Illusion and its cure, knowledge

[TBRS1]

Learning the truth of things is maybe possible for natural phenomenon.

Learning the truth when it comes to people on the other hand? I think it is impossible because no matter how close you are to a person, they live in a whole different world than you. Maybe truth does not even exist in human relationships. And it is impossible to "know" a person even when you lived with them for years.

Just sharing my thoughts as this topic is very interesting

Oh yeah - you can never fully understand another person - you'd have to be that person, and you can't be that person and be another person at the same time.

This is where "empathy" comes in.

The closest any person will ever come to understanding another person is by developing empathy for that person.

Empathy is developed (in Buddhism) by recognizing that all sentient beings have at least one thing in common - at some point, all sentient beings WILL suffer.

When a person comes to understand this, that person finds that their pain is the same pain that all sentient beings experience.

This is where all empathy comes from.

 

[Boogs]

Learning the truth when it comes to people on the other hand? I think it is impossible ...

I think part of that may be because truth is really an abstract concept. There are no 'truths' that are not dependent on a context to be able to be defined as truth. Truths are often not even absolute and what is true in one set of circumstance may no longer be so under other circumstance.
Every single persons concepts of truth(s) are different in some way and degree.

One of the problems I have with the concept of truth related to the above is that it's used in a very wide range of contexts and often may be greatly nuanced, and involve complex ideas, and yet it's a simple binary value, indeed is the smallest possible piece of data a computer can work with, a fundamental element, and it seems to me that to reduce a complex human concept to a basic yes/no, good/bad, right/wrong choice is going to be throwing away the vast majority of information and essentially boiling everything down to having to immerse yourself into another's world view with no room for your own idea's and ethics etc. - anathema!

But I've just realised, you didn't mean it that way, did you? Whoops!
You meant the truth about the nature of someone?

 

[Boogs]

The closest any person will ever come to understanding another person is by developing empathy for that person.

I'm not totally sure about that (from my p.o.v.)
The best I can determine is my empathy primarily stems from my projecting how I think I would feel under the circumstances someone else is experiencing. It can gain a sense of connection between them and I, but not necessarily understanding.

 

[TBRS1]

I'm not totally sure about that (from my p.o.v.)
The best I can determine is my empathy primarily stems from my projecting how I think I would feel under the circumstances someone else is experiencing. It can gain a sense of connection between them and I, but not necessarily understanding.

In Buddhism, the universe works entirely by cause and effect relationships. This is one of Buddhists fundamental "beliefs."

The phrases "No independent arrisings" (meaning: nothing happens all by itself) and "dependent arrising" (meaning: everything happens because something else happened) are commonly used

For that reason, Buddhists are really into how different things connect or have connected in order to arrive at some point, and then how that point goes on to cause something else to happen.

So a Buddhist might say "If you can powerfully imagine how you would feel if you were experiencing what another person is experiencing, you have formed a connection. The next question is: what is the effect of that connection?"

 

[AprilR]

I think part of that may be because truth is really an abstract concept. There are no 'truths' that are not dependent on a context to be able to be defined as truth. Truths are often not even absolute and what is true in one set of circumstance may no longer be so under other circumstance.
Every single persons concepts of truth(s) are different in some way and degree.

One of the problems I have with the concept of truth related to the above is that it's used in a very wide range of contexts and often may be greatly nuanced, and involve complex ideas, and yet it's a simple binary value, indeed is the smallest possible piece of data a computer can work with, a fundamental element, and it seems to me that to reduce a complex human concept to a basic yes/no, good/bad, right/wrong choice is going to be throwing away the vast majority of information and essentially boiling everything down to having to immerse yourself into another's world view with no room for your own idea's and ethics etc. - anathema!

But I've just realised, you didn't mean it that way, did you? Whoops!
You meant the truth about the nature of someone?

Haha don't worry, i enjoy brainstorming about this topic.

Yes, i meant as in understanding someone's nature and intentions. Knowing someone, so to say. People are way too unpredictable for that. You may think you know someone for years, and they may end up being a completely different person than you imagined. Like thinking "Why did they do that?" only they know. It is impossible to know the truth about people.

 

[Boogs]

In Buddhism, the universe works entirely by cause and effect relationships. This is one of Buddhists fundamental "beliefs."

The phrases "No independent arrisings" (meaning: nothing happens all by itself) and "dependent arrising" (meaning: everything happens because something else happened) are commonly used

For that reason, Buddhists are really into how different things connect or have connected in order to arrive at some point, and then how that point goes on to cause something else to happen.

So a Buddhist might say "If you can powerfully imagine how you would feel if you were experiencing what another person is experiencing, you have formed a connection. The next question is: what is the effect of that connection?"

I'm inclined to agree with the general notion of all pervading connectedness though I see it in a different fashion; but that can be almost irrelevant and more just another mode of interpreting the same thing, but while not wishing to split hairs (I'm lying, I love splitting hairs! ), what I said was:
"It can gain a sense of connection between them and I, but not necessarily understanding."

where 'understanding' was the critical part or aspect I miss, by which I mean a rational consciously expressed piece of knowledge derived from information. I was speaking in a pretty literal manner as is my tendency

 

[TBRS1]

I'm inclined to agree with the general notion of all pervading connectedness though I see it in a different fashion; but that can be almost irrelevant and more just another mode of interpreting the same thing, but while not wishing to split hairs (I'm lying, I love splitting hairs! ), what I said was:
"It can gain a sense of connection between them and I, but not necessarily understanding."

where 'understanding' was the critical part or aspect I miss, by which I mean a rational consciously expressed piece of knowledge derived from information. I was speaking in a pretty literal manner as is my tendency

I think that we're each using a different definition of "understanding."

As I see it (also, as a Buddhist sees it) all things are transitory and in a constant state of change. This means that something as flexible as another's mental state can only be understood as it is right now (in the exact present micromoment).

A person overcome by fear (for example) feels, at that moment, great fear. If another, through empathy, also feels that great fear, that is understanding what that person feels in that moment.

This brief moment of understanding is "a connection."

 

[Boogs]

I think that we're each using a different definition of "understanding."

Mr Literal over here meant understanding the nature and state of the person, which too can engender connection.
But I don't have a Buddhist view, only a Boogist view!

As I see it (also, as a Buddhist sees it) all things are transitory and in a constant state of change.

And as I do too, but again I suspect at a different level, in fact it's at the meeting point of chaos and order that things really happen, the change from low to high entropy and movement from simplicity to complexity (and back to simplicity).

A person overcome by fear (for example) feels, at that moment, great fear. If another, through empathy, also feels that great fear, that is understanding what that person feels in that moment.

Or believes they do? I'd say that fundamentally this can't be done in any absolute sense.

So to your point, it's not just the word 'understanding' that's lacking a common definition, but also our definition of 'empathy', which can sometimes mean you believe you understand their feelings and other times that you do understand their feelings. And there are other definitions too, so we're not really connecting here!

You may think you know someone for years, and they may end up being a completely different person than you imagined.

Yes indeed!
I've noticed this phenomena and for a lot longer than I've known anything about cognition and related matters (the subjectivity of perception). But I came up with a strategy for it a long time ago and a lot of it centred around the concept of trust.

Trust (for me) is fundamental to anything coming close to a real friendship, and because people are far more complex and nuanced than many consider, when we think we may know someone well, the reality is we've only seen small portions of them, and what comes out of them isn't necessarily what's inside. So I realised it was never possible to truly know someone, and it's very likely this is for the best (in this culture).

So I measure out my trust in small portions to start with, only that which I'm willing to lose. As my small bits of trust are rewarded, I'll trust a little bit more, and so on. This of course doesn't protect me from being 'betrayed' in some way (having my trust used against me), but it's helped to rationalise and set limits, and understand when those limits have been crossed, so the blow isn't as painful. I'm not left in anguish wondering what happened and how, just the sadness of a friendship lost.

 

[Uri]

Religion obviously is a big cope.

Ask yourself this: If any religion is actually true then why are there so many of them? There are more than 100 religions in the world and none of them can come to an agreement about which of them is the true religion.

Also another question: If any religion is actually true then why do bad things keep happening to people? Things like disease, death, poverty, homelessness etc? Why isn't the world actually a perfect place devoid of any pain and suffering like depicted and promised in the Bible?

That's why I think religion is just Hocus Pocus. The way I see it all religion is just a heart-warming myth to pacify the people and keep us in line, people who would not be so happy if they knew the truth about religion.

The fact is that humans are just wet meat machines. We are a just a tiny bunch of protein trying to comprehend infinite existence. There's no wonder that we're failing at that task.

But I see science as a much better tool to arrive at the truth (truth as opposed to ignorance which is religion).

I have my faith in science and I believe that even if takes a million years from now, science will eventually figure out everything.

 

[WhitewaterWoman]

Ask yourself this: If any religion is actually true then why are there so many of them? There are more than 100 religions in the world and none of them can come to an agreement about which of them is the true religion.

Because the concept of God, however one understands it, exceeds human understanding. It’s like the blind men an the elephant.

Also another question: If any religion is actually true then why do bad things keep happening to people? Things like disease, death, poverty, homelessness etc? Why isn't the world actually a perfect place devoid of any pain and suffering like depicted and promis.

Read “When bad things happen to good people” by rabbi Harold Kushner.

When Bad things Happen to Good People

The point here is that many brilliant minds have considered your questions seriously. You may not agree with them, but there are answers.

 

[WhitewaterWoman]

I became aware that we could not possibly understand for sure another person’s experience or perception when I was quite young. In regards to color, I asked my mother how could I be sure that when two people both see “green” how do we know it is the same color. My mother, who was an extremely intelligent person, did not have a satisfactory answer.

Working as a hospice nurse and as an advocate and service coordinator for people with developmental disabilities, I was closely involved in family systems usually in times of crisis. I worked with families over time, usually in their own homes.

I saw patterns in how people and families respond to crisis and over time I developed a data base of responses. I could not say I knew exactly what was happening in each person as we are discussing here. But I did come to recognize responses and feel for what they were going through.

So even if I could not determine exactly what someone was experiencing, I could feel that we were both seeing “green.”

 

[WhitewaterWoman]

Learning the truth of things is maybe possible for natural phenomenon.

Learning the truth when it comes to people on the other hand? I think it is impossible because no matter how close you are to a person, they live in a whole different world than you. Maybe truth does not even exist in human relationships. And it is impossible to "know" a person even when you lived with them for years.

Just sharing my thoughts as this topic is very interesting

I agree with you. I know that I believe in my heart there is good in everyone. I have found out that is not true.

You can spend years living with someone and working towards the good only to find out there is resident evil.

I think we have more difficulty in seeing what is “real” in other people due to our social impairments.

This puts us at a disadvantage and more at risk for experiencing the betrayal Boogs is describing.

 

[Boogs]

I think we have more difficulty in seeing what is “real” in other people due to our social impairments.

Hmmm, I was going to, in my usual delicate fashion, jump in feet first and dispute this but I'm only considering my own condition. When it comes to autism, that's the only bit of it I really know about as much as I can know anything, but it's normal for humans to seek commonality even when there's no evidence for such and we assume we are alike as a requirement to forming groups which are all about having thing(s) in common.

So from my perspective, while I may not have an intuitive understanding of other peoples feelings and equally struggle to understand my own never mind put them across, I'm highly attuned to knowing when I'm being lied to. Often my intuition has not only detected it but even has a good idea what's being lied about, and where I don't have the data to do that it often comes soon after as I have the clues to unravel the false narrative. It has nothing to do with expressions and body language etc. and doesn't matter if the liar believes what they are saying.

Simply the fact that most people are poor liars but believe they aren't, and don't take the trouble to ensure their new narrative isn't broken revealing the lie, while I have to convert experience to knowledge as a separate explicit task (in real time) to be able to understand anything, and that requires all the cross referencing and logic matching that also quickly reveals a broken narrative - a lie in these cases.

As ever this has also has down sides since I've lost friends because of it, but only because they could no longer be trusted - I was forced to be aware they had deliberately misinformed me, so to have not known that would have left me far more vulnerable to the people whom ought to support me (as friends should) not undermine me. It's also closed me off from some things such as religious spirituality because it can't provide what I need to engage with it, by it's very nature.

As almost everyone lies about something or other, and this seems to be necessary in certain regards to form stable communities that can mostly work together for mutual gain. In the end for the majority of the population having illusions can actually enable that ability to lie (pass on more illusions?) without the need to rationalise which requiring the conscious mind is far slower and much harder to do than the (mostly) subconscious lies we tend to use so much.

I recall at school in my mid-teens being so puzzled about the most popular boys in the class (being jealous of their popularity) and wondering what was wrong with me that (in my case) girls were not especially interested (as best I could tell) in me, when I never felt the need to lie about myself - showing off essentially, and yet despite the lies seeming so obvious to me the girls never seemed to notice or even were impressed by them and seemed to lap it up as something good and desirable (and visa versa probably, but I only saw it from my own male perspective back then).

Evolution doesn't care why we develop, and adopt a behaviour that aids our survival but only whether it works or not. If dishonesty/illusion enables communities, which being more than the sum of their parts will usually benefit the survival of those members, then that will be our mode of operation (or one of them).

 

[AprilR]

I agree with you. I know that I believe in my heart there is good in everyone. I have found out that is not true.

You can spend years living with someone and working towards the good only to find out there is resident evil.

I think we have more difficulty in seeing what is “real” in other people due to our social impairments.

This puts us at a disadvantage and more at risk for experiencing the betrayal Boogs is describing.

Yeah i also try to think that everyone has a good part inside them. But sometimes it is not salvagable and it is best to cut ties with those people.

And not noticing red flags is a problem with me too. Which is why i have a very hard time trusting people now.

 

[TBRS1]

Religion obviously is a big cope.

Ask yourself this: If any religion is actually true then why are there so many of them? There are more than 100 religions in the world and none of them can come to an agreement about which of them is the true religion.

Also another question: If any religion is actually true then why do bad things keep happening to people? Things like disease, death, poverty, homelessness etc? Why isn't the world actually a perfect place devoid of any pain and suffering like depicted and promised in the Bible?

That's why I think religion is just Hocus Pocus. The way I see it all religion is just a heart-warming myth to pacify the people and keep us in line, people who would not be so happy if they knew the truth about religion.

The fact is that humans are just wet meat machines. We are a just a tiny bunch of protein trying to comprehend infinite existence. There's no wonder that we're failing at that task.

But I see science as a much better tool to arrive at the truth (truth as opposed to ignorance which is religion).

I have my faith in science and I believe that even if takes a million years from now, science will eventually figure out everything.

I'm an atheist. I don't have a religion. That's why I'm a Buddhist.

No god, no magic, no miracles, just cause and effect relationships. Pure science.

 

[WhitewaterWoman]

Hmmm, I was going to, in my usual delicate fashion, jump in feet first and dispute this but I'm only considering my own condition. When it comes to autism, that's the only bit of it I really know about as much as I can know anything, but it's normal for humans to seek commonality even when there's no evidence for such and we assume we are alike as a requirement to forming groups which are all about having thing(s) in common.

So from my perspective, while I may not have an intuitive understanding of other peoples feelings and equally struggle to understand my own never mind put them across, I'm highly attuned to knowing when I'm being lied to. Often my intuition has not only detected it but even has a good idea what's being lied about, and where I don't have the data to do that it often comes soon after as I have the clues to unravel the false narrative. It has nothing to do with expressions and body language etc. and doesn't matter if the liar believes what they are saying.

Simply the fact that most people are poor liars but believe they aren't, and don't take the trouble to ensure their new narrative isn't broken revealing the lie, while I have to convert experience to knowledge as a separate explicit task (in real time) to be able to understand anything, and that requires all the cross referencing and logic matching that also quickly reveals a broken narrative - a lie in these cases.

As ever this has also has down sides since I've lost friends because of it, but only because they could no longer be trusted - I was forced to be aware they had deliberately misinformed me, so to have not known that would have left me far more vulnerable to the people whom ought to support me (as friends should) not undermine me. It's also closed me off from some things such as religious spirituality because it can't provide what I need to engage with it, by it's very nature.

As almost everyone lies about something or other, and this seems to be necessary in certain regards to form stable communities that can mostly work together for mutual gain. In the end for the majority of the population having illusions can actually enable that ability to lie (pass on more illusions?) without the need to rationalise which requiring the conscious mind is far slower and much harder to do than the (mostly) subconscious lies we tend to use so much.

I recall at school in my mid-teens being so puzzled about the most popular boys in the class (being jealous of their popularity) and wondering what was wrong with me that (in my case) girls were not especially interested (as best I could tell) in me, when I never felt the need to lie about myself - showing off essentially, and yet despite the lies seeming so obvious to me the girls never seemed to notice or even were impressed by them and seemed to lap it up as something good and desirable (and visa versa probably, but I only saw it from my own male perspective back then).

Evolution doesn't care why we develop, and adopt a behaviour that aids our survival but only whether it works or not. If dishonesty/illusion enables communities, which being more than the sum of their parts will usually benefit the survival of those members, then that will be our mode of operation (or one of them).

I cannot lie. And I’ve been under the impression this is common in people with ASD. Even if I wanted to lie, it is so obvious I might as well have a neon sign declaring it.

Because I can’t/don’t lie, I assume others don’t lie. I persist in this belief despite a multitude of examples to the contrary. At 71 years old, I think I’m finally starting to get it.

 

[WhitewaterWoman]

I'm an atheist. I don't have a religion. That's why I'm a Buddhist.

No god, no magic, no miracles, just cause and effect relationships. Pure science.

I’m just curious. Do you practice Buddhism? Belong to a sangha? Follow the Seven Paths? Or is it a belief system you subscribe to on its own?

You don’t have to answer.

 

[TBRS1]

I’m just curious. Do you practice Buddhism? Belong to a sangha? Follow the Seven Paths? Or is it a belief system you subscribe to on its own?

You don’t have to answer.

Yes, I practice Buddhism.

I'm a member of a sangha, but it isn't a Buddhist community - it's a regular community, mostly made up of people who aren't like me.

I follow the Eightfold Path to the best of my ability.

Is it my own version? Sure. I read & understand and see the truth of the dharma (teachings of the Buddha), and practice it according to my own lights (in conjunction with the teachings of those who may understand better than I do).

I am not a member of any particular Buddhist denomination, though.

 

[WhitewaterWoman]

Yes, I practice Buddhism.

I'm a member of a sangha, but it isn't a Buddhist community - it's a regular community, mostly made up of people who aren't like me.

I follow the Eightfold Path to the best of my ability.

Is it my own version? Sure. I read & understand and see the truth of the dharma (teachings of the Buddha), and practice it according to my own lights (in conjunction with the teachings of those who may understand better than I do).

I am not a member of any particular Buddhist denomination, though.

Thank you. Eightfold Path, not 7. My apologies. It’s been a long time since I studied it.

Have you thought of joining any of the monasteries? I’ve given some consideration to Plum Village in France and also one in Honduras that is Quaker/Methodist. If I can, I would like to visit Plum Village when I go to Europe this spring.

 

[TBRS1]

Thank you. Eightfold Path, not 7. My apologies. It’s been a long time since I studied it.

Have you thought of joining any of the monasteries? I’ve given some consideration to Plum Village in France and also one in Honduras that is Quaker/Methodist. If I can, I would like to visit Plum Village when I go to Europe this spring.

I'm not really monk material .

But it would be way cool to visit a monastery, especially if they were teachers.

I looked for reasonably close Buddhist centers, but I live way out in the boonies (I'm not a monk, but I am nearly a hermit) and the nearest is several hours drive from me.

Fortunately, Buddhists are big on teaching so I can find endless information easily. Still, it would be nice to talk face-to-face to people about interesting things, and learn different points of view.

I had to look up Plum Village. That does look interesting.

The article refers to the founder (Thích Nhất Hạnh) as a Zen Buddhist. Both forms of Buddhism are interesting. I like the Taoist/Buddhist mix of Zen Buddhism, but it would be less effective for me, I think.