Govert said:
What I write is really an anti-philosophy, as all philosophies and all religions must be false when you say that you cannot understand. There is no compromise possible when you write such things. That will be offensive for many people who believe in something.
It is also a pretty standard and well-worn argument that falls under the heading of solipsism and epistemological relativism. This is, in my opinion based on years of observation and even trying on that hat for a bit, a social synaptic construct.
What do I mean by synaptic?
Let me explain: there is a little known fact about hypnosis that is illustrated by the following story:
A subject was told under hypnosis that when he was awakened he would be unable to see a third man in the room who, it was suggested to him, would have become invisible. All the "proper" suggestions to make this "true" were given, such as "you will NOT see so- and-so" etc... When the subject was awakened, lo and behold! the suggestions did NOT work.
Why? Because they went against his belief system. He did NOT believe that a person could become invisible.
So, another trial was made. The subject was hypnotized again and was told that the third man was leaving the room... that he had been called away on urgent business, and the scene of him getting on his coat and hat was described... the door was opened and shut to provide "sound effects," and then the subject was brought out of the trance.
Guess what happened?
He was UNABLE TO SEE the Third Man.
Why? Because his perceptions were modified according to his beliefs. Certain "censors" in his brain were activated in a manner that was acceptable to his ego survival instincts.
The ways and means that we ensure survival of the ego is established pretty early in life by our parental and societal programming. This conditioning determines what IS or is NOT possible; what we are "allowed" to believe in order to be accepted. We learn this first by learning what pleases our parents and then later we modify our belief based on what pleases our society - our peers - to believe.
Anyway, to return to our story, the Third Man went about the room picking things up and setting them down and doing all sorts of things to test the subject's awareness of his presence, and the subject became utterly hysterical at this "anomalous" activity! He could see objects moving through the air, doors opening and closing, but he could NOT see the SOURCE because he did not believe that there was another man in the room.
So, what are the implications of this factor of human consciousness? (By the way, this is also the reason why most therapy to stop bad habits does not work - they attempt to operate against a "belief system" that is imprinted in the subconscious that this or that habit is essential to survival.)
One of the first things we might observe is that everyone has a different set of beliefs based upon their social and familial conditioning, and that these beliefs determine how much of the OBJECTIVE reality anyone is able to access.
Realities, objective, subjective, or otherwise, are a touchy subject to solipsists, so I don't want to get bogged down there just now. Suffice it to say that years of work inside the minds of all kinds of people has taught me that we almost never perceive reality as it truly IS.
In the above story, the objective reality IS WHAT IT IS, whether it is truly objective, or only a consensus reality. In this story, there is clearly a big part of that reality that is inaccessable to the subject due to a perception censor which was activated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. That is to say, the subject has a strong belief, based upon his CHOICE as to who or what to believe. In this case, he has chosen to believe the hypnotist and not what he might be able to observe if he dispensed with the perception censor put in place by the hypnotist who activated his "belief center" - even if that activation was fraudulent.
Solipsism is just such a censor.
And so it is with nearly all human beings: we believe the hypnotist - the "official culture" which promotes solipsism - and we are able, with preternatural cunning, to deny what is often right in front of our faces. And in the case of the hypnosis subject, he is entirely at the mercy of the "Invisible Man" because he chooses not to see him.
Let's face it: we are all taught to avoid uncomfortable realities. Human beings - faced with unpleasant truths about themselves or their reality - react like alcoholics who refuse to admit their condition, or the cuckolded husband who is the "last to know," or the wife who does not notice that her husband is abusing her daughter.
I am not surprised at Govert's state of denial. It is the cultural norm. I am also not surprised at the projection of this discomfort onto others.
In States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering, (Cambridge: Polity Press; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), Stanley Cohen discusses the subject of denial which may shed some light on the problem.
Denial is a complex "unconscious defence mechanism for coping with guilt, anxiety and other disturbing emotions aroused by reality."
Denial can be both deliberate and intentional, as well as completely subconscious.
An individual who is deliberately and intentionally denying something is acting from an individual level of lying, concealment and deception. I don't think that we are dealing with this in the present case. What we are dealing with is denial that is subconscious and therefore organized and "institutional." This implies propaganda, misinformation, whitewash, manipulation, spin, disinformation, Official Culture.
Believing anything that comes down the pike is not the opposite of denial.
"Acknowledgement" of the probability of a high level of Truth about a given matter is what should happen when people are actively aroused by certain information. This information can be 1) factual or forensic truth; that is to say, legal or scientific information which is factual, accurate and objective; it is obtained by impartial procedures; 2) personal and narrative truth including "witness testimonies."
I should add here that skepticism and solipsistic arguments - including epistemological relativism - about the existence of objective truth, are generally a social construction and might be considered in the terms of the hypnotized man who has been programmed to think that there "is no truth."
Denial occurs for a variety of reasons. There are truths that are "clearly known," but for many reasons - personal or political, justifiable or unjustifiable - are concealed, or it is agreed that they will not be acknowledged "out loud." There are "unpleasant truths" and there are truths that make us tired because if we acknowledge them - if we do more than give them a tacit nod - we may find it necessary to make changes in our lives.
Cohen points out that "All counter-claims about the denied reality are themselves only manoeuvres in endless truth-games. And truth, as we know, is inseparable from power." Denial of truth is, effectively, giving away your power.
