Absolutism

 

It's not what is posed people don't like, it's what it implies they detest.

They "must" therefore dismiss because in doing so they also dismiss, they feel, what is implied, especially in respect to themselves. Unfortunately for them, dismissal doesn't make it go away, to the contrary, it enforces it.

Rationalization does not equal explanation, neither does dismissal equate to rebuttal.

Resistance to evidence which exposes or threatens a person's philosophy is well known to behavioural science. We do not give up our convictions easily - we fear to have them challenged. We find it very difficult to accept evidence when it is opposed to our basic beliefs.

It's not easy when one is confronted with conflicting cognitions in direct reference to one's beliefs, convictions, notions and so on; i.e., one's conditioning. Dismissal is therefore so much more tempting than rebuttal when beliefs, conviction, notions etc. are challenged.

There is a quite revealing reason for that. Often, it's not even what is (explictly) stated people dismiss; they dismiss something else: they, intuitively, dismiss what is (implicitly) infered in relation to themselves and their cherished cognitions.

It's not necessarily what is being posed people don't like, it's what it implies or infers people detest; they detest what it threatens to reveal or does reveal: their deepest, darkest, inner secrets.

People "must" therefore dismiss, because in doing so they also dismiss, they feel, what is infered in respect to their inner selves. Dismissal then, is nothing more than a repression response; a quite natural, psychological, protection mode; a coping strategy.

However, when repressed cognitions build up, whole areas of natural thinking and behaviour begin to become mentally painful to them and the mind deals with this by learning, mostly subconsciously, to avoid situations that reminds it of these conflicting cognitions. It's this "need to avoid"; escapism, dismissal, that sees the mind to perform in accordence with its state.

Unfortunately for people, dismissal doesn't make cognitions go away, to the contrary, dismissal, by its very nature, enforces it; the more a cognition is pushed away, the harder it pushes back - in one form or other. One cannot unlearn what one has learned and we all are the produce of our past. No matter one's stance, its effect is directly proportional.

Gnothi Seauton - your enemy is your inner me.

When we feel we need to defend something, apparently there is something to defend. But what exactly? Surely not a truth, since a truth need no defence. It's the nature of a truth that it can stand on its own.

So, when a purported truth need be defended, it usually is a sign it's actually an untruth. An untruth, due to its own specific nature, needs to be defended in order to be perpetuated since it cannot stand on its own, and usually in need of other untruth' 'in support' to maintain it.

Anyone who told a lie or an untruth and was called upon it knows this out of experience and is thus gifted with empirical evidence. Take any real life example you can think of, great or small, and when you examine it honestly and rationally, you will find it valid: an untruth, contrary to a truth, connot stand on its own when addressed.

- the essence of truth: axiomatic

---

rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability