by cyberjesus 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Here on this discussion board, it is designed for discussion of beliefs systems, especially the jw.
However, in everday, person to person life, it has been a different story. As more time has passed, since my leaving my previous belief systems, i have cut back drastically on attacking peoples' belief systems. It just seemed like an uncool thing to do. The time that passes, the uncooler it seems. As the saying goes, there is a time and place fore everything, i suppose.
S
Actually that also brings up the issue of distinguishing between the person or at least a self and their belief sytem. Since people can change their beliefs, obviously there is someone there besides their beliefs no matter how firmly held it is. There are a ton of details you can talk about but frankly discussion around teachings and doctrines feels rather like a "brute force" kind of approach and seems to subscribe to a belief in a quantitative approach where you (sometimes literally) exahaustively approach every single thing there is.
A psychological approach, on the other hand is like recognizing that there is such a thing as firmware for your computer which works on a deeper, more fundamental level than even the operating system. The nice thing about people is that even when the existing OS is still running it is possible to point to how the Basic Input/Output System is functioning, so to speak, and that one can actually reprogram that. It actually ends up being a lot easier to deal with than all the code of the belief system, although you do have to look at things in terms of that basic process.
Peter Gregerson says this ... doctrinal belief are like branches on the tree with the trunk being the Governing body...
You may successfully rip off a branch (doctrinal point ) but if the trunk remains (GB God's chosen dispenser of knowledge and obedience )
the battle for the mind being convinced is still lost !!!
Doubt creates free thinking...Satan knew that !
Non - threating questions rather than defiant statements make people think and arrive at their own conclusion
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE ..would dictate finding a new electrical path into the subconscious mind !!
New perspective only comes with" inward desire" for such .
There's also a big difference between a fairly neutral belief about turning some knobs and ones religious identity, which is pretty much an existential issue
Fight or flight is our build- in emotional protection for ones core beliefs and reason for living.
When tone of voice (anger ) (a red neck )visual.. or flight .. literally excusing themselves.. these are cues to listen to
Cognitive Dissonance appears on everyday situations, even between couples.
The first sentence of the Wikipedia entry says: "Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously." Strictly speaking, holding and even entertaining them is not a problem unless you actually believe in the ideas to some extent. After all, you don't have to have anything invested in an idea just to think about it, and you can understand that if someone believed this or that then such and such would follow without having it be your belief. But as CJ points to, it really ends up being cognitive dissonance for both parties if it's some tug of war thing. The process is not just in one brain, but it becomes a negotiative process between the individuals involved, both trying to come to some balance when none of it needs to be identified with in the first place.
This is why it's funny to see people repeatedly make the obligatory "I agree," "I disagree" or "everyone is entitled to their belief" comments, where they don't actually looking at what the ideas say. The first two is only a statement of position, and often we see those responses (which might start with such a proclaimation) say pretty much nothing about the original message, and likewise the third is a kind of conversation stopper. I say if all people wants to do is to put their ideas out there to the world, repeatedly, over and over... sure, go right ahead - but if you're not actually interested in discussing anything it might as well be a kind of natural automatic disfellowshipping right there. Why should anyone acknowledge you in any way when you are really not interested in acknowledging what they have to say in any meaningful way? Oh yes, we can also continually repeat "well that's your opinion and I have mine" but what is the point of even saying it after a while? Just to project some sense of how civil you are? The natural outcome of this would seem to be that one starts to resemble an automated process, little more than a chat bot if you will.
Or to put it another way, if the unexamined life is not worth living, as Socrates said, then is the unexamined mind worth talking to?
Mark: Thats why I save my cognitive dissonance to use it when I balance my check book :-)
Lets just agree to not agree ok? CUZ I CANT HANDLE LOGIC!
