2008-06-06, by John Ringland
Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.
I have uncovered two fundamental misconceptions that are at the
core of the entire approach that I have taken oven the past 12 years.
(1) The most obvious of which is a subconscious assumption that
people are fundamentally rational truth seekers, that their
destructive behaviour is due solely to confusion and that insights
that untangle the knot of confusion would be gratefully received and
applied by people to reduce their suffering. This assumption is
patterned on the behaviour of my parents during my childhood.
(2) The other fundamental misconception was the subconscious
assumption that I myself am a rational truth seeker.
By playing the game of rational truth seeker I have encountered
many profound insights but these now cause me to see through the
entire game and to clearly see who the game player is and what their
true agenda is. The enquiry has delved deep into the core issues;
using systems thinking to reorient away from culturally clichéd
misconceptions and arriving at issues such as naïve
realism and ego
defense mechanisms. At this point it becomes clear that the
entity that is seeking is the ego and that the ego has extreme
difficulty in applying profound insights about the ego to itself. The
entire process in which the ego pretends to be a rational truth
seeker is an ego defense mechanism, hence the ego will play this game
whilst ever it suits the ego, but as soon as the enquiry starts to
undermine the position of the ego it will employ other defense
mechanisms to subtly but ruthlessly disrupt the process in order to
protect itself.
Another related misconception is about the nature of 'people'.
Insights gained through the game of rational truth seeking have
indicated that a 'person' is a socially constructed mythological
entity that exists within the collective discourse. Behind each
'person' there is a 'persona', which is a propaganda front erected
and maintained by an ego. The persona is a projection of how the ego
wishes to be perceived by others and the idea of 'person' is a
collective consensus to partake in the egos projected illusion and to
accept that illusion as the “whole being”. But the ego is in fact
an unconscious cognitive response mechanism that seeks only to
minimise pain and to maximise pleasure within the context of its own
distorted interpretations of things. It can be thought of as an
authoritarian memeplex that operates within the mind, which is the
cultural space of a cellular civilisation that the egoic regime calls
“its body”. Hence when 'I' talk to a 'person' this is analogous
to high level diplomatic communications between authoritarian
regimes, each of which is entirely entrenched within its own
propaganda discourse and seeking to further its own agenda.
Trying to talk to egoic regimes about the ego is like writing to a
social authoritarian regime explaining the intricacies of
authoritarianism and hoping that they will see the truth of it and
take measures to transition toward a less oppressive situation –
not likely! An egoic or social regime is impervious to direct reason
because they are not rational truth seekers, they only play this game
sometimes when it suits them. An entirely different approach is
required.
When a regime realises that it is an authoritarian regime and it
clearly identifies that its own authoritarianism is the cause of its
problems, such a regime would then attempt to put in place processes
that will help it transition toward a less authoritarian civilisation
(this has been the situation with my own ego). But being an
authoritarian regime it unwittingly uses authoritarian methods to
implement the process, hence although many useful insights may arise
the process is fundamentally ineffective. So what then? The regime
knows where it's at and where it wants to get to, but all of its
attempts at getting there have failed. What now?
The regime must take stock of all of the insights gained so far,
carefully distil them from the previous confused agenda and apply
them to itself in its current situation. These eventually lead it to
the realisation that it is not the primary entity in the situation.
When a regime fails in liberating “its body” then it must
re-imagine that body as a population of living individuals, which is
more accurate. To an egoic regime a cell is just a speck and so too,
to a social regime a 'citizen' is just a speck. But that is only from
their perspective. If a regime seriously desires to liberate “the
population” then it cannot force liberation upon them on its own
terms, it must defer to the people and encourage them to liberate
themselves. The regime must restrain itself to only providing what is
need in order to nourish the people's ability to liberate themselves.
This is where I am at right now, hence this egoic regime will consult
with 'its' people (the inner civilisation) through meditation and
will cease its futile attempts to reason with other regimes in
unstructured forums.
It is only within structured discourses that encourage the ego to
play the game of rational truth seeker that effective reasoning is
possible. Some core requirements for a rational discourse that come
to my mind are that all participants make a commitment to the
rational testing of ideas without personal attachment, to scepticism,
to mutual respect, to clear rational discourse and to a common
agreement to avoid disruptive ego defense mechanisms such as
cynicism, denial, personal attacks, etc. All participants in the
discourse must also commit to engage in a primary-discourse about the
subject at hand as well as a meta-discourse about the
primary-discourse. If any participant perceives that another
participant is engaging in cynicism or disruptive ego defense
mechanisms within the primary-discourse then it is their duty to
raise this in the meta-discourse where it can be clarified. If the
disruptions continue in the meta-discourse the disruptive participant
will be barred from the entire discourse until they calm down enough
to re-engage with it (or if the disruptions cannot be avoided then
the discourse must relocate to a more favourable forum). These are
core requirements but it is also desirable that people have some
understanding of what knowledge is (epistemology), what logic is,
what a rational argument is, what naïve realism is and also some
understanding of facts, evidence, proof, etc.
These core conditions will apply to all discourses that I host, which includes the comments section of this NCN blog. If commenting on other blogs I will participate
only so long as there is a reasonable attempt to remain rational and sceptical.
All my previous work will be left in place since, although it is
framed within an overall approach that is fundamentally misguided, it
nevertheless contains many profound insights that may be accessible
and useful to other egoic or social regimes that are seriously intent
upon playing the game of rational truth seeker. The work contains
crumbs that form a trail that may help others work towards the point
at which the rational truth seeker sees through themselves and the
game naturally terminates, leaving the ego looking into itself.
Best wishes :) John
Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.
|