In the book How Real Is Real? by Paul Watzlawick, the author states that "the most dangerous of all self-deception is the belief that there is only one reality; more likely there are countless conceptions of reality, which can be contradictory, which are the result of communication not the reflection of everlasting, objective truth."
As the author himself writes, his books wants to show that the unsteady framework of our perception of reality in the proper meaning of the word is delusional, that we are busy with the perpetual patching and propping up of that frame even in spite of running into the danger of distorting facts to fit into our conception of reality rather than aligning our world view to those undeniable facts.
Derren Brown
Moderator: Moderators
How Real is Real?
If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you always got.
Re: How Real is Real?
How much do you believe Paul Watzlawick?? Can you blindly follow Paul Watzlawick and be certain that where he leads you is where you want to go?? How much do you trust him?? How much faith do you have in him??Yothu wrote:In the book How Real Is Real? by Paul Watzlawick, the author states that "the most dangerous of all self-deception is the belief that there is only one reality; more likely there are countless conceptions of reality, which can be contradictory, which are the result of communication not the reflection of everlasting, objective truth."
As the author himself writes, his books wants to show that the unsteady framework of our perception of reality in the proper meaning of the word is delusional, that we are busy with the perpetual patching and propping up of that frame even in spite of running into the danger of distorting facts to fit into our conception of reality rather than aligning our world view to those undeniable facts.
Can you really answer all these questions with a resounding positivistic "Yes" and "Absolutely"?? If so, then we have something to talk about. If not, you are still dangling and deceiding which way to go.
What Paul Watzlawick does, by describing the fact that there is only a delusional reality, is describing reality. Paradoxically he believes in the reality that there are millions of illusionairy realities, but then again, his very believe is also a delusion. It is the same like saying: "All sentences are untrue." But then what about the sentence that proclaims all sentences' untrueness?? Ofcourse, this is all unsensical talk about something we both know nothing about.
But, and this Paul Watzlawick even can't deny, what about a foetus?? It hasn't communicated yet, yet it senses things. Are these things then illusionary or reality?? The point is, when you don't have a mind, you can't communicate and, according to Paul himself, illusions can't manifest then. THAT is why the whole emphasis of mystics (ie: enlightened ones) is to have a no-mind, to stop talking inside so that no illusions can manifest. Ofcourse, Paul will probably argue that when an adult enters no-mind communication has already occured and the illusionary reality is already constructed. Effectivly saying that the illusionary reality is something you take with you when you enter no-mind, that it continues even in no-mind. If that would be Paul's argument, or if it is yours, then go into no-mind and FIND OUT!!
*edit*
One more thing though, if you really believe Paul Wat-his-name, that your vision of the world is illusionary, that my vision is, that everyones vision is, which would include the precious Thiaooubans, that the whole world is illusionary, that everything is fake, that all is fake, why continue?? Why don't you commit suicide then?? Why live life if it is fake?? Why live if you only can get fake things?? Do you know why I think you are still alive?? Because when you were a foetus, you were in reality, and it was splendid, pure joy. Your whole search, and mine too, everybodies actually, is for that same pure joy you had when you didn't have a mind, when you were still pure.
Don't read my signature.
One cannot not communicate.
"One cannot not communicate." Paul Watzlawick
(my emphasis)
Compare conception of reality with society. More precisely values of society that it dictates upon individuals. In order to understand clearly what I mean: How often have you done things, you'd only do because there is somebody expecting you to do it? Or, how often have you done something you actually did not want to, but had to; maybe to conform and fit into society. Example: You go into a shop and pay your food that you buy with paper money.
You get me.
There are of course other expectations and values of society which appreciates, some obvious, some more subtle. The above example is something society obviously appreciates. Another thing society appreciates is creative thought in a certain frame. Not too much of a dissent, but provoking. If you were a filmmaker for example, a film about a life of a woman in the brothel milieu would be provoking, a film about the brothel milieu in a jewish ghetto an absolute taboo.
We as individuals tend to conform with society more or less, simply because we want to live in it. If you do not wish or are not able to conform you might leave and live in solitude or end up being deported.
I think there is an enormous pressure a society can exercise on its individuals, simply because so many (blindly) agree with its dictate. This set of values and expectations though is very fragile. It is only maintained by the participants of a certain society and by means of technology which is at its leaders disposal (means of mass communication). In western industrialized countries I believe it is relatively easy to guide such "core program of values and expectations of society towards the individual" through means of television, radio, literature, internet etc., generally speaking through our modern forms (not only but also) of communication. To me it appears this concept is a very fragile construct which many people upraise to their life philosophy.
Same goes with conception of reality. A shift in it cannot be told through words, but occurs in consciousness. That is how I understand Paul Watzlawick's statement: "the most dangerous of all self-deception is the belief that there is only one reality; more likely there are countless conceptions of reality, which can be contradictory, which are the result of communication not the reflection of everlasting, objective truth."
Taken further, this means to me that as soon as a human entity enters this material world of ours the local conditions of it take affect on this entity. Which means it "enters" a state of communication, better say "enters ~another~ mode of communication", with this world - and thus starts beginning to build its mind. I do not know how it's with you guys, but talking about a state of "no-mind" is just as good as talking about fiction or the time when Nothing existed. Relatively difficult (and, allow me to say that, I personally regard it as impossible and thus completely irrelevant).
(my emphasis)
Compare conception of reality with society. More precisely values of society that it dictates upon individuals. In order to understand clearly what I mean: How often have you done things, you'd only do because there is somebody expecting you to do it? Or, how often have you done something you actually did not want to, but had to; maybe to conform and fit into society. Example: You go into a shop and pay your food that you buy with paper money.
You get me.
There are of course other expectations and values of society which appreciates, some obvious, some more subtle. The above example is something society obviously appreciates. Another thing society appreciates is creative thought in a certain frame. Not too much of a dissent, but provoking. If you were a filmmaker for example, a film about a life of a woman in the brothel milieu would be provoking, a film about the brothel milieu in a jewish ghetto an absolute taboo.
We as individuals tend to conform with society more or less, simply because we want to live in it. If you do not wish or are not able to conform you might leave and live in solitude or end up being deported.
I think there is an enormous pressure a society can exercise on its individuals, simply because so many (blindly) agree with its dictate. This set of values and expectations though is very fragile. It is only maintained by the participants of a certain society and by means of technology which is at its leaders disposal (means of mass communication). In western industrialized countries I believe it is relatively easy to guide such "core program of values and expectations of society towards the individual" through means of television, radio, literature, internet etc., generally speaking through our modern forms (not only but also) of communication. To me it appears this concept is a very fragile construct which many people upraise to their life philosophy.
Same goes with conception of reality. A shift in it cannot be told through words, but occurs in consciousness. That is how I understand Paul Watzlawick's statement: "the most dangerous of all self-deception is the belief that there is only one reality; more likely there are countless conceptions of reality, which can be contradictory, which are the result of communication not the reflection of everlasting, objective truth."
Taken further, this means to me that as soon as a human entity enters this material world of ours the local conditions of it take affect on this entity. Which means it "enters" a state of communication, better say "enters ~another~ mode of communication", with this world - and thus starts beginning to build its mind. I do not know how it's with you guys, but talking about a state of "no-mind" is just as good as talking about fiction or the time when Nothing existed. Relatively difficult (and, allow me to say that, I personally regard it as impossible and thus completely irrelevant).
If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you always got.
Re: One cannot not communicate.
Yothu wrote: We as individuals tend to conform with society more or less, simply because we want to live in it.
Sad! But true...most of my life I've always felt [that I don't belong] to this society, always puzzled with the behavour of us humans, on one side of a street you have big mansions and the other side, government housing (for the poor). There are many conditions that puzzle me.
Yes, behave like sheep or ship out, I would like to move to the country ( I'm working on it ) otherwise, please deport me too another planet.Yothu wrote:If you do not wish or are not able to conform you might leave and live in solitude or end up being deported.
I've taken this out of context, But I have worked in this area as an extra and all those misled sheep, who live their entire life in front of the i.diot box ( TV ), should, go work in this area and see their delusion shattered.Yothu wrote: If you were a filmmaker