posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 07:16 AM
Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by NorEaster
Thank you for the information you provided. This is exactly what I am talking about. How to express yourself, when you have an idea or concept so
alien to the population. When thinking about how this is applicable throughout history, the story of Jesus in the bible explaining why he spoke in
parables. It is like having an immense amount of knowledge and being unable to explain it with words which would get people to understand what I am
I suppose inventing your own words is the only way to express the concepts. But, I have this feeling many who are in the know of what I am referring
to in this thread, are active participants in trying to understand another person. Funny thing is I understand your meanings of the words you
invented. You probably wouldn't need to explain the words to me, as I could have guessed at about 75% accuracy on what it was you were referring to.
Maybe it is not so much in having the right words as it is to get another person to want to understand what you are saying. What do you think?
I think that you're right. I suspect that there's a form of cognitive dissonance that involves visceral resistance to conceptual wholes. I call it
intellectual revulsion, and how I've witnessed it has been the capacity to understand and accept the validity of broad concepts (easy to understand
stuff, like existential survival imperative expressions - competition, symbiosis, identity - or basic qualifiers, like true versus false, and relative
gender expression) and even the application of several of these concepts in congress with one another. But then, if the conceptual associations begin
to challenge the traditional views of the person (as they will in most cases once a certain point is reached, especially when gathering all
well-established concepts and "knowns" together) a hyper-aggressive blind-spot emerges, and it's as if the person's capacity to even recognize what
they accepted as obvious (just minutes before) becomes noticably crippled. In fact, not only do they become unable to connect the clear and obvious
dots that they originally saw as obviously there, they lose the ability to even see the dots that they agreed where obvious only minutes
I've become aware of why this occurs, and while it's a very important mechanism that the mind employs to maintain consistency-of-reality as the brain
is working to ensure the survivability of the corporeal whole, the downside is a general imability for the human brain to learn overwhelmingly new and
novel concepts, unless those concepts DON'T challenge that brain's established reality structural foundation in a wholesale manner. If they do, then
the mind (which actively vets all incoming information before it streams into the short term memory storage center) will reconfigure it in the safest
way possible, as it does during dreams and crisis moments. The survival of the mind's contextual identity is at stake here, and while fact-reality is
important, relative perception-reality - for the developing human being - is how its inimitable identity is manufactured. That means that
perception-reality trumps fact-reality every time.
So , yes, the person being informed has to be viscerally open to the information. If not, then their mind will scramble that information, and it won't
matter what you do to explain it to them. It has nothing to do with intellectual capacity. It has to do with the contextual slurry that makes up the
intellect of the person that is confronting that information. If that composition of experiences and accepted "reals" is directly challenged by that
information to enough of a degree
, that information will be rejected by being scrambled on its way from their ears and eyes to their
short term memory load-in region. It's a form of cognitive dissonance, but a bit more sophisticated.
edit on 6/14/2011 by NorEaster because:
(no reason given)