 Originally Posted by DarkestDarkness
Maybe I chose my wording poorly. When I said "take at face value" I didn't mean to imply acceptance (I think I may be misreading some of what you said, not sure), which is why I said "in some sense" too. In any case, I only meant that I might have dismissed the rest of the content of the book prematurely if it were being worded as some kind of ultimate truth and therefore I might not have had further motivation to finish it; that said, I would be willing to read something I might completely disagree with from the start, if nothing else, to understand why another person thinks the way they do.
A nd I think to say that we are collectively naive may not be entirely fair to ourselves as unique individuals; as individuals we can be naive in some regards and less in others and that changes over time anyway, I would believe so from my own experience, at least.
Yes, I do know the kind of posts both of you are mentioning. I also think that normally there's not much that can be said of productive value and whether those people would be willing to accept a reasoned discussion on the subject or not can be unpredictable. Some may be unstable, sure, but linking back to what I was saying about naivety, it may just be that they are naive on a particular subject. In my personal view, to make assumptions can be a bit like dropping a blanket with a label of "stupid" on top of someone; I have had stupid attitudes or views in life, but I am still the same person and I got over those views. Because I had stupid views, it doesn't mean I have to consider my past self stupid as a whole, does it?
This isn't a jab at your comment by the way, I know you weren't calling anyone anything and sometimes people are actually in need of help too. It just got me thinking was all, after that bit above about naivety.
I think we probably agree on this but we probably just use different words to a similar effect. Could you just clarify how you are defining "self-aware thought experiment"?
I didn't use the word "naive" to mean "stupid" or "immature." Instead, I really meant "eager to take things at face value." I'm not sure if it was the appropriate word to use in English, but maybe I should have used "gullabile" ... but that also feels like a prejorative... I really meant "eager to take things at face value." And, for sure, if I began expressing every passing thought I have, I would be considered off the rails by any standard.
My point really is just that, yes some people are clearly psychiatrically delusional, and then, there's the rest of us, also delusional, but acceptably so. For example, my father. He's concerned by spirituality which probably influenced me. But when he was a young adult, his dad left the church and found some local spiritual gurus that just told him how the world works. And it clicked for both my grandfather and my father. And forever since, that is their worldview. Yet, some of the claims, there's no possible way to know. Anyone who tells you they know what happens after death... they're just straight out lying to you (unless they are delusional). Either way, you shouldn't take that sort of comment at face value. But we want to believe something. So, if something clicks, we just take it. For my father, I am sure he will never change his mind; he will always stay 100% resolved that he knows what happens to us after we die. And I forever will wish he could have the awareness to say "this guy that told us this, he doesn't know. I don't know. But, this clicks. It's probably wrong but I like it." Instead him and my grandfather kind of looks at anyone who doesn't see this way with some sort of well-intentioned pity, and it's very hard to have really interesting conversations. I also want to find the best answer to all these questions that best clicks for myself, but I remind myself, I won't find it. We can only speculate. I can't just declare I finally found the truth the moment I finally find something that intuitively sounds nice to me. And same for the 'beyond dreaming' topics. No one actually knows these things. But those topics are really interesting, to me at least... well, to us. But as lucid dreamers, we can't have those discussions without acknowledging that dreams can simulate anything imaginable and nothing can be taken at face value. I think "Simply Pay Attention" tries to discuss beyond lucid dreaming topics and how the logistics could work within this framework and how you would avoid being duped by your expectations and intents.
To clarify, I said "Simply Pay Attention" is a self-aware thought experiment because it is a thought experiment in so far as it "considers a theory (i.e. thought energy) for the purpose of thinking through its consequences" and it is self-aware because it is self-critical and overtly opposed to itself: the book is written as a prophet's sacred text, like a Bible. Yet, the author says all these types of texts are misinterpretations of the truth. And there is a lot of time spent discussing the prophet's great challenge of communicating with anyone without the message being distorted into such a thing. If the author meant everything literally and sincerely, he would not have written the book, because he describes the best way to communicate the message: not in a bible format, but, instead, by waiting in dreams where only adequately self-aware people can spot you by paying attention, by taking such a humble form, as to not stimulate the person's fantasies and stay grounded instead, and give so little during each conversation, that this state of paying attention and stability can be maintained. In brief, the book spends most of the time saying that it itself should not have been written because it goes against all the values it holds, but obviously, it was written, because it is not a command to believe everything written in it; it's a thought experiment.
|
|
Bookmarks