Deepest fear, my centipede of destruction.

[INTPWolf]

During a deep moment of introspection i realized my deepest fear, a fear so deep rooted in who i am as an intp. Something that i have unintentionally used as a tool to filter whether information from the outside world is reliable enough to add to my directory of understanding. I laughed at my self a little when i realized it.

Can a dangerous idea destroy rational thought?

And is this its self a dangerous idea?


To reference ideas derived from Plato's Cave.
We know that we do not know everything. True reality is probably something right in between the differences in human perception, and one mans perceived "real" is only one facet of true, or at least the truest that humans will ever be capable of perceiving.
Meaning that "rational" is at its best still influenced by our irrational deviation from true objective truth.
Knowing this.
Is there an idea, fact or paradoxical logic that once we try to rationalize it, causes a total breakdown of our rational view of real on a large and small scale?

How would you know if your rational thought was already afflicted by one of these ideas? How about society as a whole? Has some spoken or unspoken idea persisted and permeated through social exchanges throughout the ages and now distorts our limited view of reality? ( other than religion, we all know about that one. Immune system currently engaged )

And does the very idea, when observed, become a self fulfilling paradox that causes us to scrutinize incoming information with an edge of humanisticaly-erred rational skepticism that it then becomes dangerous to rational progression?

My rational nature can wrestle with this thing all day using logical examples and only ends up with irrational answers

For some odd reason i picture the whole idea as a monstrous centipede, something rationally irrational. A little like Roko's Basilisk, but not yet fully developed.

 

[nanook]

its better to not narrow down the nature of introversion like that, like a caricature, because then its too easy to ridicule it.

introversion, applied to thought, selects ways of thought that suit the subject's development well and also, in consequence, actions that suit at least this aspect of the subject, i.e. thought, well.

i would also assume it's the deepest unique desire, not the deepest anxiety, because anxieties goes back to reptile brain stem and such, which are lower in the holarchic chain. the meaning of the word deep is ambiguous though. we may say that a holarchically higher desire or relative fear is more comprehensive and thus deep.

anyhow, extroversion, the attempt to wrap intelligence around each and every situation of the environment at all times, can without a doubt harm the development of the subject. terribly.

introversion does not only avoid unexpected overwhelm, "omg, thought viruses!", it has quite specific ideas about its capabilities or boundaries, the structure that it protects. its not like a person who doesn't dare to switch on a computer because they read articles about hackers.

but then again a total lack of adaptation to exterior or situative challenges (=extroversion) might get you killed on the spot.

so if we express it in terms of desire, then clearly we desire the balance of intro and extroversion that works best for our neurology. if we express it in terms of fear, then i guess we ought to fear too little intro or too little extroversion.

but fear has never helped development. in general. like fear of making mistakes stunts creative play, trial and error. in that sense fear is a terribly irrational advisor, because we ought to, theoretically, fear too litte intro or extroversion, but we also ought to fear too much fear. so better side with desire.

i desire maximum introversion, but i also desire more extroversion.

any conflict of these desires is not a general conflict, its unique to every situation and sorts itself out based on my neurological reality at the time. so its not something that needs regulation by a general attitude.

 

[Jennywocky]

Reminds me of this a bit, a copy of which I've had hanging since forever on my cube wall at work:

I don't think we have a "direct" way to know, it usually just comes down to functioning on a holistic level. When something continues to function in a way that satisfies intent and need, we tend to accept it as at least sufficient if not ideal; when things break down and cannot function, we seek a solution.

For example, when our car doesn't do what we've come to expect it to do (e.g., start when we turn the key), we don't necessarily know what is wrong, but we take it to a mechanic. Sometimes a problem is common enough that it can become expected at a certain age in the car's life, or whatever -- so it gets integrated into our body of knowledge. But basically we can't perceive the answer from our vantage point, we just know there is a problem because something has changed and the car is not functioning "as cars are supposed to."

This typically works for other things as well... either something loses its internal coherency or functions contradictory to our current understanding, and THAT is when we think there is a problem and try to investigate further.

But what of "Matrix" thought, where everything seems to be functioning, inconsistencies can be explained away somehow (or do not break the perceptive framework irrevocably). How would we know? ANother question, though, could also be, why would we care?

If the world is actually on the back of a giant tortoise, and that knowledge has no measurable impact on our lives and/or doesn't change anything -- if "Functional" perceivable reality is what governs our experienced lives -- then we can ask the question of, "Does the 'truth' here really matter in terms of how we live and understand our world?" or what about the obsession over something that could never be tested or proved, that meanwhile distracts from functioning well in your current life...? Does it matter?

That is an interesting question to me.

 

[TBerg]

Jordan Peterson used Nietzsche to describe the current state of the Western World. Nietzsche, according to him, prophesied that as a result of murdering God in our minds and spirits, it left us vulnerable to the second highest force in human affairs, that of the most beautiful and highest of God's angels, Lucifer himself.

Lucifer literally means "bringer of light," coinciding with the advent of the Enlightenment ideas that dethroned God in our eyes. Nietzsche said that the death of God meant that we would use our rational faculties to discover the lower truths of rationalism and nihilism, according to Peterson. That was a striking prediction of our current state of affairs, which have us enthralled by either rational ideology or absolute despair or lack of integrity, both of which are forms of nihilism.

In his work, Carl Jung sought to integrate our profoundly ancient past with our profoundly Luciferian methods of today. He looked to ancient myths and ancient forms of art to uncover deeper forms of meaning that go beyond the mere surface. Jesus may not have literally died for our sins, but the myth embodied the recognition that the most heroic figure was able to overcome suffering by the embrace of the suffering that life entails. The Buddha taught a strikingly similar message, but with more sophisticated language and forms of discourse.

We may say that we have learned better, but it would be quite petulant of us to totally discard certain traditions without having had first investigated them to see what exact value they add to the lives of those they inspired. Thus it becomes incumbent upon us to see whether a true embrace of the true tragedy and meaning of everyday life would render us stronger if we were capable of handling such a brutal reality or whether we wish to continue to rationalize our problems away.

 

[Cognisant]

How could there ever be a reason to forgo reason?

 

[QuickTwist]

How could there ever be a reason to forgo reason?

Sometimes emotions can tell us things that reasoning can't.

 

[Cognisant]

TBerg the pursuit of a rational ideology, despair and a lack of integrity are all symptomatic of people losing their faith, like a slave kicked out of their master's house they don’t know where to go or what to do, they don’t know how to think for themselves.

When all faith is lost and the impossibility of inherent meaning is finally realized there comes a desire to assert oneself, not to dominate but rather to possess the power to be indomiable, Nietzsche's will to power.

 

[Cognisant]

Sometimes emotions can tell us things that reasoning can't.

Such as?

 

[QuickTwist]

Such as?

Danger, non-danger, gratitude, everything is alright.

You can do these things with rational, but they take way too much time. Emotions are very very fast and can tell you things very very fast. For example, how long would it take to be able to figure out someone is cheating you out of money via phone call using only deduction? Quite a while. What would happen if you take emotions into account? You could just "feel" something was off and that would save you a lot of time.

But, tbh, its really all just woven together. We don't really operate without one or the other. My point is that emotions are just as valuable as reason and that they have a purpose that is oft undervalued.

 

[TBerg]

That is true, Cog. The only thing is that there are many who believe that the will to power, rather than mere survival itself, can be manifested through the diligence to follow the examples of our meta-heroes, as told by the traditions of billions of people. There is a way through without making all of our stories profane.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Well, I'm convinced by your OP that it exists.

How could there ever be a reason to forgo reason?

Internal contradictions of the system. If reason implies not reason by its own system of reason, then not reason is the answer.

 

[QuickTwist]

its better to not narrow down the nature of introversion like that, like a caricature, because then its too easy to ridicule it.

Funny, I would think making fun of the fear would be a perfect remedy.

 

[Black Rose]

Is there a blind spot that keeps rationality from finding out if rationality can find that very blind spot?

That is the solution in the paradox.

Last night I had a dream. I experienced a higher reality but then I forgot the dream.

So I know that I can't get there from here with my limited mind at the moment.

But I was there so there must be a way. And it is not rational.

It just happened to me as a vision. Psychedelic.

This happened after I realized I have ADD.

The mechanism of irrational thought has to do with being stuck and how to release it.

My brain feels stuck all the time. When it opens it feels wonderful.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Is there a blind spot that keeps rationality from finding out if rationality can find that very blind spot?

We all have a blindspot, which is our very own self.

(I don't quite know what that means, but it's supposed to be deep)

It just happened to me as a vision.

Have you read the Bhagavad Gita? Arjuna realises he must fight only after a vision from Krishna; no amount of rational discourse could convince him.

Last night I had a dream. I experienced a higher reality but then I forgot the dream.

Some say we communicate with each other through dreams - the experience occurs not just within our heads, but in a whole nother realm.

The mechanism of irrational thought has to do with being stuck and how to release it.

Hmm, I'd like to learn more about this.

My brain feels stuck all the time. When it opens it feels wonderful.

I don't know that my mind feels stuck per se, but my life does... it seems bland and directionless, but I know there is something hidden waiting to be unleashed.

 

[INTPWolf]

I feel im a bit of a crossroad here inside a maze of opened doors and closed rooms, attempting to solve all the puzzles in the room to open as many doors as i can. im looking back through all these paths my thoughts have took, i have left many open doors, all the unanswered what ifs that ive ever thought while discovering and observing the world in order to form my perspective. I often don't like closing doors unless i have a fact that proves them totally implausible and less likely to lead dark rooms and more implausible doors. And Fe, its like an energy source and spider senses at the same time, but not nearly as accurate or useful, i have followed its advice before and the outcome has been either enjoyable, or highly regrettable. So i have always preferred to think about things before acting, however i rarely harness my energy to act and learn by just doing. Doing more with what i have learned along the way, not just using what i know to open more doors of what if. Although i feel i dont have enough energy to do without utilizing my emotions.

So here i stand, in a room with only two doors, all the other doors lead here, and all those puzzles in subsequent rooms have all suggested that this is where the most interesting and true puzzle was. The puzzle is only the path that i choose; Do i harness my emotional energy, to trust myself to act on everything i have learned so far and the outcome would be beneficial for my life, experiencing both the good and the bad of that.

But i did follow my senses and explored rooms dark with irrational ideas and it led me to my fear, and the answer is complex and simple, its like a sphinx's riddle. Can an idea destroy the truth of your perspective?


If the answer is no, then why would i not trust my little Fe? Let it help me power my interests and give me the energy to do something.

And in the case of no being the truth, but believing the answer is yes, means to limit to potential perspectives i could have explored. My belief makes the answer true as it has become that dangerous thought.

If yes, Or do i continue my search of doors until i find something truly worth doing. that is far more interesting than those in the past, save my energy for then. Its tempting, and paradoxical, i do more research to find something great worth pursuing in life, channel my energy to finding it, i think just behind this door is a rare great ingredient i can use to formulate a wonderful idea.

But if yes is the truth and i believe the answer to be no, i could end up with no energy, i might find a topic boring leaving it undone all the while trusting my emotions on the path to the next project like i always have and then i might be stuck in limbo of never getting a worthwhile idea finished and polished in the long run.

Even the path of Ti takes more words to describe, words being the basis of complexity. But i don't have time to explain why i make that comparison.

Or i could decide not to answer the question and just leave it as it is and put it out of my mind.

This is where i am in thought.

 

[Black Rose]

With enough energy, you can do anything. You should increase it as much as possible. Take a rest, watch fun videos online and do fun things. Never stop thinking.

 

[Hadoblado]

If you don't believe anything, you can't be wrong.

I guess you basically just need to question your assumptions? But also, realise that it's okay if you're wrong about some things. The chances that you are wrong about something are pretty damn close to 100%, all you can do is try to reduce the amount of stuff you're wrong about (and it should go without saying, increase the amount of stuff you're right about).

If you are infected with an idea that would make you systematically wrong about everything you perceive, then maybe you should start by identifying exactly what your beliefs are? This can be at a rational level, but there are other levels of belief. One component of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is the identification of irrational beliefs. Beliefs that, without you even knowing you have them, can influence your cognitions, emotions, and behaviour. Basically it's like that 'why?' game that everyone played as a kid, except you have to answer and the direction is always in an extremely personal direction.

If you can identify your beliefs, you can start to think about ways in which they can be wrong, and then make a more directed effort towards testing these beliefs. Religion is easy beans, so is political ideology. CBT focuses on beliefs that come about as the result of mental health issues. It's not uncommon for a depressed person to think of themselves as less than they actually are, or for a paranoid person to think the world is out to get them.

 

[INTPWolf]

It is like the answer to to the question " is willpower a finite resource? "
If you believe the answer is yes, then it is finite.
If you believe the answer is no, then it is not bound to quantity.
http://nautil.us/issue/45/power/against-willpower

So the question is not so much black or white true or false, it is whatever i chose to believe the answer is.
I arrived in my position by rationally exploring my deeper processes in an introspective way and asking why.

Funny, I would think making fun of the fear would be a perfect remedy.

And i have found that the simple act of recognizing this process has freed me to recognize the dogma it represents. Its like knowing you are afraid of the dark, do you continue to fear the dark and stay safe? or do you reject the fear and face it by turning the lights off to prove you will be fine and in that way overcome it?

 

[Cognisant]

If you believe the answer is no, then it is not bound to quantity.

The mind isn't independent of the body, everyone has a breaking point, you might like to think you can stand firm in front of an Active Denial System but the fact is your nervous system can override the neocortex, you don't get a choice in the matter.

Internal contradictions of the system. If reason implies not reason by its own system of reason, then not reason is the answer.

That's just it though a reason for something irrational would be itself irrational and therefore not reason, you can't have a fact proving something false to be true because it wouldn't be factual.

You can't mathematically prove mathematics incorrect because your example would always be mathematically incorrect.

That is true, Cog. The only thing is that there are many who believe that the will to power, rather than mere survival itself, can be manifested through the diligence to follow the examples of our meta-heroes, as told by the traditions of billions of people. There is a way through without making all of our stories profane.

What utter nonsense the stories were always profane, I didn't write them, all I'm doing is stripping them of sanctity so the ugliness is plain to see.

 

[0neKiwi]

You can't mathematically prove mathematics incorrect because your example would always be mathematically incorrect.

Instead, you could have it be a new field... like how wave-particle duality was inconceivable in physics, but "created" the new field quantum mechanics. So something that is mathematically incorrect (probably) can be proven with other rules based on some certain category. (Not sure that category exists though).

//As for the facets of reality, I think of it as a statistical distribution. We have more than 7 billion people: 7 billion data points. We might have some outlier, but the outlier must be significant enough that it affects the rest of society. This has happened in history, but it's not that common. Maybe 7 billion data points isn't enough for the "true" reality(true mean) we should perceive.//

 

[Cognisant]

Instead, you could have it be a new field... like how wave-particle duality was inconceivable in physics, but "created" the new field quantum mechanics.

This didn't prove any mathematics wrong but rather the assumptions upon which the mathematical models were based, it's possible to model countless different universes which may well all exist in the multiverse but the exact nature of this universe is still unknown and our current models are based upon a lot of assumptions.

Coming up with new assumptions that fit the existing data is the field of theoretical physics and it's ever growing.

 

[INTPWolf]

Instead, you could have it be a new field... like how wave-particle duality was inconceivable in physics, but "created" the new field quantum mechanics. So something that is mathematically incorrect (probably) can be proven with other rules based on some certain category. (Not sure that category exists though).

Much like we can use mathematics to predict and explain chemical reactions, even though mathematics only works with previously known and documented chemical reactions. It is using a rational to predict the path of possibility on an unfinished map. [BIMG]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/36/c6/c2/36c6c292791274161a1fefdeeb7cf45b.jpg[/BIMG]
(this image may be incomplete, but it is a good example)
This is the map for Benzene, everything we know about it. The math can predict the path on the map reactions will take, but until we expand the map our mathematical ability is limited to it.
Beyond that the math is all theoretical.

The structure of Benzene was originally discovered in an irrational way.
August Kekulé had a daydream of a snake consuming its own tail, pairing it with his knowledge of chemistry, he concluded that Benzene was a ring of carbon.

//As for the facets of reality, I think of it as a statistical distribution. We have more than 7 billion people: 7 billion data points. We might have some outlier, but the outlier must be significant enough that it affects the rest of society. This has happened in history, but it's not that common. Maybe 7 billion data points isn't enough for the "true" reality(true mean) we should perceive.//

Yes but many of those people have the same general core beliefs perpetuated by social stigma and socio economics, and these core beliefs can either be further or closer to the truth. So in reality you can divide those 7 billion data points down to much more manageable numbers, and may still accurately represent the human race as a whole.
Then examine the outliers.

Then the tricky part would be to find the demographics with the most distorted view of reality, like perhaps the socio economic climate of the united states.

But that too might be wrong, the truth lost somewhere in the statistics, and in that case we would have to examine all opinions of all 7 billion data points.

This task is however impossible for any one human being. Because all of us are subject to core beliefs.

 

[Lazy Vulpes]

Consciousness and it's environment defines each other. The act of seeing/knowing is the sum total of both the world and you.

You are the universe, the universe are you.

You're trying to separate the notion of being and environment. While in fact, there is no this and that, it's all one thing.

There is a rationally irrational thought. That this can be defined without that.

There is no one thing. The closest concept you can come to a "one thing" is the primordial state of our existence were there were only one state, a point. Although, even in that kind of state, it's not a giant logical leap to assume that from a bigger perspective that state is defined by it's environment. (Like a fractal, where does it start, where does it end?)

So.. Because there is no one thing, you cannot know a thing. True knowing is to have the true definition of one thing, but since you are a product of the thing you wish to know, you can only approximate it.

 

[QuickTwist]

Consciousness and it's environment defines each other. The act of seeing/knowing is the sum total of both the world and you.

You are the universe, the universe are you.

You're trying to separate the notion of being and environment. While in fact, there is no this and that, it's all one thing.

There is a rationally irrational thought. That this can be defined without that.

There is no one thing. The closest concept you can come to a "one thing" is the primordial state of our existence were there were only one state, a point. Although, even in that kind of state, it's not a giant logical leap to assume that from a bigger perspective that state is defined by it's environment. (Like a fractal, where does it start, where does it end?)

So.. Because there is no one thing, you cannot know a thing. True knowing is to have the true definition of one thing, but since you are a product of the thing you wish to know, you can only approximate it.

Do you consider yourself religious?

Spoiler

ofc you don't, you're from Denmark

Seriously joking aside (hey, Christ) I think what you are describing is heaven AKA nirvana AKA on DMT or LSD... or... something.

 

[Lazy Vulpes]

Do you consider yourself religious?

Of course I don't, I'm from Denmark!

Seriously joking aside (hey, Christ) I think what you are describing is heaven AKA nirvana AKA on DMT or LSD... or... something.

I'm trying to describe you.

 

[QuickTwist]

I'm trying to describe you.

I'm a simple man. Shouldn't be too difficult.

Although, I do have difficulty describing how I am feeling emotionally a lot of the time.

 

[Lazy Vulpes]

I'm a simple man. Shouldn't be too difficult.

Although, I do have difficulty describing how I am feeling emotionally a lot of the time.

You're a simple man, but you question yourself too much.

 

[QuickTwist]

You're a simple man, but you question yourself too much.

Ah, I value different perspectives is all. (But don't tell the people here that)

 

[silikone]

Ah, Roko's basilisk, an immensely fascinating idea.
The concept of eternal suffering has terrified me since my early childhood, but I unfortunately deal with that by going deeper down the rabbit hole instead of living with ignorant bliss.

 

[QuickTwist]

I keep reading title as Symphony of Destruction:

https://youtu.be/K5jvUXij7nU