MarcStevens.net Forum
more from Delmar England [article excerpt] - Printable Version

+- MarcStevens.net Forum (http://marcstevens.net/board)
+-- Forum: Research, Analysis, News Archive (/forum-69.html)
+--- Forum: Philosophy & Psychology (/forum-68.html)
+--- Thread: more from Delmar England [article excerpt] (/thread-7271.html)



more from Delmar England [article excerpt] - eye2i2hear - 10-12-2014 07:17 AM

[Image: bokmal.gif]
i found this pretty captivating, to revealing as insightful (thus +valueable). You?

Insanity As The Social Norm

In which Delmar England wrote (with minor editing¹ of mine-- original here if NonprEferred):

. A swift emotional response is derived from an almost instant subconscious evaluation and valuation of an entity and/or relationship. This emotional response will be derived from and consistent what you hold to be true-- whether the belief is true or not. By the “logic circuit” of mind, a conclusion is always logically consistent with the directive premise whether the premise is true or false. By an if/then back trace via the “logic circuit,” a directive premise can be identified. It is literally mind reading by natural law process.
. The “logic circuit” which directs mental integration of beliefs makes no evaluation of the beliefs as true or false. This is the function of conscious mind. Since the “logic circuit” is natural mind principle of operation, detection of error is not within its function. It simply integrates premises given. Since it performs in this manner by natural law, it is “infallible.” If understood, it is the greatest error detector available to any and every individual. It is used by all for this purpose, but not always in a consistent manner. Mind dominant fallacies often deny and set aside what the “logic circuit” reveals as true if such revelations oppose false, but “unquestionable sacred ideas.”
. If a derived conclusion is in conflict with any other conclusion held, one must be in error. Both may be in error. This is a red flag announcing loud and clear there is at least one error in the premises integrated with the possibility of more. A contradiction is the equivalent of a large neon sign reading: “You have failed to correctly identify.”² You may heed or disregard, but if disregarded, the error will come back in compound measure with a compound price to be paid.
. Even though this is highly visible and irrefutable, consistent adherence is not the usual. The prevailing philosophy of subservience creates a disvaluing of self with a constant effort to avoid anything that further diminishes sense of self value. Within this philosophy, there is a premium put on “being right” as a mark of intelligence, hence, measure of high self value.
. This tends to motivate evasion and denial of error. This, in turn, leads to compounding of error with resistance to recognition of said error. This attitude is a direct consequence of the mental reversal of reality and derivative concepts by which one evaluates self and others. The reality is that a discovery of error in one’s thinking, if by seeing a truth in contrast, is an asset.
. Resistance to recognition of error although somewhat noticeable on the conscious level is mainly manifested on the subconscious level. Just like on the conscious level, beliefs held in subconscious work by differential reference and are mentally integrated by the “logic circuit.” A belief held in subconscious may not be known to the holder. In fact, it is not uncommon for conscious mind to deny the holding of such a belief. Nevertheless, the differential reference principle reveals its existence by the inclusion/exclusion principle along with the results of logical integration.
...
. The point of the above is to illustrate conscious and/or subconscious exclusion via mind-dominant beliefs held in the subconscious. When a lost and dying desert wanderer “sees” a pool of water, the actual sand in the area cannot be seen. It is mentally displaced by the mental invention [creation] of the pool which is projected upon this area of [mind] reality blanking out the real [factual]. [this is the very nature, as the origin, of belief(s); see another excellent essay here: The Problems With Beliefs]

. Since the mind-dominant beliefs of which I speak are held to near-universal degree in past and present, it is no surprise to find opposing beliefs excluded in the prevailing belief system; which is to say excluded from the prevailing thinking system as well. Truth is continuous and consistent. This reveals by the exclusion that the mind-dominant beliefs of which I speak are false. The primary requirement of survival and reaching any goal is mentally separating the real from illusion. There are many illusions other than those of water and sand type. An illusion is any belief held to be true which does not conform to reality.

. It you tend to emotionally lean toward “so many could not be so wrong for so long,” you might want to think about the above. Also, you might keep in mind that consensus of opinion did not make the earth flat, ["slavery" legitimate, a wife the husband's "property" logical], nor ever made fact out of fiction in any circumstance.
. The prevailing (global) philosophy is saturated with popular fallacies so large in scope, so varied in surface type, so nearly universally accepted, they emotionally appear as unquestionable Truth, as absolutes without alternative and not to be questioned. This is the atmosphere into which you were born and now live.
. You have been informed by historical record, contemporary media and personal observation that the assignment of each individual is as property, as expendable means to a lofty universal goal such as “God’s purpose” and/or “for the good of The Country.” With few exceptions, there is not only subservient acceptance of the assigned role, but minds programmed in such bizarre conflict that most see this as their “destiny” and actively seek to fulfill the assignment.

. . “No amount of scientific evidence will ever dispel a single religious notion. Until the mind is turned upon itself to understand the cause of this insanity, the life of an individual will count for nothing.”

. I wrote that about 30 years ago. I have seen nothing since to change the conclusion. Indeed, have seen the conclusion confirmed a thousand times over. The term, insanity, is not used as figure of speech, nor as a pejorative. It is used definitively as is my practice with use of language or examination of language usage by others.
. Setting aside arbitrary declarations such as “legally insane,” insanity as defined and descriptive is the failure to make a distinction between what is inside the mind and what is outside. Also, as you will see in what is to follow, the term, religion³, does not refer only to a formalized version with churches and rituals. It refers to all beliefs of a particular kind of like content regardless of the difference in subjective labels. [belief in "Government", as apart from anything other than self-government/self-control, is a religious belief --as it is a logically inconsistent argument]


entirety here: Insanity As The Social Norm

__________________________________
1. bracketed text & footnotes, mine; eye2i
2. and subsequent with or to that, is to subtly create\fashion(able) words and then define\declare them accordingly; just as in the included example of the thirsty-enough desert wanderer "seeing" a "pool of water" aka seeing a mirage aka hallucinating; see also superstition and the extreme known as schizophrenia
3. it is the crafting of wordsmiths to make the word "religion" only or solely about "god"; the very same nature of wordsmithing that creates and defines the word "God" (it reveals the only gods there are, factually, by the very event!?)! Etymologically, religion is simply any belief founded in faith for which one is willing to live and/or give one's life. The core word of the word "religion" being the same as for the word "allegiance"; why the word crafters slyly shift the "e" to an "i", well, being your guess is as good as mine. But to point, to "religion" is to shift one's reality from fact to faith, solely as to take the "word" of any other without question or proof (where hearsay isn't proof, but rather a fallacy amongst that which the author mentions). At it's crux, it is the epitome of shifting from the scientific method to anything but.

The author mentions fallacies; man, but is this one area sorely lacking in present Education curriculum! (aka critical thinking skills). i know i have a void here, big time (and it's proven hugely costly as to my past!).