There is nothing so true as the fact that a human being can be taken out of one context, put into another context, and overtime, have his beliefs
slowly morph into beliefs more compatible with the others he is living with.
This, of course, is occurring independently of any manipulative effort of the other party. Humans receive two different forms of negative
conditioning: the very subtle, and the traumatic.
Cults know all about the power of traumatic conditioning, whereas relationally oriented psychotherapists know quite a bit about subtle conditioning.
In the case of the latter, people constantly give us negative and positive feedback by how they respond to us, which affects how it is we "choose" our
subsequent behaviors. The cues are always non-verbal, and have to do with interest and motivations; for instance: is he/she looking at me? Or pulling
away? The quality of a person's attentiveness is obvious to minds which cultivate self-awareness, and instantaneously, through a reflexive inference
(non-psychic), my mind can recognize what these people are feeling - motivationally speaking - vis a vis my own motivation to share something with
them. Quite simply: they don't care to hear "it", and in not caring about "it", they don't care about how their response shapes my experience of
myself. All of this happens because one motivational dynamic in one system - knowing through the attachment/mirror neuron system - seeks "to be known"
by the other system, to have their need acknowledged and related to in a gentle and non-shaming way.
This 'recognition dynamic' is constantly occurring at a level that deals with the interiority of our experience of self and identity. Beliefs are
functions of identity - even though some people like to think that the constructions they experience, such as deep experiences felt in 'ecstatic
moods', are as real as they appear to be, and not, as I imagine, "coherencies" that emerge as a function of the brain's linking up the various levels
of metaphor into a singular construction reflecting elements and qualities of the state we're currently experiencing.
What does that mean? It means an evangelical placed in an aboriginal community in the Amazon can be made to feel that his belief system is ludicrously
incompatible with the lifestyles of these people; His every effort to speak to them is dismissed as uninteresting, and so he comes to experience his
messianic fervor as a pipedream - a naïve assumption. Over time, the pragmatic and even witty intelligence of the aboriginals convince him that
they're actually better spirited than the evangelicals are; unlike his parents, who goaded him on to become a missionary, these aborigines desire to
spend time with their families, and don't even ask questions about the universe around it. They don't even believe in God or the supernatural.
After 2 years with the aborigines the evangelical drops his religion and becomes an atheist. Did he learn his lesson, or was he, perhaps, too
impressed by the existence of another "worldview" to notice how the symmetry dynamics between self and other constitute the parameters for the shaping
of perception and cognition? Truth and logic are still there; the aborigines have a reason for being as they are - but even they too, if the situation
were reversed - as it has been for almost all native peoples - would take on the dominant view purely as a function of the numbers.
What does this lesson to teach us? That logic is real, and that logic, or investigation of reality, entails balancing skepticism with wonder and
curiosity. Skepticism acknowledges are tendency to be theatrical - and hence, non-truthful - whereas curiosity draws us into more coherent
organizations of reality, and in the process giving us power and control over our material and spiritual circumstances.
Even my narrative - a metanarrative at how narratives are constructed - applies a sort of topological and multidimensional analysis of how symmetry
produces and corresponds to the different qualities of mental experience. Could this be improved upon? For sure. But doesn't it consitute a superior
vantage point to the mythological orientation which makes outight assertions, oftentimes motivated by a perspective which is extremely traumatic in
its affectivity, all the while ignoring the origin of these feelings, and how they distort and exaggerate representation processes? Can one properly
focus on what matters - to operate in relational terms - when the self is fixated, frozen, and made into a statue?
Knowledge, and the importance of being truthful in ones knowing, is not a simple matter at all, as it entails a multiscale study of how you work -
from the foods you eat, the sleep you get, the history you've lived - feelings are a 'synthesis' of these dimensions, and yet the thinking and
observing self - the "mind" - can come to exaggerate its agency and input, as if the feelings don't focus the concepts, and the languaging, and the
narratives that come through.
Is it easy to have an unhappy face and say "i'm happy"? The splitting of the non-verbal from the verbal is not actually structurally possible. What's
possible is only the delusional self-representation of the ego which thinks "I'm not my body", and disidentifying with the processual and dialectical
nature of what you're actually doing; amazingly, the mind can be structured by the world, and yet come to believe with complete surety (a
self-defense) that "they", the "I", is "free" to act. As if the self couldn't be structured by past traumatic experiences to create its present
'dissociative' perspective - a perspective which, because it is socially constructed, is enacted for the pride it provides the self in its acting,
knowing that it is "cool" and "above" other people.
In this way, attachment triggers connection, and the behavior taht yields "pride" is the reward.
edit on 12-12-2018 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-12-2018 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)