cognitive dissonance


The cone (triangle in 2 dimensions) contains every instance of a feeling of importance relative to the #BeIng feeling it.  


This is actually a #VenDiagram.  

The line is the boundary of the #Ego.

Here this looks more like a classical Venn Diagram.  The circle contains the #BeIng … everything in the circle is inside the being … everything outside the circle is not the being. 

The triangle is that which is felt as is important to the instance in the space in which it is represented ← just exactly as in all logical Venn Diagrams.  

The dot is common to both spaces (in a special sense) … it represents the entire triangel on the inside of the circle which separates me from not me.
 
I said that to say that I am infinitesimally important to the universe .. but largely important to myself.   Now i have drawn a classical Ven Diagram of that.  

Most thinking humans discover this perceptable fact.   Each has a different way of integrating it with their philosphy.   I think many philosophies rationalize it away. 

Me, i love it null… mostly because it #informs my freedom … and then allows me to feel as #AlanWatts descibes in this video … see also “I am a variable”.

and i could even say more while i try new thinking and writing out via [title to be determined]

Comments


I doubt that you can ascribe anything to that which is outside being XOR that there is a being-notbeing dichotomy. 

Sure i can.  It is important to Trump’s presidency, that the electoral collage meeting Monday vote according to their pledges.   There i just ascribed an importance to something that is outside of my being.

OH! So you are just talking about yourself! May not apply to anyone else. Thanks, I’ll move on. You might withdraw your Ego from talking about “most thinking humans”. Anyway, ontology & the study of being exceeds all that. Your so-called venn doesn’t make sense unless you are talking about a single being; if you can find such .  Being “itself” can’t be confined like you have done.

You are talking using a different sense of the word “being”.   In that context see my response to your post on facebook

But in this context here, just eliminate that word form my thought and use the pronoun “I” instead of it.  Then see if all of your objections dissappear. 

I think I would rather avoid the #PileOfstuff entirely. You can probably say what you want to say much less pedantically.
Maybe in song this (***) or this (***) – the analytics rarely pass across the threshold to feeling nullnullrose

You can’t talk people into loving you nor shame people into it either! 


… yes, absolutely mark, but what does that have to do with #CognitiveDissonance ?   I think nothing. But mabe i am missing somthing that you are thinking about in this context that i missed.

Those  persons immediately involved with  you, or who are in your family,  or that you are in some important relationship with are important to you.  In my model of ego that is the varibale-I enlarging to include those other persons.   Which importance may or may not be requited by them. 

#CognitiveDissonance is mostly about those persons and beings who probably are not even aware of you at all.   This diagram represents the scale of relative importances.   I am pretty sure that most thinkers have some such reduction in their minds that represents their perceptions of how important they might be to the world.

I rarely hold onto stuff dealing with or wasting time with discussing imaginary riddles, paradoxes, & false dichotomies & #CognitiveDissonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance i.e contradictory beliefs. I leave such fun to others.

good for you.  no need to tell me that here.  keep it to yourself … it is not important to this thought.

Well then your fucking thought is not important either! 

We can read about Cognative Dissonance at Wikipedia.   It is a very large context in modern thought.

#thanks → mark for posting the reference.

Other allied questions answered in #Quora → https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Does-anything-exist-outside-of-being (see right side list) null

Well i have been thinking about it represented by the top image above.  It is important to those particular thoughts of mine as it represents them (reducing details that need not be considered).  

Apparently it is not important to any of your thoughts.  

Can you see where those importances are  in the diagram? 

If you can, then the diagram describes the situation to you.  If you can not, then it does not. 

#thanks → mark for provoking an example of using the diagram.

… a different train of thought using the word “being” in a different way than it is used in this though, as i said above. 

String theory. Beings should not be represented by circles, with insides and outside. They should be represented by threads, threads in a tapestry. It is not one being, and another being, not separate isolated entities. It is beings woven together, seemingly inseparable at times, but still always individuals, no matter where the weave goes.


Well okay, but those kind of diagrams are much harder to draw.  Much more detailed and might even need to be animated and/or add a dimension or two or three or four.    #VennDiagrams are extreme reductions to just 2 dimensions.  Even in strings and threads the ego boundaries would need to be represented. 

It would be interesting to see such a thread diagram. null

Yep – always talking about something else. Could be a handle on your way of being.


I don’t think the ego has boundaries like venn diagrams represent. I think trying to represent these things in 2 dimensions introduces errors in perspective that send thinking down less useful paths. Reality is not binary (2 dimensional). String theory is a better representation that opens up perspectives of thinking and understanding that can not be represented in 2 dimensions.

Conversation forked to thought 22584


Yep, thinking with logic is always a reduction of a real situation.  In this case to say that an event is either inside of you,  or it is not inside of you,  eliminates the fact that everthing is connected and interrelated and can not even be reduced to single events.  But if we are careful with our distinctions within the context in which they obtain, we can usually model a situation with logic and even arrive at predictions that can be verified by actual experiences.

& put them in Venn diagrams 

… and in the process, miss a whole lot of possibilities. And we have to be extremely careful not to simply create an artificial bubble of thought with binary thinking … like science is mostly today.

There are some times and reasons to use binary and logical thinking. One of our great tools, the computer, is based on it. But I think it is also time to graduate from binary thinking in many other aspects … especially the social and political landscapes and also anything related to being and ones own story.

Yep those are hazzards of logical thinking.   And in a way they are the same hazzards with almost any kind of thinking.   Yet i still think … and frequently my thinking #informs what i say, do, and feel … hazzards notwistanding null

I don’t think the hazards are equal. I think binary thinking is one of, and perhaps the, lowest form of thinking and thus has the greatest hazards. It’s only real advantage, both in humans, and in computers, is that it is dirt cheap and easy. Thinking in string theory would, for instance, require much greater focus and concentration, basically a higher frequency of vibration across the board … and would be considerably more productive, both due to the higher form of thinking, and due to the increased range of perspective.

Well for the most part the diagram’s function is to name parts of the situation.   As discussed before, once a thing has a name, once it is  #represented, then we have a better grasp of it … unnamed things are not as focused in our minds … we cannot really think about them.

But this is a stationary diagram representing only one frozen cut of a dynamic situation.  I have been tripping on animating it as things change.  For example as one’s subjective being grows in importance relative to itself,  then the straight line of the first diagram starts to curve in which direction? 

Don’t forget the “cognitive dissonance” problem is about dissonance.  It’s solution is about converting the dissonance to synergy.  And i accept that people do not want to think about it.  They avoid it like the plague.  Many philosophies define it (assume it) out of existence.  Not me, me i leverage it for a deeper awareness.

Okay. I have no interest in cognitive dissonance. My interest was in how the ego boundary is represented. I think venn diagrams do the ego boundaries injustice and lock thinking perspectives into old, and unexamined, points of view that do not serve us well.

Well how would you represent the “ego boundary” differently? 

Was that not clear in my opening comment cognitive dissonance (comment 68476) and the ones which followed it? I thought how it should be done different was exactly what my comment was all about. It’s the only thing I have talked about here.

yeah but that is just a vague sketch … i want to see it done.  Your diagram might just end up talking about a entirely differen aspect … or not.   I want to see how it teases out the deep stuff. 

Anyway animating the fixed ven ontology/diagram as it changes seems to have possibilities.  

I tend not to get too excited (or even interested) in these kind of abstract representations … but they are fun to play with.  It becomes more of a math problem than a mundane fight for ego dominance in a social world.  The trick is where you can start making predictions from it.  Remember the psychohistory of Hari Seldon null

Well … its a fair question. But not my excitement. That would be a whole project. I have other projects that are more exciting. I was only excited to note that venn diagrams don’t really work well here. You can use that info or not, it’s up to you. Still your project. Cognitive Dissonance itself does not interest me in the least.

The diagram works for me to name the parts of the perdicament and the scale of their relationsips. 

← It has predictive value just like this one. 

This is mostly just objectifying psychology. 

Thinking about one’s self subjectively only from the inside is to understand only half of it and as such is prone to extreme bias (*1) 
but of course you are not interested in cognative dissonance or even in seeing your ego objectively  null … one could see that right there in such a diagram of you.   Please take that ony an an example of my focus here and not as a put down.  Perhaps #inform your feeling about me saying that by (*1). 


I am interested in object experiencing, not objective seeing. Looking at things objectively is like reading a Law Book … just a bunch of made up shit about a point of view frozen in a point of time.

Objective experiences, however, are what we are all here for!  

objective seeing is just observing something without the bias of your self ... without the drama of you effecting the observation. 

i really have no idea to what you refer to as “objective experiences”.  huh?

Okay, if you don’t see that as a natural evolution of what I talk about, then it’s just a rabbit hole to go down with you until we eventually reach that closed door of yours again. Ain’t taking the bait.  

i just don’t know what the term referts to, that is all.  even with what i know of how you conceptualize experience … throwing “objective” in as an adjective of “experience” contradicts the rest of my understanding of the  model … or strangely redefines “objective” in some unstated manner.   nope, i cannot understand it.

Simply emphasizes “objective” to be “that which you don’t intentionally create” and experience is same as always. No big shift there … just better alignment with #LOA. We are here to have objective experiences on top of the ones we intentionally create.

We are not here to observe and record experiences, unless doing exactly that is an objective experience, which it is for some, but not many. That would be like wanting to be a Librarian, small crowd.

#sethhmmm 

N’s glossary & behavior enforced by the #FightClubRules of hiding N’s  glossary null
  • Rule 1 can’t speak about N’s glossary

Rule number only. No shitting. You can speak about anything you want, as long as you are speaking about it and not just shitting with no other content.