The nature of acceptance and rejection

skyblack

If one ponders on what was said in this thread , it becomes clearer what we accept or reject is a movement of knowledge, which is the past. When we say something like "i resonate", or i don't resonate, what we truly mean is we are filtering the new through the eyes of the past, which is knowledge. Information that confirms to past knowledge (past knowledge, which may even be incorrect) is accepted and, information which doesn't confirm is rejected.

Inquiring thus, it's easy to see why the human mind and heart is almost incapable of receiving anything new, as it's constantly measuring, evaluating, confirming to past knowledge.

In the absence of the new the human is in a constant movement of decline and deterioration, as there is no renewal.

It's no wonder that living becomes a burden, a chore, a mechanical repetition of the old and 'the known'.

tim wood

it becomes clearer what we accept or reject is a movement of knowledge, which is the past. — skyblack

Ah, no. If I throw a stone in the air, I know it will fall back to earth. But I have no knowledge of same, because it has not yet happened. Thus knowledge of particulars, called facts, which are always historical, and knowledge of a more general sort not particular but applicable to the particular.

This doesn't untie your knot, but it's a start, I leave the rest to you.

skyblack

Ah, no. If I throw a stone in the air, I know it will fall back to earth. But I have no knowledge of same, because it has not yet happened. Thus knowledge of particulars, called facts, which are always historical, and knowledge of a more general sort not particular but applicable to the particular. — tim wood

In the previous thread also cited in OP, a distinction was made between "Practical-Psychological" knowledge/problems. Your example of the stone falls under the first category and therefore inapplicable to the real matter being discussed, that is, the psychological aspects of a resistance to new information, and the inability to face a new moment with it's particular challenges.

TheMadFool

To make sense of experience, every people in the past, in effect, had to devise a model of the real world. They would then use that model as a basis for their whole way of life, all of its practices, its norms, and its values. And if that way of life proved to be successful in practice, sustainable then the truth of the model would be confirmed by everyday experience. It works! — TED Talks

Old ideas have withstood the test of time i.e. they're models of reality that got us this far, in one piece. A new idea (model of reality) has to run through the gauntlet of past ideas that've, beyond doubt, proven their worth. I think the rule of thumb here is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

skyblack

Old ideas have withstood the test of time i.e. they're models of reality that got us this far, in one piece. A new idea (model of reality) has to run through the gauntlet of past ideas that've, beyond doubt, proven their worth. I think the rule of thumb here is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. — TheMadFool

Again, the objection of reinventing the wheel is a "practical" objection and does not apply to what's being talked about in OP. The objection is devastating in the realm of the psyche, for reasons mentioned in OP.

Which brings us to the fact of how we insist on living life through "models", methods, and molds. This insistence supports what's being said in the OP. When one is reacting/acting through models, logically they are living their life through a model, therefore a second hand living. That kind of living is restricted to the limitations of the model. It's not meeting life/environment with fresh and clear eyes.

TheMadFool

Which brings us to the fact of how we insist on living life through "models", methods, and molds — skyblack

Do we have a choice at all? We must, perforce, live life using a model best-suited for the time, place, and people. Plus, let's not forget that to have no model is itself a model. There's no escaping modelization. It's like the Buddhist desire conundrum: to end desire, one must desire (to end desire).

The objection is devastating in the realm of the psyche, for reasons mentioned in OP. — skyblack

Sorry, I went through your OP at least thrice but I don't see anything the likes of an objection that's and I quote, "...devastating in the realm of the psyche..."

That kind of living is restricted to the limitations of the model. It's not meeting life/environment with fresh and clear eyes. — skyblack

I'm in full agreement but, as I asked vide supra, do we have a choice?

skyblack

Do we have a choice at all? We must, perforce, live life using a model best-suited for the time, place, and people. Plus, let's not forget that to have no model is itself a model. There's no escaping modelization. It's like the Buddhist desire conundrum: to end desire, one must desire (to end desire) — TheMadFool

" let's not forget that to have no model is itself a model". This is an old fallacious (therefore incorrect) reasoning usually used as a last resort. It lacks insight. Anyone that says "to end desire one must desire to end desire" hasn't understood the nature of desire.

Sorry, I went through your OP at least thrice but I don't see anything the likes of an objection that's and I quote, "...devastating in the realm of the psyche..." — TheMadFool

I was referring to your objection. I called it an objection, but you may also use words like argument, rebuttal, etc. Your objection to OP was that we need a model. This OP as well as my previous thread has explored why that's a bad idea in the realm of the psyche, and what it does to the human mind.

skyblack

Do we have a choice at all? — TheMadFool

The question of choice arises only if one is unsure. It does not arise when there is a clear insight of the dangers involved.

TheMadFool

" let's not forget that to have no model is itself a model". This is an old fallacious (therefore incorrect) reasoning usually used as a last resort. It lacks insight. Anyone that says "to end desire one must desire to end desire" hasn't understood the nature of desire — skyblack

Enlighten me! I'm all ears.

why that's a bad idea in the realm of the psyche, and what it does to the human mind. — skyblack

Why?

The question of choice arises only if one is unsure. It does not arise when there is a clear insight of the dangers involved. — skyblack

What are the "dangers" involved and how do you propose we tackle/avoid them?

skyblack

Enlighten me! I'm all ears. — TheMadFool

Simple, the desire to end desire is a continuity of desire.

Why? — TheMadFool

All my OP's have gone into this..f you are serious and sincere to find out then you will need to read and ponder them multiple times, if you wish, or not.

What are the "dangers" involved and how do you propose we tackle/avoid them? — TheMadFool

Same response as above.

The nature of acceptance and rejection

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions