Warning!! Reading and trying to comprehend content of posts by others is to be avoided at all costs. No really.
It's extremely dangerous, sheer terror even. Truly. You see, information might, heaven forbid, contain weird messages, like,
you know, knowledge; cause allergic reactions like, say, questioning stuff; brainwash you even, into a (shudder) thinking individual. Sneaky uh?
Gods R Us
We can be fairly sure we created "God" in our own image since "God" seems to like and dislike the same things we do.
Or is it mere coincidence that "God's directives" always seem to coincide with our own preferences and desires?
To a child its parents are all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present perfect beings who will love the child no matter what.
Our deepest, darkest fear is that we cannot be loved; that we are unloveable, because being loved is the most important thing to us since our instinct tells us our parents should love us unconditionally. Then, when our parents punish us; condition us, to turn us into 'civilised' human beings, the unconditional love cognition is damaged and our greatest pain and fear is born.
We thus create substitutes and alternative ways to obtain unconditional love. Worship is one of those ways. The dissonant reasoning behind it is if we worship, i.e. love, something, a substitute, unconditionally enough, it'll unconditionally love us back. That's why "a God to be loved - but also to be feared for punisment and therefore to be worshipped to avoid pain" - came to pass; created in our own image, hence its many human traits.
"God" - the substitute who will take care of us and everything - is a coping strategie, a defence mechanism, known as 'the repression response'.
When propositions can only be accepted on faith, it is aknowledged what is proposed cannot stand on its own.
Facts, in any field, tend to have this annoying little property.
Emotional Thinking - Sentiment Precedes Reason
This is by far, the most common form of thinking. In this mode of reasoning, a sentiment is chosen first from competing sentiments, then hypotheses are formed to "rationalize" the sentiment. The individual seeks facts and ideas which justify the sentiment. Sentiment precedes reason.
This is an inferior and primitive form of thinking because the individual "rationalizes" emotions. Why does the individual choose one sentiment over another? What is the justification for choosing one sentiment over another at first? That’s just it, there is no justification, it is irrational.
To a large extent it depends on the imagery of childhood experience, an imagery which can be influenced and controlled by early exposure to propaganda and indoctrination. People who use emotional thinking are easily susceptible to imagery and pandering, and the efficacy of propaganda is directly proportional to the percentage of people using emotional thinking.
Belief relies on emotion, knowledge does not.
Rational Thinking - Reason Precedes Sentiment
This is the rare mode of thinking. In this mode of reasoning, the individual, in the process of forming an opinion, examines carefully all of the facts of the matter, forms a hypothesis, and then attempts to disprove its own hypothesis. After a certain amount of rigorous examination and refutation of its own hypothesis, the individual may or may not conclude that the hypothesis is sound. If the hypothesis does not survive close examination and refutation, it is discarded and a new hypothesis is formed. If the hypothesis is sound, the indidvidual incorporates it into its world view. In the process of incorporating the hypothesis or idea into its world view, certain sentiments are attached to the idea, the idea becomes a "belief."
Sentiment is the foundation of all thought, it is the motive force behind thought. So, even before the hypothesis is formed, there is sentiment, but there are competing sentiments and it is the hallmark of the rational mind to allow reason to be the justification for sentiment. Once a rational/reasoned hypothesis is decided upon among competing hypotheses, a sentiment is chosen from competing sentiments. Reason precedes sentiment.
Knowledge is a necessity, belief is not.
So, what happens when emotional thinking is confronted with unassailable facts and logic? What happens when "flimsy" logic rationalizing and justifying the pre-existing sentiment is challenged by incontrovertible evidence?
CD Meets EH
The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance postulates that individuals, when presented with evidence contrary to their worldview or situations in which they must behave contrary to their worldview, experience "cognitive dissonance." Dissonance is generally defined as "an unpleasant state of tension."
Individuals will try to relieve this dissonance in one of two ways:
1) Increase the number of consistent cognitions - In order to assimilate inconsistent information to their worldview, individuals experiencing dissonance will increase the number of consistent cognitions, thereby abating the dissonance. This often involves rationalizing, i.e., myopic focus on facts, logic, or experience which reinforces an existing worldview.
In most instances, the offending inconsistent cognitions are dismissed altogether as a result of this myopic focus on extant consistent cognitions. This is called "rationalizing" because the individual seeks out semi-logical conclusions using extant cognitions and newly created consistent cognitions in order to find a way to invalidate the inconsistent cognitions.
2) Decrease the number of inconsistent cognitions - Individuals change their attitudes to compensate for inconsistent cognitions. Instead of rationalizing, the individual excises the inconsistent cognitions from their worldview. This is more consistent with rational thinking when presented with logic or facts inconsistent with their worldview.
There is a strong connection between emotional thinking and cognitive dissonance. Emotionally based thinking is much more susceptible to facts and logic which contradict the justification for that thinking or emotional worldview. Factually or logically inconsistent cognitions are countered not with consistent factual/logical cognitions, but with emotional cognitions.
For the emotional thinker, the universe is not a matter of logic and fact, it is a matter of emotion, and when presented with logic or facts that contradict a strongly held emotion, the emotional thinker responds not with a logical/factual refutation of that contradiction, but with an emotional refutation.
The emotional thinker refutes emotionally, not logically. This is why one cannot debate or discuss logic and facts with emotional thinkers. Any reasoned discussion or debate is met with emotional discussion or debate and the emotional thinker simply can not, will not, dare not hear - and there's a basic reason for that.
Knowledge is gathering fact(oid)s. Wisdom is the simplification of them.
'Emotional Hijacking' describes how a lower part of our mind will 'hijack' our information processing facilities and cause us to act irrationally, invariably in situations that it believed could be emotionally threatening to us.
Emotional hijacking thus, refers to the ability of the lower parts of our mind ; instincts, drives and defence mechanisms, to control the activity of the higher parts of our mind ; analysis, deduction and creativity. Although we have developed a brain with quite phenomenal processing power, it is still under the control of our instincts and if what the higher brain is processing begins to cause anxiety to the lower levels, then the lower parts cut in and 'hijack' the processing activity diverting it away from certain types of deduction and directing it to dismiss possible conclusions.
Another means that lower parts of our mind can use to dump information that it believes may be a threat to us is to seek out one particular element and use it to disregard the whole.
Indeed, while reading this you have probably already experienced this on several occasions. The mind goes on the alert and looks for any possibly faulty bit of reasoning or a likely untruth and should it find the slightest excuse, it then immediately uses this to disregard the whole piece.
Remember, the problem is not that we don't believe what we read, the problem is that we don't get the chance to rationally assess it.
Another very popular and important route for emotional hijacking is the shift into left-brain thinking. Again, this is triggered by the lower parts of our mind. If, while processing information, the lower brain begins to become concerned about the deductions being made, it can direct the higher mind to seek for alternative ways to account for what is presented.
This is of course a natural part of the analysis process. However, it is important to realise that here it is being done not to further understanding, but to block the formation of anxiety-inducing deductions. The difference being that when analysis is done for blocking purposes, the person will develop an emotional need to believe their interpretation is correct. They will become emotionally, rather than intellectually, biased towards a viewpoint.
Use emotio for inspiration, ratio to find answers - bye bye CD, so long EH.
As newly-borns we are utterly dependent on our instinct, information passed to us from our genes, to understand what is going on around us, and we have only the primitive 'repression response' to protect us should we encounter a situation that our instinct cannot deal with.
When the repression response is activated, we do not fully experience an event, and the memory of it along with any associated emotion is repressed. To keep this material repressed it is covered over with layers of anxiety.
When as children we first experience our parents conditioning us to make us into "civilised" human beings, the repression response is activated. This is because our instincts tell us our parents should love us unconditionally, not withhold affection in order to lead us away from our natural behaviour. The anxiety that covers over our first memory of not being loved is the fear that we cannot be loved, that we are innately unlovable. Yet, being loved is the very thing we desire most, over everything.
Because this fear is not dealt with within our culture, it begins to cause us to alter our behaviour and thinking in order to avoid coming into contact with it. These alterations in thinking and behaviour are known as coping strategies. The most basic coping strategy is the use of a persona - a shield - behind which our true self can hide and carry out interactions with those around us. There are three important consequences of developing the persona:
Firstly, because we learn not to ask for what we truly want, but merely symbolic representations of our needs, we are never satisfied for long and find ourselves becoming almost addicted to obtaining material possessions, acquiring personal power, seeking sensual pleasures, craving adoration, i.e. worship, etc. - all simply substitutes for the unconditional love of our parents that was never ours. This is the root of the now universal problem of greed, for a person subconsciously driven to try and fill a hole with something that doesn't fill it up can never get enough.
Secondly, because the persona is held in place with personal pride and self-esteem, we subconsciously develop a very powerful aversion to being ridiculed, especially within our peer group. This has the overall result of greatly limiting our ability to question the taught versions of subjects like history, religion, science and so on. For to challenge them seriously, no matter what the evidence, is to potentially provoke ridicule, and thus cause pain.
Thirdly, because we must maintain self-esteem to keep our shield in place, we must also challenge very strongly anything which infers we could have been negatively affected by our conditioning. Because we have experienced conditioning, we find it very difficult to recognise the true effect it has had upon us. And because we cannot comprehend the tragedy that has occurred in our lives, we can neither heal nor prevent ourselves from conditioning our own children.
Life has become a feed back loop: because we have been conditioned, we cannot face the notion we are conditioned; because we cannot face the notion we are conditioned, we cannot heal ourselves of the effects of our conditioning; we thus we go on conditioned, conditioning others.
So, the process of being conditioned invokes natural defence responses we have and has the effect of turning us into emotionally vulnerable creatures, dependent on material desires, addicted to maintaining self-esteem, and highly resistant to natural self-healing.
As parents we attempt to 'civilise' our children in this way because the founders of our culture created the conditions to compel us to do so. Religious and social beliefs were and still are constantly manipulated to ensure that all parents do it, or face social exclusion.
Most cultures condition their children, but in the West and westernized countries is it done with the specific and hidden intent of creating people who will undertake the enslavement of the planet on behalf of the elite.
Here then, in plain sight, lie the secrets, available for perusal.
You do not have an ideology, an ideology has you.
Religion may have started out quite innocently meant to convey, and direct by means of symbolism towards, truth', soon it became misconception and eventually, wittingly or unwittingly, misdirection occured and organized and institutionalized religion came to pass.
See "Cargo Cults"; a micro of the macro, to get an idea of how the religion principle 'works'; how it starts out and what it, over time, turns in to.