We see what we want to see

[Ali Quadir]

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.

So let me try if I get you... You're basically saying that we know if we have no relevant knowledge? How would you explain the situation where we have knowledge in one area that can be used in another yet we did not realize we could?

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.

Not directly no. But those motivations determine protocol to a degree.

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.

If I wrote a scientific article, and wrote it in the same style I would use to explain my point to my non scientific friends. My colleagues could call me intellectually dishonest because I left out information that I should have put in there... My friends would not accuse me of this.

If I were to speak to my friends on the level I would when writing a scientific article they would consider me overly terse and impossible to understand.

Clearly aspects of the speaker and listener do factor in into how we judge honesty about ones 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.

Yet you seem to me to be demanding a specific format. You actually measure honesty by that format.

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.

Yet it is extremely human to fall for those biases anyway.

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".

Precisely, when everyone has the same assumptions and expectations... As a kid in school I played hockey with a few friends. We had changed the rules to the point where bruises were okay. And foul play was fun. Our teachers didn't mind us roughing around a bit. But when another classmate who played hockey as a hobby and thus used the right rules decided to join in. He got extremely pissed off.

The expectation of the rules was different.

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.

Ok, I understand that's your interpretation of the word. I'm trained as a psychologist. So I'm stuck on the psychoanalytic interpretations which are not the same.

Not that yours is wrong and mine is right. It's an example of us speaking two different languages. And now that I know your interpretation I am protected from mistaking your words through my (for the purpose of communicating with you) invalid context.

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.

Same as above. I see ego as the reality tunnel. Episodes of psychosis are when the ego fractures to a degree where it no longer functions properly. Meaning the reality tunnel is inappropriate and all context is lost.

A healthy ego is simply one that supplies the proper context. A strong ego is one that is singleminded in what contexts it believes applicable. A weaker ego jumps between contexts.

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).

Awesome.. The tunnelvision potential is what I'm speaking about here...

Imagine you're the perfect intellectual genius. Everything you say is exactly to the point, and your slightest utterances are perfectly converted opinions into language.

Yet your audience exists of neanderthals....

You're not going anywhere unless you change your protocol. Right or wrong is irrelevant, there is only action and consequence. If you adjust the context that defines what you see then the consequence is better communication.

Even if you're truly smarter and more capable in language.

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.

True Valid insight, but do you consider it relevant?

30 years of electronic forums? You were in the room when the world wide web was born were you not?

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.

True, but their underlying assumptions might have something to do with it.

If I ask for clarification I can ask it in the way where I communicate the presupposition that you're wrong. Or I can communicate the presupposition that I'm wrong. Or I can just leave out presupposition all together.

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.

Agreed, It is not clarification I object to.