/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>7252

Give an example and I'll let you know.

>>7252

>Are we fundamentally unable to communicate in a truthful manner?

Most people, if not everyone, see the world through the lens of "what about me?" If you imagine thinking the same way, the answer is apparent.

>>7262

>For example, if I, someone who holds fascistic beliefs that are contrary to the norm, were to debate completely honestly, I would instantly be rejected and shunned. My arguments would be seen as not being worthy of consideration, because they are so far removed from their frame of reference.

That may be what happens, but I think you are making a mistake when you say this happens because of the frame of reference. The frame of reference may play a part, for example when people say "AI can think like us" even though it's clear machines don't have souls to think with, my frame of reference and theirs would be very far apart, but there is nothing that stops us from understanding one another. Perhaps this is because no one can really deny that they have a soul, and that machines don't, and that provides a common ground to work with for discussion even if the other side is not aware of it. However, I think that is a less than satisfactory answer, since there are many things no one can really deny that you use in your discussion, I hope, but you don't get through. So I think it is not the sharedness of the worldview that prevents honest discussion going forward for you. I think it's largely a social phenomenon. But what is this social phenomenon that allows some ideas but not others, and why does it form sub groups like yours so contrary to the mainstream? I will suppose it is something like morphic fields. We all generate and share the morphic field, which seems to not be bound by the body, and while we all receive the same information from it, some people are aberrations that draw from it differently. So most people draw the mainstream view, in fact it is the mainstream view because most people draw from it, but you and some others draw differently from it, and thus subgroups are formed. Then we might ask why some ideas go from small to large, like Fascism did, while others stay small, and some go from large to small. I think this is where the social phenomenon comes in. A person, having drawn out some belief from the field, like fascism, naturally spreads their belief through talking and what not. In doing so, the person they are talking to somehow becomes more in tune with drawing that same information out from the field. This in turn prompts them to consider it and may convert them to belief in it. The idea spreads itself basically as we would expect. However, I think just as some people are aberrations who draw on different things from the field, there are other aberrations who have a resistance or inability to draw on some things from the field. That would be the people you are thinking of, who reject no matter what what you say. They reject it without a thought because they are not capable of drawing on anything to consider. This manifests itself as either outright denial, or perhaps some violent action on their behalf or some uncomfortable laughter or whatever you see.

But then you point out how you have more success when you emulate a libertarian, so I will revise slightly: The worldview sharing is really a type of overlap in information drawn from the morphic field. A libertarian shares more of the same things drawn from the morphic field with the mainstream view than a fascist does, so it is easier to be attuned to the libertarian position, and it is easier to draw on those new libertarian views because the person is already well capable of drawing on that shared part. So worldview does seem to play some part, but not exactly as you put it.

Morphic fields are not /fringe/ I swear

>>7262

Saved image

>>7252

>Are we fundamentally incapable of truthful communication?

As an anon who has gone through the stages in the picture here >>7262 fully, I think I might have some clout when it comes to human communication (and lack thereof). My recent experience has been all about how to break through mental barriers, both my own and those of others. This lead to among other things my improbable conversion to Christianity.

I think it is a question of talent, which it is debatable if I possess such talent at all; but I've learned that such a talent exists, and that's a start I think.

You see, people when they are confronted with an argument don't perceive a personal attack, not really. We are vain creatures, so when you start to argue with us, we shut our ears, because we have an egoic need to appear intelligent. I remember when I used to do this, when I was younger and more insecure. You see the easiest way to conceal a problem is to deny it exists, and when an argument comes along, it's the easiest thing in the world to deny: The structure of logic may be mathematical and aesthetically pleasing, but out of pride and vanity I am liable (as a sinful, ordinary human being) to vandalize what contradicts my particular moods and inclinations. This is why we can't have nice things.

This means that in order to communicate in a truthful manner, you have to invite your interlocutor to play in your sandbox (yes it is quite like child's play). To cross swords intellectually is dangerous to the esteem of the parties, it's too risky to be honest when fighting.

You can even see this when there is a grand debate between public intellectuals. It's either friendly, the debaters are well-matched, and the point of disagreement unimportant for the esteem of either, or it is hopelessly dishonest. It's the difference between building a sand castle together, and arguing whose sand-castle is better. Of course when the latter road is taken, there are ruined sand-castles and crying abounds, and no adult is going to let that play out at 30. Instead they will armour themselves with any kind of ploy imaginable if they think that they will lose face when they lose the argument.

>>7264

I'm not familiar with the concept of morphic fields, but from your text I gather that they may just be a method of expressing the collective unconscious. There may be some merit to analyzing this concept through the lens of fluid dynamics. I have learned that the universe is incredibly macrocosmic, patterns repeat throughout various levels of complexity. For example, the phenomenon of what people are willing to believe is widely known at the societal level as the Overton window.

Most people recognize any belief they hold to be truth, otherwise they would not hold it. I and others like me have recognized this cognitive error and have thus taken a more active role in filtering information that we receive. Instead of holding in belief I hold as abject truth, I hold it to be probable truth and assign varying probabilities to various beliefs based on the quantity and quality of information I have at my disposal relevant to the topic. This allows me to communicate in a more truthful manner, but I am obviously not immune to error. The issue is, when I move my position to one that is easier for a person to attune themselves to, I am inherently engaging in a dishonest act as I have obviously already discarded those beliefs as not being true. This is something that my ideological opponents do as well, but I doubt they are similarly conscious of it. It would seem that the only honest way of making my beliefs more easily digestible would be to attack and cannibalize what you call the mainstream morphic field.

>>7269

I often say that the most intelligent thing I have ever done is realize how unintelligent I am and how little I actually know.

I have a good speaking voice and when I speak to people in person, I don't have a hard time persuading reasonable people because I speak with conviction they are not used to. I also avoid and actively avoid escalation into a kind of 'fight or flight' response by realizing they are fallible humans just like me. The problem is there are people who will pretend not to have had a discussion with you at all after it happens. They will go on believing what they believed before, regardless of the events that transpired. A common tactic these days is to shame people socially for holding a belief in opposition to theirs, so they become immune to any argument that might be made.

let it be known that I am OP and >>7262, using a vpn