be an explanation of the George W. > Bush phenomena. > > > Rick Carlstrom (for any of you teachers out there, yes it should be "phenomenon") To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deceiving ourselves
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A while back, Akasha and I kicked around > the topic of whether people who have deceived > themselves into believing bullshit are actually > liars, or if their belief in their position changes > the case. Well, yesterday the Boston Globe ran > a profile of evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers, > whose work addresses self-deception from the > point of view of its value in propagating genes. > So I thought this post might interest Akasha and > L B and maybe a few others. > > A sidebar worded the thesis this way: > > "Whether it's convincing a predator that you're a leaf or fooling another bird into > raising your young, deceit is an evolutionary strategy with a long and innovative > history. But as evolution selects for better and better cheaters, it should also select > for better and better cheating detectors. For example, Trivers argues, humans > might have evolved to detect the sort of nervous tics that betray a lie. But there's a > counter-strategy: self-deception. If we don't know we're lying, then we won't act > like we're lying, and are more likely to get away with it." > > More, from the article: > > "The book on deceit and self-deception that he's now starting grows out of a brief > but widely cited passage from his introduction to Dawkins's ''The Selfish Gene.'' If > deceit, he wrote, ''is fundamental to animal communication, then there must be > strong selection to spot deception and this ought, in turn, to select for a degree of > self-deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so as not to betray- > by the subtle signs of self-knowledge-the deception being practiced.'' Well then, this hypothesis may be an explanation of the George W. Bush phenomena. Rick Carlstrom Thus, the > idea that the brain evolved to produce ''ever more accurate images of the world > must be a very naive view of mental evolution.'' We've evolved, in other words, to > delude ourselves so as better to fool others-all in the service of the great game of > propagating our genes." > > Trivers speaks: ''It's a critical topic. How many pretenders to the throne have there > been? Marx had a theory of self-deception, Freud thought he had the topic > knocked. So there've been a lot of major-domos in there. None of that [expletive] > survived the test of time, so it's a huge opportunity.'' > > The full article is "The evolutionary revolutionary: In the 1970s, Robert Trivers > wrote a series of papers that transformed evolutionary biology. Then he all but > disappeared. Now he's backand ready to rumble." > > By Drake Bennett | March 27, 2005 > > http://tinyurl.com/457kj > > - Patrick Gillam To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deceiving ourselves
"By whatever method one deploys to raise one's awareness, the most obvious elements to tackle are issues of veracity. Many see adherence to truth as one of the fundamental pre-requisites for spiritual development. Surely, self-deception is a sign of low or selective awareness. Though self-deception seems to be a strength for those who resort to it, it will ever be an impediment to higher awareness". Truthful... to a point. How does one adhere to something as malleable as truth? It being a pre-request for anything with the vagaries of enlightenment seems a riddle of the kind not found outside early Celtic mythology. An acquaintance who assisted Joseph Campbell recalls Campbell saying "the ability to hold a secret" as a good indication that one was ready for spiritual enlightenment. Yeats suggested "be secret and exalt, for of all things known that is most difficult". AmericaÕs favorite bulldog Norman Mailer sees fact as "concentrated opinion" A strict Freudian might recommend additional therapy. There is a kind of self-centered blame necessary when assuming the need for truthfulness. As time passes I find those whoÕve held truthfulness in such high regard relegated to a state of unconscious passivity... and in the end following those extolling the virtues of tr To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deceiving ourselves
The only lack of self deception is to not rely on anything at all, so rely only on the Dharmata. Whatever that means. - Original Message - From: Paul Mason To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 8:45 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deceiving ourselves --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]...> wrote:> > A while back, Akasha and I kicked around > the topic of whether people who have deceived > themselves into believing bullshit are actually > liars, or if their belief in their position changes > the case. By whatever method one deploys to raise one's awareness, the most obvious elements to tackle are issues of veracity. Many see adherence to truth as one of the fundamental pre-requisites for spiritual development. Surely, self-deception is a sign of low or selective awareness. Though self-deception seems to be a strength for those who resort to it, it will ever be an impediment to higher awareness.To subscribe, send a message to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/and click 'Join This Group!' To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deceiving ourselves
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A while back, Akasha and I kicked around > the topic of whether people who have deceived > themselves into believing bullshit are actually > liars, or if their belief in their position changes > the case. By whatever method one deploys to raise one's awareness, the most obvious elements to tackle are issues of veracity. Many see adherence to truth as one of the fundamental pre-requisites for spiritual development. Surely, self-deception is a sign of low or selective awareness. Though self-deception seems to be a strength for those who resort to it, it will ever be an impediment to higher awareness. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
