|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Sept 6, 2013 8:01:14 GMT -5
Suppose an individual has successfully deceived himself. This would mean that is he unable to genuinely believe that he has deceived himself. He can only pretend that he believes that he has deceived himself. For the deception to be effective, that about which the individual has deceived himself must remain outside his control. It must thus be repressed (given that it has once been consciously available to him). Then being self-deceived is effectively the same as being unconscious, given that the unconscious is the realm of repressed information.
I claim that nobody is able to genuinely claim to believe to be self-deceived. If there is deception in the 1st person, then it can't be seen from the 1st person perspective. Instead the deceptions we observe are always already objectivized, these deceptions are divorced from 1st person, stuff like optical illusions, other people's lies, tricks that the mind plays on us - but these are all things that ae being experienced as "happening to" the 1st person, the 1st person doesn't experience itself as being responsible for these deceptions.
The moment the 1st person feels like it is responsible for a deception is the moment when the deception effectively ceases to be one. That's why Freud said that the goal of psychoanalytic treatment is "Where It was I shall be." ("Wo Es war, soll Ich werden")
Being identified with a grain of corn is what happened to the patient from the place of the "it", he couldn't help it, prior to psychoanalytic treatment he would have said that him being a grain of corn is how things really are (within the place of "it"). With psychoanalytic treatment he recognized that it's not at all how things are and that the delusion must have come from himself. In the same way the chicken wanting to eat him is (in the patient's experience) located within the "it", and not within the 1st person.
The question is what exactly happened (beyond having been presented the evidence) when the patient saw through the delusion of being a grain of corn? And why does the chicken-delusion continue despite him possessing evidence that should destroy this delusion?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 6, 2013 12:32:54 GMT -5
Suppose an individual has successfully deceived himself. This would mean that is he unable to genuinely believe that he has deceived himself. He can only pretend that he believes that he has deceived himself. I question what it means to 'successfully deceive oneself'. You presuppose a process by which that can actually happen, while I contend that it never actually happens, and is merely a pretense. If self deception were actually successful, then the resistance attendant to denial would never happen. The resistance occurs because one has not been successful. It doesn't have to actually be outside of one's control, it just needs to be accepted/pretended that it is. That's right. Nobody can say 'I am deceiving myself' or 'I am thinking/acting unconsciously'. Likewise, nobody can be aware of being in denial or projecting onto another without those processes collapse with that realization, at least in a given case. Such evidence cannot destroy a self deception. Evidence is obviously irrelevant in the case of self deception. The truth of the matter is already known or there would be no need for the deception in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Sept 6, 2013 13:30:38 GMT -5
It doesn't have to actually be outside of one's control, it just needs to be accepted/pretended that it is. Then pretending is effectively the same as deceiving oneself and effectively the same as being unconscious. You're just moving the problem a bit further without solving it. We can say that the evidence shown was that the patient was pretending to be a grain of corn despite knowing that he is a man. So, according to you, what happened on that couch, what did the psychoanalyst do?
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Sept 6, 2013 13:31:02 GMT -5
Again, the problem remains, you merely changed the wording. The question also still remains. How to stop the pretense?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 6, 2013 14:33:48 GMT -5
The OP is just the liars paradox all dressed up with nowhere to go.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Sept 6, 2013 14:51:41 GMT -5
The OP is just the liars paradox all dressed up with nowhere to go. Nope. The liar paradox is operative in E's narrative, that's why I'm opposing it. Delusion, illusion, some sort of self-deception is obviously happening, but in such a way that it avoids the liar paradox, which is only possible if indeed the unconscious (or something equivalent to it) is operative. The OP is about how self-deception happens without resulting in the liar paradox, as such it's the starting point and the only way to go.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 6, 2013 14:55:55 GMT -5
The OP is just the liars paradox all dressed up with nowhere to go. Nope. The liar paradox is operative in E's narrative, that's why I'm opposing it. Delusion, illusion, some sort of self-deception is obviously happening, but in such a way that it avoids the liar paradox, which is only possible if indeed the unconscious (or something equivalent to it) is operative. The OP is about how self-deception happens without resulting in the liar paradox, as such it's the starting point and the only way to go. The only way to avoid the liars paradox is to deceive yourself into taking the signifier for the signified, which is to say, there is no avoiding it short of remaining silent.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Sept 6, 2013 15:14:46 GMT -5
Nope. The liar paradox is operative in E's narrative, that's why I'm opposing it. Delusion, illusion, some sort of self-deception is obviously happening, but in such a way that it avoids the liar paradox, which is only possible if indeed the unconscious (or something equivalent to it) is operative. The OP is about how self-deception happens without resulting in the liar paradox, as such it's the starting point and the only way to go. The only way to avoid the liars paradox is to deceive yourself into taking the signifier for the signified, which is to say, there is no avoiding it short of remaining silent. Nonsense. It's easily possible to talk without believing that words are the real thing. Please don't troll in my thread.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 6, 2013 15:17:18 GMT -5
The only way to avoid the liars paradox is to deceive yourself into taking the signifier for the signified, which is to say, there is no avoiding it short of remaining silent. Nonsense. It's easily possible to talk without believing that words are the real thing.Please don't troll in my thread. Yes, I agree that it's easily possible to talk, but what are we talking about?
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Sept 6, 2013 15:25:05 GMT -5
Nonsense. It's easily possible to talk without believing that words are the real thing.Please don't troll in my thread. Yes, I agree that it's easily possible to talk, but what are we talking about? Ideas. Now stop trolling and either get back on topic or leave.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 6, 2013 16:09:06 GMT -5
It doesn't have to actually be outside of one's control, it just needs to be accepted/pretended that it is. Then pretending is effectively the same as deceiving oneself and effectively the same as being unconscious. You're just moving the problem a bit further without solving it. Right, we're still defining the problem and working toward agreement on that. Once we understand the problem, then we'll see if there's a solution. Yes, though pretending, as I'm using it in this discussion, isn't quite the same as, say, pretending to be a character in a play. It's not a great word here but is essentially accurate. I don't really have any way of knowing. It's all hypothetical to me, but I can guess that the patient was pretending to see the truth of the matter from within his pretense of being a corn kernel. The two stories came into conflict when the thought of the chicken arose.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 6, 2013 16:16:33 GMT -5
Again, the problem remains, you merely changed the wording. The question also still remains. How to stop the pretense? Yes, the 'problem' remains. I'm not just changing the wording, I'm clarifying the 'problem'. What I've been telling you is that there is no solution. You've been insisting there is. However, once the problem is seen for what it is, the problem itself dissolves. How can it be a problem for you that you purposely deceive yourself? If you don't want to do that, then you will simply stop doing it. Searching for a solution to the problem is just an attempt to perpetuate an imaginary problem while pretending to seek a solution.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 6, 2013 16:16:54 GMT -5
Yes, I agree that it's easily possible to talk, but what are we talking about? Ideas. Now stop trolling and either get back on topic or leave. How's it trollin' ?? Sorry man ... short-circuting a conversation ain't the same as derailing it, and the only way that I could possibly have attacked you is if you're identified with the ideas. As for psychoanalysis, ain't got no experience nor acquaintance with it ... yer crazy, belief-swappin' chicken-dude just seems all funny to me! ... well, in a korny sorta' way that is ...
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Sept 6, 2013 16:20:52 GMT -5
Suppose an individual has successfully deceived himself. This would mean that is he unable to genuinely believe that he has deceived himself. He can only pretend that he believes that he has deceived himself. For the deception to be effective, that about which the individual has deceived himself must remain outside his control. It must thus be repressed (given that it has once been consciously available to him). Then being self-deceived is effectively the same as being unconscious, given that the unconscious is the realm of repressed information. I claim that nobody is able to genuinely claim to believe to be self-deceived. If there is deception in the 1st person, then it can't be seen from the 1st person perspective. Instead the deceptions we observe are always already objectivized, these deceptions are divorced from 1st person, stuff like optical illusions, other people's lies, tricks that the mind plays on us - but these are all things that ae being experienced as "happening to" the 1st person, the 1st person doesn't experience itself as being responsible for these deceptions. The moment the 1st person feels like it is responsible for a deception is the moment when the deception effectively ceases to be one. That's why Freud said that the goal of psychoanalytic treatment is "Where It was I shall be." ("Wo Es war, soll Ich werden") Being identified with a grain of corn is what happened to the patient from the place of the "it", he couldn't help it, prior to psychoanalytic treatment he would have said that him being a grain of corn is how things really are (within the place of "it"). With psychoanalytic treatment he recognized that it's not at all how things are and that the delusion must have come from himself. In the same way the chicken wanting to eat him is (in the patient's experience) located within the "it", and not within the 1st person. The question is what exactly happened (beyond having been presented the evidence) when the patient saw through the delusion of being a grain of corn? And why does the chicken-delusion continue despite him possessing evidence that should destroy this delusion? Well one well know teacher said it all with 2 words..Divine Hypnosis there you go.. Nowhereman
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 6, 2013 16:41:25 GMT -5
The OP is just the liars paradox all dressed up with nowhere to go. Nope. The liar paradox is operative in E's narrative, that's why I'm opposing it. Delusion, illusion, some sort of self-deception is obviously happening, but in such a way that it avoids the liar paradox, which is only possible if indeed the unconscious (or something equivalent to it) is operative. The OP is about how self-deception happens without resulting in the liar paradox, as such it's the starting point and the only way to go. There's no paradox, but there is an interesting mental function involved. It's the same function that allows us to ride a bike, talk or walk without having to attend to every muscular movement, which would be tedious and cumbersome. In these applications, the actions don't happen without mind's full awareness and consent. One doesn't just unknowingly get up from the couch and spontaneously walk across the room. Mind is always in control of these functions, it just doesn't micro-manage the minute details. When this function is employed as a pretense to not know what one clearly does know, we call it self deception. As with walking, the mind has not lost control of the process, it simply selectively attends to what it wants to be so, and ignores the rest. In order for mind to know what to ignore, it has to know all about it to begin with. What results is the appearance of a multi-leveled mind in which there are little unconscious cubby holes where information can be hidden from view, but this is just a story to support the self deception process. Mind remains whole, and the level distinctions are really distinctions of process. One can attend to sensory input, or feelings, or recall memory, or imagine, or pretend to not know what it actually knows.
|
|