We see what we want to see

[zenmaster]

Quote:You *can* know the limits of your knowledge.

I don't think you can. You can define the limits of the validity of your knowledge. By stating that all I know and accept as true comes through these and these sources, or everything that is repeated in three different sources, or everything that can be proven by the scientific method.

But you cannot know in many cases if something you suspect or feel is true is really true. So I must conclude that in most cases I don't know where my knowledge ends. I might know but I don't know that I know. What you speak of means you can state that some knowledge is true and be almost always right. But that is different.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Being aware of the limits of one's knowledge has nothing to do with veracity of knowledge at all, just whether or not one genuinely perceives relavent knowledge is held. I contend that it's always possible to be aware of that case. That awareness is not even a skill to be learned, unless you consider honesty a skill.

In the end even scientific knowledge is only true because we made agreements on our cut off point. In many cases we know much more but we just do not consider it reliable.

This is certainly true. However, the knowledge presented in a research paper demands a certain format, it has logical restrictions. In general discourse, presented knowledge simply demands support, without regard to the original contention, or any subsequent support offered, being actually true. So to reiterate, this has nothing to do with knowing some truth, but rather simply being able to genuinely "back up" a sincere contention. Being able to answer "why is that?", if asked, for example - but not necessarily being "correct" in the answer.

Also... on this forum there are people to whom communicating means different things. Some of us come here for the stimulating dialogs, some of us come here because it gives us support. Some of us came here because they feel they are wanderers. Some came to learn more about the Law of One.

There is certainly no judgement being made about particular motivations or purposes for participation.

Remember that the rule "Might is right" also applies to speech. Some people are mighty with words. Meaning they have a firm understanding of the rules of discourse and logic. Others are mighty with words meaning they have a firm understanding of a different level. For example the emotional. Some people are not mighty with words.

This is understood, but I'm not sure how writing ability, logic skills (thinking), or emotional skills (feeling), or anything that has to do with personality for that matter, can considered pertinent "agencies" for honesty about one's knowledge.

I believe in calibrating my vocabulary to those who I speak to. When in france I speak french. (I try to at least)

As do I.

And I reject the notion that there is a right way (or language) to communicate in.

Of course there isn't and this should be obvious.

I have seen however that many people are stuck on one specific way of communication and they blame others who fail to follow protocol. While if they themselves chose to communicate on a different level or along a different protocol, they would conclude those people to be very intelligent and insightful.

The individual mind has been uniquely developed in a way that tends to bias certain ways of relating what is known. One would be a sociopath not to understand that.

I personally am also comfortable on forums where the tone is downright hostile. I have fun there, sometimes I actually laugh at the names I'm called, they're an art form, I don't take it personal, and I enjoy the verbal jousts.

The more hostile, the less common ground potential really. But it tends to be fun if everyone is "in on the game".

The man with the fragile ego is arguably in the best position to improve his world views. A fragile ego will not be a strong one. And thus there will be a less focused tunnel vision. Allowing that individual to see a greater picture. Whereas a strong ego can quickly develop tunnel vision.

My understanding of "fragile ego" is that which is easily threatened and thus put on defense. I suppose the opposite to this syndrome would be humility. I think only if there is conscious awareness of the ego's defense, could there be learning opportunity. But the defense generally serves to protect from learning.

Seeing what we want to see is an ego function. Seeing only the issue at hand from one singular perspective is tunnel vision. Not understanding that there is another underlying reality which would fit the same sense data but disagrees with the ego's expectations is a version of tunnel vision.

Actually, to be clear "ego" just means "I". Today it popularly refers to rejected or identified roles of self. Any personal, subjective perception is technically an ego function.

I believe I understand the "tunnel vision" potential that we are subject to when attempting to interpret claims. In this area we presumably allow for the enevitable mishmash of different aspects and levels of reality and must forgive all manner of descriptions of that which is currently or ultimately ineffable in order to discover or to share a possible insight, feeling, inspiration, or reasoning. I think a good example of the need to examine things in a holistic manner is the subject of one of John Mack's presentations (a link to this video is provided in one of my post here).

Being right is tunnel vision when it restricts our ability to see alternatives. I agree that in some cases there really are no alternatives... You cannot argue with someone who holds the position that water is 30 degrees, he's either right or wrong. But often there are alternative positions. You can argue with someone who holds the position that that same water is cold. Especially when the subject is the spirit are an enormous amount of valid positions. You just cannot use the same rules.

Agreed.

The assumption that there is a right way to communicate, is basically a suggestion that everyone should communicate the same way. Others who cannot handle that level, or refuse to follow protocol are considered the problem. This is the ego projecting it's own responsibility outside of itself. The ego reality tunnel actually marks those people outside the tunnel as wrong.

There is no right or wrong way to communicate. There is obviously better or worse forms of communication for relating particular information. But that is not even at issue.

I basically attribute that insight to my time on bring4th. Honest to God I did that all the time. And I probably still do.

I have learned a few things about the dynamics of discussion in the past 30 years both running and participating in electronic forums, such as this one, as well. One thing I've learned is that you can always count on people to be only as honest with you as they can be with themselves.

Note that it's always guys just like us who get stuck in this particular reality tunnel.. Women are remarkably absent in that tunnel. (Different tunnels sure but not this one) It's always intelligent males intellectually leaning toward the harder sciences. But guys like us should realize our style of communication is only right for us, and even then only in our field of expertise.

Yes there are different purposes and styles of communication. I understand that much of it may not even be intended to convey new information of any type to another.

But there can be an intention behind the communication, irrespective of gender bias. If a reader misinterprets or does not sufficiently understand some text, it is certainly appropriate to ask for clarification. We all understand that language is imperfect and information can always be related again in a different way. Such requests may have nothing to do with tunnel vision.

If we do not allow for clarification, then we presume that everyone knows the perspective of the writer or that the opinion of the writer does not matter or that the understanding of the reader does not matter.