Cognitive Dissonance - ish

[Karpel Tunnel]

You got any ideas that you believe in that clash with other ideas you believe in? Could be ontology, epistemology, ethics, whatever.
IOW there is something that bugs you, not about other people's ideas, but your own. You haven't wrestled it down to where you feel consistant, solid. A contradiction.

IOW this is not about 'I believe in X and that's hard, depressing, or whatever.' It's about 'I believe X, but I also believe Y' and so far I have not figured out a way to reconcile the two beliefs.

I've noticed (again) a couple of these recently and when I manage to repull one of them back into consciousness, I put my example in here.

[Fixed Cross]

I used to be driven to philosophy because of some major cognitive dissonance resulting from early studies in physics, of which the results did never add up. For example, the basic web known problem of existence being either or not a "thing", "a universe", and it either or not having a definitive size despite having no limits, as beyond limits is something else, etc etc - these very basic problems that every thinking kid faces.

I finally resolved it through devising a living logic that resolves the formerly unbridgeable gap between linguistic (inexact, representative of the purely subjective, experience) and abstract (exact, representative of the objective, that which one can't apprehend other than through representation) paradigms. I believe cognitive dissonance is implicit in the currently ruling metaphysical models.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I used to be driven to philosophy because of some major cognitive dissonance resulting from early studies in physics, of which the results did never add up. For example, the basic web known problem of existence being either or not a "thing", "a universe", and it either or not having a definitive size despite having no limits, as beyond limits is something else, etc etc - these very basic problems that every thinking kid faces.

I finally resolved it through devising a living logic that resolves the formerly unbridgeable gap between linguistic (inexact, representative of the purely subjective, experience) and abstract (exact, representative of the objective, that which one can't apprehend other than through representation) paradigms. I believe cognitive dissonance is implicit in the currently ruling metaphysical models.

I suppose I still have some cognitive dissonance in relation to QM, though since the implications and even interpretations of specific phenomena are unclear to me, the cognitive dissonance is on hold, so to speak. I am pretty sure I would have it if there was consensus and clarity.

You mention ruling metaphysic models. Which? and feel free to be specific - as in a concrete example where ruling models clash - especially if you feel at all torn between them (in general or on that issue alone).

[Fixed Cross]

Indeed QM and Relativity seemed to clash, but, laugh at me if you must, I resolved this through establishing that both rely on the same type of logic, namely what I call self-valuing logic. It has to do with reference frames being also the criterium in QM, but that in QM one can't measure from within one. So according to the same logic that forces Relativity onto the stage, God must be seem to be playing dice.

But a much earlier issue that bothered me was the question of the universe, which was back then said to be expanding, therefore with changing but distinct limits, which means there is an outside, which is obviously impossible of we are speaking of the universe. The strange assumptions grounding the Big Bang theory also bothered me. I don't see how there can be a beginning to time. Breaking my head for decades on these simple questions I figured out that time has necessarily always been there, just not necessarily always the same continuum, and the Big Bang has likely been some cataclysmic collision event.

The core issue at the heart of this is the question of whether we can speak of the Whole of Existence. I think now that this is categorically impossible. Existence must be definition incoherent with itself to be able to exist. Pure coherence makes for absolute negativity, impossibility of perspective, which is the heart of being, as both Relativity and QM indicate, and as my own value logic clarifies.

The dissonance, which was very painful for long periods, was lifted when I managed to establish a single logical certainty. Before that, I simile had no ground to base any of my belief on so as to really believe in them. I wasn't able to take anythings seriously, all was utterly fleeting and grindingly absurd, until I discovered how to think. How to shut off the idiocy that mankind has called thinking ofor thousands of years, and actually have a sound, completely incorruptible criterium that is completely solid and explicit under all circumstances Ive since encountered and considered.

Obviously I am very happy, with this situation. And the joy increase whenever I manage to clarify this logic to someone else, which isn't often at all, as it is very counterintuitive.

[Meno_]

[quote="Karpel Tunnel"]You got any ideas that you believe in that clash with other ideas you believe in? Could be ontology, epistemology, ethics, whatever.
IOW there is something that bugs you, not about other people's ideas, but your own. You haven't wrestled it down to where you feel consistant, solid. A contradiction.



Removed for various reasons

[Karpel Tunnel]

Indeed QM and Relativity seemed to clash, but, laugh at me if you must, I resolved this through establishing that both rely on the same type of logic, namely what I call self-valuing logic.

Without going into the scientific or philosophical details, why were the ideas that clashed or seemed to important to you? What implications did they seem to have? Or was it more just an intellectual conundrum that bothered you?

[Fixed Cross]

Indeed QM and Relativity seemed to clash, but, laugh at me if you must, I resolved this through establishing that both rely on the same type of logic, namely what I call self-valuing logic.

Without going into the scientific or philosophical details, why were the ideas that clashed or seemed to important to you? What implications did they seem to have? Or was it more just an intellectual conundrum that bothered you?

Im afraid I am wired like this. Thoughts in me are fully fledged experiences, where ideas and concepts take all kinds of shapes to be tested for their implications. It seems like I have five extra senses which apply to thought forms, different ways of apprehending them.

From as young as I remember existing Ive been obsessed with astronomy, physics, cosmology and just logic, the way concepts relate. I quickly was disturbed by how badly concepts are made to relate, how sloppy the human ways of constructing ideas from other ideas, how pointless and brittle and untrue it all is.

A nice comprehensive thought form gives me a lot of joy. An ugly, stunted thought form pisses me off and makes me unwell if I don't allow myself to take it apart and show it for what it is.

[Fixed Cross]

No, the point is that there is only one thing Man feels he has to do, and that is come to terms with his mind.

Man and Mind are more or less the same etymologically even thought they trace different geographic routes, it is impossible for a man to structurally not think. The remedy man has for having to think all the time except in some moments of hard fought bliss, is thinking about things. Because thought by itself is unendurable. Yet this is what I was faced with as a kid; thought as such. I think I compared it to what gold is to Uncle Scrooge, what though is for me. I was greedy for it, to be sure. I sought through what I found the deepest concepts, the universe in its not infinite allness, the certainty of god even though he doesn't exist, the hole in the centre of the Thing, all this obsessed me if I wasn't playing outside and breaking things with my friends, and it kept obsessing me to be sure even when I did drugs and found out that the questions were actually things in themselves. From that moment on the cognitive dissonance was omnipresent and a kind of firmament for me of the possibilities to come - for where there is so much in error, surely there will be a sweeping wind of clarity at one moment? And yes, this moment arrived, in a period where Zizek had triggered an interest in a Lacanian take on Heidegger and thus Nietzsche, where without-music called my attention to the bias implicit in science, and everything fell into place. In that moment I had resolved every existential, philosophical and scientific problem that had take on the brutal form of my mind at one point. A war of industrial mayhem was resolved into a single ring of power. Then I started to really think, solve problems, make moral changes possible, form "armed forces", make enemies, cast influence. Now I can begin to engage my oldest dreams. This was all a task set by my disposition and the changes e are going through as a species and a solar system. We've come out of a wobble redirecting our course across another human eternity, and the world has become one in time and space through our inventions, a moment that only occurs the once in the existence of the species. We have endured and are enduring the most intense pressures possible by virtue of this planet; this is the time to begin stewarding the Earth. This what cognitive dissonance is, in the end; feebleness of Man before his real task. Inability to think as a form of acting. Disloyalty before the Earth, or the simple misfortune of not being up to it.

[Fixed Cross]

Thinking about things; lets say to take thought as a functional device, something that is justified and more or less defined as a servant to the teleology of the self or the community. In the end however the problem arises when one has accomplished all earthy things and rests - one begins to think unnecessarily about setting more challenges or solving more problems. Thought has a nature and we might as well come to terms with it. It is not the just servant of teleology, it is the prophet of it - though a Prometheus, foresight is not anticipation but planning, strategizing with what is to come. A surfer or a field lieutenant, a trader or a kid learning to walk, they are not merely enduring what life throws at them, they are creating what it is to be alive by causing trouble for others doing the same. Engage and entwine, the double Helix or "encroaching units of will to power" from the old German notebooks. This all left me with a simple question, just as physics does; if entities do not touch, but relate as if they do, what is the means of transference? I did not seek the aethir between things, I sought the technique the cosmos has whereby entities transcend what they are so as to still be what they are the next moment. Of course this technique is omnipresent in what is. All philosophy is centered around the establishment of values - but I took rather the verb as the substantive. I revaluated valuing into itself as the core of all things, the thing by which things relate, encroach, exist in terms of each other and thus themselves. Consciousness is then the surface effect of interlaying tapestries of valuing tendencies going through magnificent phase shifts. Thought is the reverberation of itself. Which means the world "about" which it thinks is not, only a pandimensional abyss at the edge of which thought-forms go forth like the clown on the tightrope, a spectacle in any case, a magic show that conjures a reality that can distract from the objective nature of the pure hypothesis. Existence is way too subjective (intense) to sit idly by, but thus far the mind had not allowed us freedom to move through this existence as ourselves. We had to do it in the name of some institution or idea. Not in terms of what is actually happening "inside" when the "outside" is happening - not as flame to the sky, not a reaction, only as shadow in a cave, as dark reflection.

Most thought systems have us stand before existence as a soap opera starlet before her lines. This problem I created however shreds all prewritten dialogue and definitely uses natural light and every protagonist has a camera - it gets way too complex to direct. But it certainly is what is actually happening.

When the dissonance stops all that's left is music.

[Fixed Cross]

Music is hard work though. And idleness is the devils earpillow.

[Meno_]

Music is hard work though. And idleness is the devils earpillow.

And most philosophy is done through moments of idleness.

[Fixed Cross]

The grinding problem were talking about is one of not being able to be both sufficiently subjective and objective. Both thought forms and societal structures inhibit the fluid being of both.

[Fixed Cross]

Music is hard work though. And idleness is the devils earpillow.

And most philosophy is done through moments of idleness.

Leisure, good fellow. A different matter.

But yeah, the music is not philosophy it is what comes beyond.

[Fixed Cross]

what philosophy sounds like

[Fixed Cross]

thats finitely what Hegel sounds like.

et puis



incipit tragoedia

[Fixed Cross]

finally tough

with the credits,


Philosophy is thought which had to catch up and make it official. We are alive. Win or lose, concepts of the utmost importance. But win or lose what? What can you really lose? And what, that answer given, is there to gain beside to preserve?

But attack is the best defence.
The philosophic advice is to consolidate your wins and keep the dice hot.... we're playing craps agains the walls of eternity.

[Meno_]

The redemptive, or at least therapeutic Parcival

[Meno_]

finally tough

with the credits,


Philosophy is thought which had to catch up and make it official. We are alive. Win or lose, concepts of the utmost importance. But win or lose what? What can you really lose? And what, that answer given, is there to gain beside to preserve?


Eternal life

But attack is the best defence.
The philosophic advice is to consolidate your wins and keep the dice hot.... we're playing craps agains the walls of eternity.

[Fixed Cross]

Thank you for somewhat resolving that.

What lasts that I know of is the greater structural integrities on any field. Combine this with self-valuing logic and ancient ideas, or names of experiences from the Orient, and in focus comes a possibility. Im not sure one wants this possibility, as -

“A further complication of this whole question appears during the practice of Yoga, when, the sheaths being successively stripped from the mind, one begins to remember not only long-forgotten facts, but matters which do not refer to the incarnated Ego at all. T/he memory extends in time to infancy, to one’s previous death, and so further to an unlimited series of experiences whose scope depends on the degree of one’s progress. But, parallel to this intensification of the idea of the Ego, its expansion through the aeons, there arises (in consequence of the weakening of the Ahamkara, the Ego-making faculty), a tendency to remember things which have happened not to “oneself”, but to “other people” or beings.”

That is “one of the most irritating obstacles in the Path of the Wise," Aleister Crowley says. Because "the normal development of memory in time leads to a better understanding of the True Will of the individual (als he then conceives of himself)so that he perceives an universe teleologically more rational as he progresses. To be compelled to assimilate the experiences of supposed “alien beings” is to become confused:"

“But it is just this experience - in default of any other - which eventually insists on his undertaking to cross the Abyss: for the alternative to sheer insanity is seen to be the discovery of a General Formula comprehensive of Universal experience without reference to the Ego (real or supposed) in any sense”.

[Meno_]

Thank you for somewhat resolving that.

What lasts that I know of is the greater structural integrities on any field. Combine this with self-valuing logic and ancient ideas, or names of experiences from the Orient, and in focus comes a possibility. Im not sure one wants this possibility, as -

“A further complication of this whole question appears during the practice of Yoga, when, the sheaths being successively stripped from the mind, one begins to remember not only long-forgotten facts, but matters which do not refer to the incarnated Ego at all. T/he memory extends in time to infancy, to one’s previous death, and so further to an unlimited series of experiences whose scope depend8s on the degree of one’s progress. But, parallel to this intensification of the idea of the Ego, its expansion through the aeons, there arises (in consequence of the weakening of the Ahamkara, the Ego-making faculty), a tendency to remember things which have happened not to “oneself”, but to “other people” or beings.”

That is “one of the most irritating obstacles in the Path of the Wise," Aleister Crowley says. Because "the normal development of memory in time leads to a better understanding of the True Will of the individual (als he then conceives of himself)so that he perceives an universe teleologically more rational as he progresses. To be compelled to assimilate the experiences of supposed “alien beings” is to become confused:"

“But it is just this experience - in default of any other - which eventually insists on his undertaking to cross the Abyss: for the alternative to sheer insanity is seen to be the discovery of a General Formula comprehensive of Universal experience without reference to the Ego (real or supposed) in any sense”.

That was. Cantor's problem as well, so we're not alone it that quest.

But it does naturally unfold , and one knows it when it presents. Itself. You may have an experience which glimmers through at times, and it may be dismissed as a mind's fancy, but nowadays a glimmer of hope is consistent ., with ... others who had exposure. I have very limited exposure so sound advise is not my aim

Ill tell you an honest example with my unnotible experience with Laing. After a lecture on I don't know what I asked him afterword if I may be insane and his reply was : Ask your psychiatrist.

So must unfortunately rely on archaic ideas, and the willingness of that journey through the underworld .But need be try to demonstrate the good outcome of being able to transverse it. ( the abyss)


Matthew 7, John 16. gives guidance as to how to attain entry into the Kingdom of God, and the approach is not teleological in the sense of a repeated Yogic attempt, as Crowley has not been very much useful to me either, for it is through the middle
the answer traverses. Kundalini is very difficult, and perplexing and may be there Crowley may have gone wrong. The waning of the ego may shadow. and foreshadow the death of the gods, but again it too reveals only a temporary existential diversion , de facto and not with a posteriori decision toward a new reintegration . If it is, then is most likely through the works of the id that the process culminated in the direction. it took.



Freud has it right on the teleological point of view whereas Khrisnamurti's views on being born again is not explainable as a reincarnation.

[Urwrongx1000]

I used to have cognitive dissonance, about 10 years ago, before I realized that people were predominantly acting from positions of ignorance, or simply lying about everything. People lie often. People speak falsely often. That is common. Truth is very rare.

When I realized that most "Scientists, Religion, Professors, etc" didn't even have authority over their own subjects and specializations, that is when I broke free from cognitive dissonance. Humanity is ignorant. Humanity does not know about "existence". Humanity clings to limitations, walls, security. Humanity clings to finitude, believing (falsely) that the universe has a "beginning" (The Big Bang / Creation Theory) and an "end".

I do not believe in "Entropy", that the universe is "expanding". That's more bullshit. I do not believe in "wave-particle" duality. More bullshit.


All human paradigms can be rectified insofar as they can be falsified. There is no great "scientific authority". There is no absolute authority.

If existence and the universe is infinite, then so too must your personal and individual approach be toward discovering all that there is to about existence.


When humans claim the universe is finite, limited, which 99.999% of humanity do... what they are doing is committing a logical fallacy. Because they-themselves are limited, they falsely ascribe their own existential position upon the rest of existence. Just because you will die, does not mean existence will die with you.

That is when I first began to learn about philosophy, and recognize myself as a philosopher.

[Urwrongx1000]

This is how almost all humans think and believe:

"Because -I- was born, and must die, so too must existence have a beginning, and must end."

It is false, an existential projection, a symbol of solipsism and/or narcissism.

[Pandora]

...Aleister Crowley says.

Oh my. Why do some people dig themselves into an even deeper hole when found in one? This guy and Blavatsky go hand in hand.

Perhaps most of it (esotericism) is to escape existential anxiety and create an idealistic environment (or perception of) of permanence and stability. It’s a bit of an outdated method from today’s point of view, as science and technology took on the role. Today, quantum physics magic is more in vogue.

[Meno_]

At times political expediency and at other times the doubt arising from a look back onto a sea of regret about what if it was done wrongly or it may have been done differently to avoid a most probable or even certain outcome?

Not that its ever too late, but certainty decreases with the passage of time.