Can a true believer truly change his mind and truly become an unbeliever.
Irrefutably, the answer is yes. But a lot of folks think it's more complicated than that. I am automatically suspicious of anyone who says "I was an atheist, but the evidence changed my mind." Reason being, a lot of believers like to claim they were atheist when they really weren't. They were believers all along.
But some people really were.
And some people really were Christians, baptized speaking in tongues hallelujah singing crying at the right times, praying in private not to show off genuinely Christians, only to later change their minds. I'm sure you suspect they weren't really, but no, really, we were.
So for those of us having trouble coming to grips with either change, what are your questions? How can believers and unbelievers help you understand that real change is possible, and it's not your place to deny us our journey?
The opening post I think just relates to parts of a being that are conscious.
The majority of our being is not conscious, and we carry out our actions in large part due to our unconscious, as I understand Vaknin and others describe it. Beliefs are found in the unconscious, we cannot actively access that . . . ?
In that case, if you changed your mind, that you were never really a believer would make a lot of sense.
We can all have times of doubt in the wilderness of our minds (however well organised our thoughts may appear to be). Some do walk away; they might return. Some enter a different sort of spirituality; who are we to judge? It's God who is the searcher of hearts.
In western culture, which is primarily a Judeo-Christian based culture, it may be harder to really walk away, since very ancient tenets underlie our cultural norms. Is the walker-away then rejecting the "tat" surrounding religion, or is that person rejecting God? Upon what, then, does that person subsequently base his/her values?
It may be easier to turn one's back on Christianity completely if raised in a different culture altogether - say, in China (no gods, or Confuscianism) or India (plethora of gods), an Arab-speaking country (Muslim) or an animist culture such as Amazonian tribes or in Borneo (animist), or in an African country that wasn't overrun with missionaries. If one returns to these backgrounds, a rejection of Christianity is more easily to be seen. For people with those backgrounds, they might be said (perhaps) not to have fully believed in the first place: but then, they have huge obstacles (social propriety - including risk to life and family) to overcome that unless they were serious in the first place, they wouldn't have claimed to be Christians.
The thread starts out with "changing your mind" or "renew your mind" . . . cause yes you can.
Then "deeply held beliefs" . . . which I think implies non-conscious parts of the being . . . prolly not really maybe
What Twinky is alluding to I think, is Jung and archetypes . . . or the collective unconscious . . . which we inherit. (what is tat? a type of knot?) . . . We are often defined by our surroundings . . . . good luck with that
The opening post I think just relates to parts of a being that are conscious.
The majority of our being is not conscious, and we carry out our actions in large part due to our unconscious, as I understand Vaknin and others describe it. Beliefs are found in the unconscious, we cannot actively access that . . . ?
In that case, if you changed your mind, that you were never really a believer would make a lot of sense.
You're presupposing your conclusion in your premise. "Beliefs are found in the unconscious."
Respectfully, that is not true of all beliefs, and it's absurd on its face. Beliefs can be dependent on the information you have, and greater information can and should change beliefs. A child believes in the tooth fairy because parents fed that story. Greater information leads to a change in the belief. It's not because their subconscious never believed it. It's because they received or considered more information.
You're presupposing your conclusion in your premise. "Beliefs are found in the unconscious."
Respectfully, that is not true of all beliefs, and it's absurd on its face. Beliefs can be dependent on the information you have, and greater information can and should change beliefs. A child believes in the tooth fairy because parents fed that story. Greater information leads to a change in the belief. It's not because their subconscious never believed it. It's because they received or considered more information.
We do not disagree that all belief is not found in the unconscious. Beliefs ARE found in the unconscious.
We agree we can consciously change our minds.
It is to what degree we are not clear on.
Be careful, I did not say subconscious . . . I said unconscious, we cannot meditate on that.
We show belief in actions, not just our thoughts. Where do thoughts come from?
We are not aware of all the information we take in.
This might be an interesting tangent – going from discussing CAN a true believer truly change their mind to HOW that is accomplished.
recent mention of the unconscious (or subconscious) and the collective unconscious brings to mind some of the ways people study HOW we change our minds...but first a few visual aids - I found these by Googling images of the mental iceberg - check out the various conceptions of how the conscious, subconscious and unconscious are to be understood:
(note: if you stare at each of the bottom three icebergs long enough - they start looking like the rear view of a skull x-ray... from the movie Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the Crystal Skull )
When it comes to unraveling a cultic mindset, I'm more comfortable and most familiar with stuff at the tip of the iceberg - the stuff above the waterline - at the conscious level...I believe it's more productive to work at engaging the different levels of thinking that are more easily accessible – recalling information and experiences, analysis, evaluation, synthesis, creation, application, etc. I think it's referred to as meta-cognition - which is an awareness of one's own thought processes and an understanding of the patterns behind them...I'm not a psychologist so probing the subconscious and analyzing dreams seems like a lot of guesswork to me – only because I have no academic training in such things.
But analyzing what is apparent I can handle...come to think of it – examining HOW we change our minds is a recurring theme on Grease Spot – especially in About the Way forum...in a group setting Grease Spot amplifies the process of analysis through Socratic questioning which is “a form of disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we do not know, to follow out logical consequences of thought or to control discussions”
from Wikipedia - Socratic questioning
... From reading online about Socratic questioning I've found it''s often used in teaching and counseling situations to expose and unravel deeply held values and beliefs that frame and support what we think and say...using focused yet open questions that allow for differences of opinion, we “unpack” our beliefs and those of others.
Howard Gardner says in his book Changing Minds that his focus is on changes of the mind that occur CONSCIOUSLY as a result of forces that can be IDENTIFIED - note his 7 factors for changing minds which is what the book is all about.
...He does not address how the mind can be changed through subtle manipulation, deception, brainwashing, etc. But as an ex-cult follower I found his book helpful in understanding the basic circumstances surrounding a typical change of mind. Professional leaders and sales personnel also get into using Gardner's 7 factors to change minds – and that also makes me think of Dale Carnegie's principles in “how to win friends and influence people” - which also brings to mind the unscrupulous way deceptive and controlling cults like TWI can warp ideas to their advantage. For instance Gardner's first factor reason. Gardner says “Especially among those who deem themselves to be educated, the use of reason figures heavily in matters of belief”. wierwille's abundant use of logical fallacies in the guise of thoughtful arguments for his point of view changed the minds of a lot of unsuspecting students in the PFAL class. And what's ironic is wierwille jacking up the hype in PFAL saying stuff like most people think that they think - don't remember exactly what he said anymore - but he said it to insinuate most people don't know how to think until they take PFAL. Wow isn't that a good one !
What I have found in my journey of unraveling the TWI belief system is what a house of cards it turned out to be.
Edited by T-Bone this was edited while I was unconscious
The iceburg I think is Freud but the collective unconscious is Jung (who worked with and fell out with Freud). That can all be googled.
There's two things I am getting from this: 1) Forget about if god exists, do you exist? 2) Do we have as much control over our minds and beliefs as we think we do? Isn't that the point of The Law of Believing?
. . . wierwille's abundant use of logical fallacies in the guise of thoughtful arguments for his point of view changed the minds of a lot of unsuspecting students in the PFAL class. And what's ironic is wierwille jacking up the hype in PFAL saying stuff like most people think that they think - don't remember exactly what he said anymore - but he said it to insinuate most people don't know how to think until they take PFAL. Wow isn't that a good one !
What I have found in my journey of unraveling the TWI belief system is what a house of cards it turned out to be.
I understand VPW as an NPD. They are able to play these games because they fundamentally operate differently than most of us.
Yeah these types get you in the front of your head . . . is that where the game is?
Jung worked out his ideas . . . not alone . . . by interacting with people. In the connections. Looking for patterns. Looking for solutions. A collective unconscious is not an out there concept.
We are limited in that scope in these forums. . . . ?
Even a bible verse say "where two or three gather in my name, there I am in the midst of them"
The idea that something exists between us is a very old idea.
VPW needed to hijack that area . . yes?
We are more than our thoughts. We are more than ourselves.
Can we change our beliefs? That sounds complicated.
The iceburg I think is Freud but the collective unconscious is Jung (who worked with and fell out with Freud). That can all be googled.There's two things I am getting from this: 1) Forget about if god exists, do you exist? 2) Do we have as much control over our minds and beliefs as we think we do? Isn't that the point of The Law of Believing?
I think your question might confuse the issue – and if anything, I think we exert more influence over our own intellect, feelings, beliefs, perception of experiences, awareness of what’s going on around us than we’d care to admit. I tend to think as a person grows – experiencing life…continually putting some aspect of their beliefs to the test in real-life situations they are regularly developing and revising their critical and creative thinking skills – and thereby gaining MORE CONTROL as it were, of their mind/beliefs/life skills.
…the pictures of mental iceberg metaphors were to show some variety of psychology theories on how the mind works and that it’s still a vast field to explore – and believe it or not I was trying to bring it back to how people change their minds…with the iceberg metaphors – I see it as a two-way street in that there’s some interconnectedness between what’s above the waterline (conscious, behavior, ideas) and what’s below the waterline (unconscious, subconscious, deep feelings, intuition) – not saying they work in lockstep but maybe more like one can influence the other.
Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it…Proverbs 4:23
This verse makes me think of that old IT axiom – Garbage In, Garbage Out – meaning incorrect or poor-quality input will always produce faulty output. I think one way in which Proverbs 4:23 could be understood is with my heart being like a repository where all my wisdom, experiences, desires, memories, deep feelings, etc. are stored – the whole iceberg, if you will. I am to protect it…supervise what I put in store there. Why? Because what goes in there winds up affecting my outlook and behavior…
Here’s my two-bit psychology rap for this present discussion: Freud’s psychosexual theory is very narrow-minded for my taste – I think he placed too much emphasis on sexual motivation being behind behavior. And yeah, Jung and Freud were friends – but Jung later disagreed with some of Freud’s ideas – Jung became more interested in dreams, symbols, self-analysis, primitive psychology in various cultures and integrating the conscious and unconscious – the true self. So Jung is more my speed - currently I’m reading one of his books Man and His Symbols – fascinating stuff...when Gestalt psychology came along in the 1920s – I think that was a big step cuz that theory looked at the whole person – with the idea that behavior and the intricacies of the mind should be studied together – looking at the entire iceberg. one of the theories of Gestalt psychology is that the whole person is not simply the same as the sum of the parts.
Btw, a lot of this stuff is new to me and I tend to go on about something like finding a new toy…I read a lot – online and books - some of the ideas on psychology stuff I mentioned I got from a book my kids gave me for Father’s Day - Psych 101 by Paul Kleinman …it’s not like I know what I’m talking about – so take everything (and to be safe make that everything without exception ) I say with a grain of salt…
Some of the reasons I’m keenly interested in Jung, Gestalt, and other studies of the mental and behavioral processes is to better understand my cultic experience, cult leaders…and to better understand myself and people in general.
Hi T-Bone, I think we are of the same opinion when it comes to Freud vs Jung. Applying an idea like "the whole is greater than the some of its parts" to a population of people I think easily implies the origin of gods. Theism vs Atheism is just semantics in that regard.
We are not blank slates, tabula rasa, which I think was Locke's opinion, so there's an idea we have a predisposition to our beliefs. You've probably heard of Haidt who's done some work on that idea. Although I think he focuses on political opinions, same principle. When we are applying logic to decipher our beliefs are we getting more in line with what we always were from birth, or with the rest of the world, or both?
The opening post states there is a journey involving mind changing. Also states there is external opposition that denies this journey. Which I think is fascinating. "Maybe you were never really "X Belief" " is possibly a very valid statement.
I think your question might confuse the issue – and if anything, I think we exert more influence over our own intellect, feelings, beliefs, perception of experiences, awareness of what’s going on around us than we’d care to admit. I tend to think as a person grows – experiencing life…continually putting some aspect of their beliefs to the test in real-life situations they are regularly developing and revising their critical and creative thinking skills – and thereby gaining MORE CONTROL as it were, of their mind/beliefs/life skills.
. . .
For discussion sake, using the iceberg . . . I agree we work to gain more control . . . that is the upper portion, and the smallest portion.
Like our bodies we can learn to exert control over more and more, and applaud those who do more than most. Like many of it's functions, we have no ultimate control over our bodies. They will fail at some point. They can be manipulated and destroyed by outside forces. We can't stop that.
Hi T-Bone, I think we are of the same opinion when it comes to Freud vs Jung. Applying an idea like "the whole is greater than the some of its parts" to a population of people I think easily implies the origin of gods. Theism vs Atheism is just semantics in that regard.
We are not blank slates, tabula rasa, which I think was Locke's opinion, so there's an idea we have a predisposition to our beliefs. You've probably heard of Haidt who's done some work on that idea. Although I think he focuses on political opinions, same principle. When we are applying logic to decipher our beliefs are we getting more in line with what we always were from birth, or with the rest of the world, or both?
The opening post states there is a journey involving mind changing. Also states there is external opposition that denies this journey. Which I think is fascinating. "Maybe you were never really "X Belief" " is possibly a very valid statement.
7 hours ago, Bolshevik said:
For discussion sake, using the iceberg . . . I agree we work to gain more control . . . that is the upper portion, and the smallest portion.
Like our bodies we can learn to exert control over more and more, and applaud those who do more than most. Like many of it's functions, we have no ultimate control over our bodies. They will fail at some point. They can be manipulated and destroyed by outside forces. We can't stop that.
I agree - we are not blank slates – speaking of which – have you read Steven Pinker’s book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature ? I thought it made a lot of sense – that we are not blank slates. Rather Pinker argues that human behavior is substantially shaped by evolutionary psychological adaptations. I did come across Jonathan Haidt in Pinker’s book – Pinker talks about some of the studies Haidt did on people’s emotions and… uhm …gross-out thresholds...some of the questions Haidt set up would push the buttons in just about everybody!
But anyway that evolutionary psychological adaptations stuff is very interesting – I found this on Wikipedia: “Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological structure from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations – that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection in human evolution. Adaptationist thinking about physiological mechanisms, such as the heart, lungs, and immune system, is common in evolutionary biology. Some evolutionary psychologists apply the same thinking to psychology, arguing that the modularity of mind is similar to that of the body and with different modular adaptations serving different functions. These evolutionary psychologists argue that much of human behavior is the output of psychological adaptations that evolved to solve recurrent problems in human ancestral environments.
Evolutionary psychology is not simply a subdiscipline of psychology—its evolutionary theory can provide a foundational, metatheoretical framework that integrates the entire field of psychology in the same way evolutionary biology has for biology.
Evolutionary psychologists hold that behaviors or traits that occur universally in all cultures are good candidates for evolutionary adaptations including the abilities to infer others' emotions, discern kin from non-kin, identify and prefer healthier mates, and cooperate with others. Findings have been made regarding human social behavior related to infanticide, intelligence, marriage patterns, promiscuity, perception of beauty, bride price, and parental investment. The theories and findings of evolutionary psychology have applications in many fields, including economics, environment, health, law, management, psychiatry, politics, and literature.”
From: Wikipedia - evolutionary psychology
= = = = = = =
I think we may be on the same page with a sort of nurture and nature combo…we are not perfect…there’s nothing perfect in this world…at some point everything fails…Wow this has been a real cheery discussion eh? Just kidding around – I really have enjoyed this thread!
This thread is on Greasespot stemming from A Law of Believing thread. The Law of Believing . . . As I understand uses a god that is obedient to rules. It gives the individual equal power with that god. Which ultimately makes no sense if everyone can have that power. Let the games begin.
It's easy to remove that god later because if I have proven I don't have certain powers god certainly does not. Useless god.
It's easier to see VPW'S use for this god in his need for supply. He reorganized his environment and the people in it to provide supply. So we get repackaged systems like The Law of Believing.
Gods outside The Way is a different ball of wax. They don't always exist for narcissistic supply. They have other roles. The theological consequences are ultimately political ones, IMO.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
11
13
31
Popular Days
Aug 3
15
Aug 2
13
Aug 5
12
Aug 4
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 19 posts
Rocky 11 posts
T-Bone 13 posts
Bolshevik 31 posts
Popular Days
Aug 3 2021
15 posts
Aug 2 2021
13 posts
Aug 5 2021
12 posts
Aug 4 2021
9 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
oh you can take a lot of credit my friend – you are definitely in the small handful of articulate, thoughtful and thought-provoking Grease Spotters that have had a huge influence on me...I appreciate
Raf
Ok, first, we're looking at two things here that are very different. One: Can a person with a deeply held belief change his mind about it? Second: What would be the consequence of such a cha
Raf
Bolshevik mentioned something about how atheists value life. I try not to quantify such things, but economics 101 tells you scarcity increases value. No atheist ever flew a plane into a building
Bolshevik
And all Road-apples Lead to the Rock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That's because it's Road Apple Central.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
That's why Order Thy Steps in My Road Apples was written? Something about a hind and a roe carefully stepping.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The opening post I think just relates to parts of a being that are conscious.
The majority of our being is not conscious, and we carry out our actions in large part due to our unconscious, as I understand Vaknin and others describe it. Beliefs are found in the unconscious, we cannot actively access that . . . ?
In that case, if you changed your mind, that you were never really a believer would make a lot of sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The thread starts out with "changing your mind" or "renew your mind" . . . cause yes you can.
Then "deeply held beliefs" . . . which I think implies non-conscious parts of the being . . . prolly not really maybe
What Twinky is alluding to I think, is Jung and archetypes . . . or the collective unconscious . . . which we inherit. (what is tat? a type of knot?) . . . We are often defined by our surroundings . . . . good luck with that
This is multi-layered stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
deleted post - still developing ideas - will post later
Edited by T-Bonephase 2 editing with pizzazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You're presupposing your conclusion in your premise. "Beliefs are found in the unconscious."
Respectfully, that is not true of all beliefs, and it's absurd on its face. Beliefs can be dependent on the information you have, and greater information can and should change beliefs. A child believes in the tooth fairy because parents fed that story. Greater information leads to a change in the belief. It's not because their subconscious never believed it. It's because they received or considered more information.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
We do not disagree that all belief is not found in the unconscious. Beliefs ARE found in the unconscious.
We agree we can consciously change our minds.
It is to what degree we are not clear on.
Be careful, I did not say subconscious . . . I said unconscious, we cannot meditate on that.
We show belief in actions, not just our thoughts. Where do thoughts come from?
We are not aware of all the information we take in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
This might be an interesting tangent – going from discussing CAN a true believer truly change their mind to HOW that is accomplished.
recent mention of the unconscious (or subconscious) and the collective unconscious brings to mind some of the ways people study HOW we change our minds...but first a few visual aids - I found these by Googling images of the mental iceberg - check out the various conceptions of how the conscious, subconscious and unconscious are to be understood:
(note: if you stare at each of the bottom three icebergs long enough - they start looking like the rear view of a skull x-ray... from the movie Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the Crystal Skull )
When it comes to unraveling a cultic mindset, I'm more comfortable and most familiar with stuff at the tip of the iceberg - the stuff above the waterline - at the conscious level...I believe it's more productive to work at engaging the different levels of thinking that are more easily accessible – recalling information and experiences, analysis, evaluation, synthesis, creation, application, etc. I think it's referred to as meta-cognition - which is an awareness of one's own thought processes and an understanding of the patterns behind them...I'm not a psychologist so probing the subconscious and analyzing dreams seems like a lot of guesswork to me – only because I have no academic training in such things.
But analyzing what is apparent I can handle...come to think of it – examining HOW we change our minds is a recurring theme on Grease Spot – especially in About the Way forum...in a group setting Grease Spot amplifies the process of analysis through Socratic questioning which is “a form of disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we do not know, to follow out logical consequences of thought or to control discussions”
from Wikipedia - Socratic questioning
... From reading online about Socratic questioning I've found it''s often used in teaching and counseling situations to expose and unravel deeply held values and beliefs that frame and support what we think and say...using focused yet open questions that allow for differences of opinion, we “unpack” our beliefs and those of others.
Howard Gardner says in his book Changing Minds that his focus is on changes of the mind that occur CONSCIOUSLY as a result of forces that can be IDENTIFIED - note his 7 factors for changing minds which is what the book is all about.
...He does not address how the mind can be changed through subtle manipulation, deception, brainwashing, etc. But as an ex-cult follower I found his book helpful in understanding the basic circumstances surrounding a typical change of mind. Professional leaders and sales personnel also get into using Gardner's 7 factors to change minds – and that also makes me think of Dale Carnegie's principles in “how to win friends and influence people” - which also brings to mind the unscrupulous way deceptive and controlling cults like TWI can warp ideas to their advantage. For instance Gardner's first factor reason. Gardner says “Especially among those who deem themselves to be educated, the use of reason figures heavily in matters of belief”. wierwille's abundant use of logical fallacies in the guise of thoughtful arguments for his point of view changed the minds of a lot of unsuspecting students in the PFAL class. And what's ironic is wierwille jacking up the hype in PFAL saying stuff like most people think that they think - don't remember exactly what he said anymore - but he said it to insinuate most people don't know how to think until they take PFAL. Wow isn't that a good one !
Edited by T-BoneWhat I have found in my journey of unraveling the TWI belief system is what a house of cards it turned out to be.
this was edited while I was unconscious
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
They do look like skulls!
The iceburg I think is Freud but the collective unconscious is Jung (who worked with and fell out with Freud). That can all be googled.
There's two things I am getting from this: 1) Forget about if god exists, do you exist? 2) Do we have as much control over our minds and beliefs as we think we do? Isn't that the point of The Law of Believing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I understand VPW as an NPD. They are able to play these games because they fundamentally operate differently than most of us.
Yeah these types get you in the front of your head . . . is that where the game is?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Jung worked out his ideas . . . not alone . . . by interacting with people. In the connections. Looking for patterns. Looking for solutions. A collective unconscious is not an out there concept.
We are limited in that scope in these forums. . . . ?
Even a bible verse say "where two or three gather in my name, there I am in the midst of them"
The idea that something exists between us is a very old idea.
VPW needed to hijack that area . . yes?
We are more than our thoughts. We are more than ourselves.
Can we change our beliefs? That sounds complicated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Mentioned earlier belief is effectively moved via the "sword"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
If you scroll down to Eurobarometer survey 2015 - Religious affiliation in the EU
You see major differences between East and West Germany. Obviously majorly impacted by the Soviets.
The type of society people live in obviously influences how they self-identify.
If the society/environment around a person changes . . . that changes or largely influences the beliefs?
In Wayworld, people changed because they were immersed in Wayworld.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think your question might confuse the issue – and if anything, I think we exert more influence over our own intellect, feelings, beliefs, perception of experiences, awareness of what’s going on around us than we’d care to admit. I tend to think as a person grows – experiencing life…continually putting some aspect of their beliefs to the test in real-life situations they are regularly developing and revising their critical and creative thinking skills – and thereby gaining MORE CONTROL as it were, of their mind/beliefs/life skills.
…the pictures of mental iceberg metaphors were to show some variety of psychology theories on how the mind works and that it’s still a vast field to explore – and believe it or not I was trying to bring it back to how people change their minds…with the iceberg metaphors – I see it as a two-way street in that there’s some interconnectedness between what’s above the waterline (conscious, behavior, ideas) and what’s below the waterline (unconscious, subconscious, deep feelings, intuition) – not saying they work in lockstep but maybe more like one can influence the other.
Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it…Proverbs 4:23
This verse makes me think of that old IT axiom – Garbage In, Garbage Out – meaning incorrect or poor-quality input will always produce faulty output. I think one way in which Proverbs 4:23 could be understood is with my heart being like a repository where all my wisdom, experiences, desires, memories, deep feelings, etc. are stored – the whole iceberg, if you will. I am to protect it…supervise what I put in store there. Why? Because what goes in there winds up affecting my outlook and behavior…
Here’s my two-bit psychology rap for this present discussion: Freud’s psychosexual theory is very narrow-minded for my taste – I think he placed too much emphasis on sexual motivation being behind behavior. And yeah, Jung and Freud were friends – but Jung later disagreed with some of Freud’s ideas – Jung became more interested in dreams, symbols, self-analysis, primitive psychology in various cultures and integrating the conscious and unconscious – the true self. So Jung is more my speed - currently I’m reading one of his books Man and His Symbols – fascinating stuff...when Gestalt psychology came along in the 1920s – I think that was a big step cuz that theory looked at the whole person – with the idea that behavior and the intricacies of the mind should be studied together – looking at the entire iceberg. one of the theories of Gestalt psychology is that the whole person is not simply the same as the sum of the parts.
Btw, a lot of this stuff is new to me and I tend to go on about something like finding a new toy…I read a lot – online and books - some of the ideas on psychology stuff I mentioned I got from a book my kids gave me for Father’s Day - Psych 101 by Paul Kleinman …it’s not like I know what I’m talking about
Some of the reasons I’m keenly interested in Jung, Gestalt, and other studies of the mental and behavioral processes is to better understand my cultic experience, cult leaders…and to better understand myself and people in general.
Edited by T-Bonetypos and formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Hi T-Bone, I think we are of the same opinion when it comes to Freud vs Jung. Applying an idea like "the whole is greater than the some of its parts" to a population of people I think easily implies the origin of gods. Theism vs Atheism is just semantics in that regard.
We are not blank slates, tabula rasa, which I think was Locke's opinion, so there's an idea we have a predisposition to our beliefs. You've probably heard of Haidt who's done some work on that idea. Although I think he focuses on political opinions, same principle. When we are applying logic to decipher our beliefs are we getting more in line with what we always were from birth, or with the rest of the world, or both?
The opening post states there is a journey involving mind changing. Also states there is external opposition that denies this journey. Which I think is fascinating. "Maybe you were never really "X Belief" " is possibly a very valid statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
For discussion sake, using the iceberg . . . I agree we work to gain more control . . . that is the upper portion, and the smallest portion.
Like our bodies we can learn to exert control over more and more, and applaud those who do more than most. Like many of it's functions, we have no ultimate control over our bodies. They will fail at some point. They can be manipulated and destroyed by outside forces. We can't stop that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I agree - we are not blank slates – speaking of which – have you read Steven Pinker’s book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature ? I thought it made a lot of sense – that we are not blank slates. Rather Pinker argues that human behavior is substantially shaped by evolutionary psychological adaptations. I did come across Jonathan Haidt in Pinker’s book – Pinker talks about some of the studies Haidt did on people’s emotions and… uhm …gross-out thresholds...some of the questions Haidt set up would push the buttons in just about everybody!
But anyway that evolutionary psychological adaptations stuff is very interesting – I found this on Wikipedia:
“Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological structure from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations – that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection in human evolution. Adaptationist thinking about physiological mechanisms, such as the heart, lungs, and immune system, is common in evolutionary biology. Some evolutionary psychologists apply the same thinking to psychology, arguing that the modularity of mind is similar to that of the body and with different modular adaptations serving different functions. These evolutionary psychologists argue that much of human behavior is the output of psychological adaptations that evolved to solve recurrent problems in human ancestral environments.
Evolutionary psychology is not simply a subdiscipline of psychology—its evolutionary theory can provide a foundational, metatheoretical framework that integrates the entire field of psychology in the same way evolutionary biology has for biology.
Evolutionary psychologists hold that behaviors or traits that occur universally in all cultures are good candidates for evolutionary adaptations including the abilities to infer others' emotions, discern kin from non-kin, identify and prefer healthier mates, and cooperate with others. Findings have been made regarding human social behavior related to infanticide, intelligence, marriage patterns, promiscuity, perception of beauty, bride price, and parental investment. The theories and findings of evolutionary psychology have applications in many fields, including economics, environment, health, law, management, psychiatry, politics, and literature.”
Just kidding around – I really have enjoyed this thread!
Edited by T-BoneFrom: Wikipedia - evolutionary psychology
= = = = = = =
I think we may be on the same page with a sort of nurture and nature combo…we are not perfect…there’s nothing perfect in this world…at some point everything fails…Wow this has been a real cheery discussion eh?
typos and formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yeah Pinker had a lot to say
Penn and Teller do too
This thread is on Greasespot stemming from A Law of Believing thread. The Law of Believing . . . As I understand uses a god that is obedient to rules. It gives the individual equal power with that god. Which ultimately makes no sense if everyone can have that power. Let the games begin.
It's easy to remove that god later because if I have proven I don't have certain powers god certainly does not. Useless god.
It's easier to see VPW'S use for this god in his need for supply. He reorganized his environment and the people in it to provide supply. So we get repackaged systems like The Law of Believing.
Gods outside The Way is a different ball of wax. They don't always exist for narcissistic supply. They have other roles. The theological consequences are ultimately political ones, IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
well at least Penn does
...personally I'm attracted to the strong silent type.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Maybe that's a hint.
A lot are said with the eyes. Used to be someone here who knew what that was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.