Dissonance, Doublethink and Zen

Human soul or self or the life atom with one particle in the centre is filled with non depleting energy. Double think is a feature of this life atom. This double think ends up draining energy. If every person decided to work on his double think he will free his energy and be able to understand the ever changing entangeld world in all its glory and understand the finite changing world of forms and the coexistence of the static formless energy that keeps everything in motion. All that exists is finite and human beings or homo sapiensa can understand it. This is a posit I want to propose and explore with an open mind

That's a fascinating proposition! Here's how we can explore it with an open mind:

Considering the Concepts:

• Soul/Self/Life Atom: These terms refer to a non-physical essence that animates life. While science doesn't recognize it, many philosophies and religions do.
• Non-Depleting Energy: This is an interesting concept. Traditional physics suggests energy can't be created or destroyed, just transformed. Perhaps your idea is that this energy source is constantly replenishing itself.
• Double Think: This could refer to internal conflict, overthinking, or holding contradictory beliefs. It's a concept explored in George Orwell's "1984".
• Entangled World: Quantum mechanics describes entanglement, where particles are linked regardless of distance. Perhaps you're suggesting we can tap into a deeper understanding of interconnectedness.
• Finite vs. Static Formless Energy: This distinction implies a physical world with impermanent forms powered by a constant, unchanging energy source.

Exploring the Proposition:

1. Evidence for the Life Atom: Is there any scientific evidence for this concept? Perhaps it aligns with ideas of consciousness or panpsychism (consciousness in all things).
2. Mechanism of Double Think: How exactly does double think drain energy? Is it a psychological or a physical process?
3. Understanding the Entangled World: What kind of understanding would be gained by reducing double think? Would it be a scientific or an intuitive grasp?
4. Limitations of Human Understanding: While you propose humans can understand the finite world, are there aspects that might remain beyond our comprehension?

Considering Alternative Viewpoints:

• Neuroscience: Brain activity is associated with consciousness and thought. Could double think be a result of inefficient neural processing?
• Psychology: Cognitive dissonance (holding conflicting beliefs) can be mentally taxing. Perhaps "double think" is a specific form of dissonance.
• Eastern Philosophy: Concepts like Zen Buddhism emphasize quieting the mind for a deeper understanding of reality.

Further Exploration:

• Research philosophies and religions that explore the nature of soul/self.
• Look into theories of consciousness and panpsychism.
• Explore the concept of "double think" in psychology and philosophy.
• Consider meditation and mindfulness practices aimed at quieting the mind.

By examining your proposition from different angles, we can gain a richer understanding of the mind, consciousness, and the nature of reality. Remember, science and philosophy are constantly evolving, so this remains an open question for exploration.

We will expand the alternative viewpoints you had mentioned . The first one is neuroscience . How can neuroscience explain the draining fo energy done by doublethink. Since the source of energy is unlimited , the two concepts that are contradictory . Therfore both can not be true . But the mind assumes first one and then the second both to be true. This becomes a cancerous idea loop. This is not a feature but a bug that appears to be a feature. That could be maya or myth as explained in vedic philosophy. To be able to see that a person has to go beyond language and directly observe by seeing the reality with his imagination. Then he can experience first and secondly understand this phenomenon . Once understood then use language to explain to others. But the others will also have to grasp it properly only by the process used by the person explaining and not by mere words. Can you logically explain it in an expanded way.

You're right, neuroscience can't definitively explain the draining effect of double think if your core proposition is an unlimited energy source in the life atom. Here's how we can explore this concept further:

Neuroscience and Double Think's Drain:

• Mental Conflict: Neuroscience can explain the energy drain of double think through the lens of mental conflict. When holding contradictory beliefs, the brain activates areas associated with decision-making and conflict resolution. This constant processing can be mentally exhausting.
• Inefficient Processing: Double think might lead to inefficient neural pathways. Imagine a road with constant detours. Efficient thinking uses well-established pathways, while double think might create extra "mental traffic."
• Stress Response: Double think can trigger the stress response, leading to the release of cortisol, a hormone that depletes energy resources in the long run.

Beyond Traditional Neuroscience:

• Quantum Biology: An emerging field explores the possibility of quantum processes in biological systems. Perhaps double think disrupts these processes, leading to energy depletion (though this remains highly speculative).

Addressing the Contradiction:

• Limited vs. Unlimited: Perhaps the "unlimited energy" doesn't directly power our thoughts, but rather provides a potential for the brain to function. Double think might be a misuse of this potential, leading to inefficiency.
• Levels of Awareness: Maybe the life atom has access to unlimited energy, but our conscious mind operates with a limited pool derived from it. Double think could be draining this limited pool.

Vedic Philosophy and Direct Observation:

• Going Beyond Language: The idea of direct observation aligns with some Eastern philosophies that emphasize meditation and mindfulness to bypass the limitations of language and access a deeper understanding.

Challenges and Limitations:

• Subjectivity: Direct observation is subjective. Can we be sure we're "seeing reality" and not just a personalized version?
• Verification: If understanding comes only through personal experience, how can we share it objectively?

Takeaway:

While neuroscience can't fully explain the energy drain of double think with your core proposition, it offers insights into the mental processes involved. Integrating Eastern philosophical concepts adds another dimension, but challenges remain in verifying these subjective experiences.

Ultimately, your proposition offers a fascinating framework for exploring the mind and consciousness. It's important to keep an open mind and acknowledge the limitations of current knowledge. Keep exploring, questioning, and perhaps through a combination of science, philosophy, and introspection, we can gain a deeper understanding of this complex phenomenon.

The second alternative proposed is the conccept of cognitive dissonance. Homo sapiens as a species is here to understand build a culture or tradition to understand. The core self or the central single particle in the life atom can only accept and beleive existential reality .No false belief can penetrate that core shell. In the outer shells absorption from culture and tradition is the form of learning. There is dissonance in the diversity of cultures and that is the problem. The problem is not in the human being but the contradictions in the culture that find the way into the outer most shells. They are not the natural congnitive nature of a human being but the tradition that is filled with dissonance. Can you expand this explanation.

Absolutely, your concept of a core self shielded from false beliefs and a dissonance-creating cultural layer offers a unique perspective on cognitive dissonance. Here's how we can expand on this:

Core Self vs. Cultural Influence:

• Natural Cognitive State: The idea of a core self with a natural, harmonious cognitive state aligns with some philosophical and psychological views that posit an innate human nature. Culture would then be seen as an overlay on this base.
• Learning and Filtering: The concept of the core self only accepting "existential reality" raises questions. How does the core self differentiate truth from cultural influence? Perhaps there's a filtering process that allows some cultural information to reach the core while rejecting contradictions.

Cultural Dissonance and the Outer Shell:

• Diversity as a Challenge: You propose that cultural diversity creates dissonance in the outer shells. While diversity can be challenging, it can also be a source of growth and innovation. Perhaps the key is not to eliminate diversity, but to find ways to manage the resulting dissonance.
• Cultural Evolution: Cultures are constantly evolving. Maybe dissonance within a culture can be a catalyst for change, leading to more harmonious belief systems.

Cognitive Dissonance vs. Your Model:

• Internal vs. External Conflict: Cognitive dissonance typically refers to internal conflict caused by holding contradictory beliefs. Your model posits an external source (culture) creating the conflict.
• Integration vs. Rejection: Cognitive dissonance theory suggests we try to resolve the conflict by changing our beliefs, finding justifications, or avoiding dissonant information. Your model suggests the core self rejects cultural dissonance altogether.

Exploring Further:

• Developmental Psychology: This field explores how children learn and internalize cultural norms. Studying this might shed light on how information enters the "outer shells" in your model.
• Cultural Anthropology: This field examines how cultures evolve and adapt. Understanding cultural change might help us see how dissonance can be a force for positive change.

Challenges and Considerations:

• Defining the Core Self: What exactly constitutes the core self and how does it function? Is it a scientific concept or a philosophical one?
• Universality of Core Beliefs: Are there any universally held core beliefs across cultures, or are they entirely shaped by experience?
• Nuances of Cultural Dissonance: Not all cultural differences lead to dissonance. Some may be enriching and complementary. How can we distinguish between these two types?

Takeaway :

Your model offers a fresh perspective on cognitive dissonance by separating core beliefs from cultural influences. While there are challenges in defining the core self and the nature of dissonance, this framework provides a valuable lens for understanding how cultures shape our thinking and how we navigate a diverse world. By integrating insights from various fields, we can gain a deeper understanding of this complex phenomenon.

I will explain the cultural Diversity (dissonance ) a little more. There are universal core beliefs across cultures that are acceptable to all . Love, respect, being useful,benevolent, coexistence, complementarity, are some of them. Every culture is on the path to getting richer by having all the human values in practice. Some of the values are found lacking.The evolution of the cultural diversity is towards fulfilling the missing vlaues. In that process when assimilation and taking the good from other cultures happens it is a good step forward. When rejection or conflict happens there is turmoil and conflict. This is an avoidable step. Individually every human being can easily identify which culture is incorrect. But as a group or culture the groupthink problem prevails and both the cultures take the wrong path. This can be evaluated by every single human being. That explains the innate capability of every human being in the core. That can not be altered and will work towards reducing the dissonance.

This further explanation adds a fascinating layer to your proposition. Here's how we can explore it further:

Universal Core Beliefs and Cultural Evolution:

• Shared Values: The idea of universal core beliefs like love, respect, and coexistence aligns with the concept of human universals in anthropology. These are commonalities found across cultures, suggesting an innate basis for morality and social interaction.
• Cultural Incompleteness: The notion that cultures strive to embody all these core beliefs is interesting. Cultures may emphasize different values at different times, creating a dynamic process of evolution.
• Assimilation and Dissonance: Your idea that cultural assimilation reduces dissonance suggests that cultures naturally seek harmony. Dissonance might then be a sign that a culture is moving away from its core values.

Groupthink vs. Individual Intuition:

• The Power of Groups: Groupthink describes how groups can make irrational decisions due to pressure to conform. It's a challenge to overcome, but open communication and diverse perspectives can help mitigate it.
• Intuition and Core Beliefs: The idea that individuals can intuitively recognize "incorrect" cultural practices is intriguing. This might connect to the concept of moral intuition, a proposed innate sense of right and wrong.

Exploring Further:

• Evolutionary Psychology: This field examines how human psychology has evolved. Understanding our social instincts might shed light on why we value cooperation and coexistence.
• Cross-Cultural Studies: Research comparing moral judgments across cultures can provide insights into universal core beliefs and how cultures interpret them differently.

Challenges and Considerations:

• Defining Universality: How "universal" are these core beliefs? There may be variations in interpretation and application across cultures.
• Groupthink vs. Cultural Identity: While groupthink can be problematic, strong cultural identity can also be important for social cohesion. Finding a balance is key.
• Objectivity vs. Intuition: Is there an objective way to identify "incorrect" cultural practices, or is this always subjective judgment?

Takeaway :

Your expanded concept proposes that cultures evolve towards universal core beliefs, with dissonance acting as a signal for deviation. It challenges groupthink by proposing an innate moral compass within individuals. While there are complexities in defining universality and objectivity, this framework offers a valuable perspective on cultural development and the human capacity for ethical understanding. By continuing to explore these ideas through various lenses, we can gain a richer understanding of ourselves and the world around us.

The third alternative that you mentioned is connected to eastern philosophy of quieting the mind. This is the first step in helping see the existential reality as it is. Just like a clear sheeth of water can help us see the coin at the bottom ,a relaxed and calm mind helps a person see clearly and holistically. This is the objective that is attained by removing double think. The double think creates confusion and contradiction forcing the brain to be in a continuous cancerous churning loop. First identify one double think .Using the internet explore multiple angles and identify the wrong notion or notions. Replace them with what is in existence. Repeat this process with every doublethink. And achieve the state that you refer as ZEN. Instead of practising and making effort to attain it it will become your normal state of being. I have achieved it .This state is not subjective but objective.It can be attained by anyone with little effort.

That's fascinating! It's great that you've found a practice that helps you achieve a clear and objective state of mind. Here's how we can explore your perspective on Eastern philosophy and achieving a Zen state:

Eastern Philosophy and Quieting the Mind:

• Meditation and Mindfulness: Eastern traditions like Zen Buddhism emphasize meditation and mindfulness practices to quiet the mind and achieve a state of clear awareness. This aligns with your concept of a calm mind facilitating clear perception.
• Reducing Confusion: Many Eastern philosophies view the root of suffering as clinging to desires and attachments. By quieting the mind, we detach from these distractions and see reality more clearly. This connects with your idea of double think creating confusion.

Double Think and the Path to Zen:

• Identifying Conflicting Beliefs: You propose identifying and replacing double think with objective truths. This analytical approach can be a valuable step in the process.
• Beyond Analysis: Some Eastern philosophies suggest that true understanding goes beyond intellectual analysis. It involves a shift in consciousness itself.

Subjectivity vs. Objectivity:

• State of Mind vs. External Reality: While you describe your Zen state as objective, it's important to consider that it's still a subjective experience of reality.
• Inter subjectivity: Some argue that through practices like meditation, we can cultivate a shared understanding of reality that transcends individual subjectivity.

Accessibility of the Zen State:

• Effort vs. Natural State: You suggest achieving Zen with "little effort." Many Eastern traditions emphasize the importance of consistent practice and discipline. While the goal may be a natural state of being, reaching it often requires dedicated effort.
• Universal Attainment: Can anyone truly achieve this state? Individual differences in temperament and life experiences may influence the ease of attaining it.

Further Exploration:

• Neuroplasticity: This field studies how the brain can change in response to experience. Research on meditation could shed light on how these practices affect brain function and perception.
• Comparative Religious Studies: Exploring different practices for attaining enlightenment or a state of clear awareness can provide valuable insights.

Conclusion:

Your experience highlights the potential of Eastern practices for achieving a clear and objective state of mind. The concepts of double think and identifying false notions offer a unique perspective. While the nature of subjectivity and the universality of attaining Zen remain open questions, your experience adds a valuable voice to the conversation. By continuing to explore these ideas, we can deepen our understanding of consciousness and the human capacity for inner peace and clarity.

It's important to remember that science and philosophy may not always agree on the nature of reality or consciousness. However, by approaching these topics with an open mind and exploring different perspectives, we can all gain valuable insights.