What Leo meant by self-deception?

[Parki]

I think he meant that the mind construcsts things
out of thin air and them treats that thing as though
this is not a construction.

[egoless]

@Parki he literally means that god/consciousness is deceiving itself so that this manifestation can happen. And he can experience the finite world.

[Parki]

@egoless What you just described is the result of deception, my question was "what is self-deception?"

[Leo-Tzu]

 

[egoless]

5 hours ago, Parki said:

@egoless What you just described is the result of deception, my question was "what is self-deception?"

I literally described what it is.............. ultimate self-deception

Edited January 15, 2018 by egoless

[NoSelfSelf]

Self deception is thinking that something is true but its false(and you are not concious of that),many times someone saies this guy is stupid  but cant see that they are themselve stupid...or i am not lying ever but before that they lied that they love their job but clearly hate it....

[Thanatos13]

But how do you know what is true or false? To have such claims would be to contradict the Pyrrhonism video. How do you know that the mind is deceiving you? How do you know the truth is the truth? What if the mind isn’t deceiving you? What if it tells the truth? 

 

So many assumptions being made as to the truth of things.

[NoSelfSelf]

@Thanatos13 you can see whats true or false better when you stop indentifying with your mind 

[Thanatos13]

30 minutes ago, NoSelfSelf said:

@Thanatos13 you can see whats true or false better when you stop indentifying with your mind 

That doesn’t answer the question. It assumes that the mind is lying when you can’t really know. It also assumes that the truth is when you don’t identify with your mind (also debatable and still doesn’t answer the question of how can you know).

It sounds to me like picking and choosing what you want to believe is true and false. 

If people did see his video on skepticism then I doubt this conversation would be taking place. Too much is being assumed here with no justification. 

[star ark]

26 minutes ago, Thanatos13 said:

That doesn’t answer the question. It assumes that the mind is lying when you can’t really know. It also assumes that the truth is when you don’t identify with your mind (also debatable and still doesn’t answer the question of how can you know).

It sounds to me like picking and choosing what you want to believe is true and false. 

You don't choose what you like or believe. You cannot choose to like chocolate, you like it or you don't. The mind does not choose anything. That is the deception. The mind explains what instinctively occurs in hindsight. Damage parts of the brain and a perfectly healthy eye can no longer see because the mind was not lying but interpreting. 

The ego lies. 

The mind interprets nervous system information. 

The nervous system is seeing the truth but the human experience does not require the majority of the information so the mind blocks out what is not needed to survive in a world of 7 billion people.

[Thanatos13]

25 minutes ago, star ark said:

You don't choose what you like or believe. You cannot choose to like chocolate, you like it or you don't. The mind does not choose anything. That is the deception. The mind explains what instinctively occurs in hindsight. Damage parts of the brain and a perfectly healthy eye can no longer see because the mind was not lying but interpreting. 

The ego lies. 

The mind interprets nervous system information. 

The nervous system is seeing the truth but the human experience does not require the majority of the information so the mind blocks out what is not needed to survive in a world of 7 billion people.

The ego does not lie. That’s just an assumption. 

 

Sure you you may not choose what you believe, but that doesn’t make what you believe false or true either way. People seem to toss “personal truth” around a lot on here. There is no deception, you learn that in high school or any basic psychology course. The brain interprets sensory data. In other news the sky is blue (or appears to be). Even the mind not choosing is old news due to modern neuroscience. Although telling people they don’t have free will seems to be rather damaging. 

 

And you are incorrect. The nervous system is only seeing what the senses see which is but a small fraction. Even under psychedelics (which is debatable as to whether they enhance anything) it doesn’t widen much. Our senses only pick up a small amount and the mind creates based on that. It’s not picking up everything, just a small amount.

[Ayilton]

On 1/16/2018 at 2:04 AM, star ark said:

You don't choose what you like or believe. You cannot choose to like chocolate, you like it or you don't. The mind does not choose anything. That is the deception. The mind explains what instinctively occurs in hindsight. Damage parts of the brain and a perfectly healthy eye can no longer see because the mind was not lying but interpreting. 

The ego lies. 

The mind interprets nervous system information. 

The nervous system is seeing the truth but the human experience does not require the majority of the information so the mind blocks out what is not needed to survive in a world of 7 billion people.

You smart 

[Vipassana]

literally everything is Deception until we escape the materialist paradigm. The fact that this is a forum and we watch leo to tell us this shit is itself a deception. Your every experience / connection with the universe should be like a self help leo person but its not leo bc it infinite.

[MisterMan]

On 1/15/2018 at 9:07 PM, Parki said:

@egoless What you just described is the result of deception, my question was "what is self-deception?"

My interpretation of this video or what i got from it is that an ego death experience is something that can help you understand this on a much more experiential level. Let's say that the concept of a tree in your mind is a permanent form (which it is), the concept does not change. We use this as a map to define what we see out there.  The permanent  form of the concept "tree" in your mind does not truly reflect the impermanent nature of what we are labelling.

Typically we aren't aware of the limitations of the labels. As the concept of a tree in your head does not change,  we project this understanding of a tree onto the world. This does not truly reflect the impermanent nature of things and we build layer upon layer upon layer of misconceptions of the nature of reality over each other until what we have is closer to or just that.  An illusion/hallucination.  All thoughts and idea's  don't truly reflect the nature of reality as they are all symbolic which like Leo said (thanks Leo (Y)), represents something that it is not. Using concepts and language as a map to convey and understand reality does not seem too plausible any more does it? Almost like we need to go beyond. An experiential source of understanding.

Ground yourself in the moment, the hilarity of all this and this is where i believe wisdom to be a double edged sword, as you are using thinking to stop yourself from...thinking! Like bhuddist teachings say there are skillful and unskillful thoughts, how can you wield these thoughts to achieve liberation from attachment to all form. So thinking is good in this realm to help you understand what you need to do, but once you realise the person you thought you were doesn't exist as they are all just thoughts in the present.  Or a memory of you, which is just a thought.... in the present!

You can begin to detach yourself from that in which you identified with. And that's when things get interesting

Hope this helped, obviously it is 100% tainted with my own experience so i could be off the mark as Allan Watts so hilariously and paradoxically said, "you don't know what you don't know and won't know until you know it"

Regardless of anyone's explanations we all just project our own understandings onto the world. We can't attain new information until we know it for ourselves not when someone tells you about it because all you will do is refer to your inner body of knowledge which if it's new information won't be accessible to you.

Edited January 17, 2018 by MisterMan

[Soulbass]

I'm happy for reaching those vibes.

This could be the last video on actualized.org, I mean it's so perfect.

What's left ?

 

[Spiral]

Nothing is true, therefor everything you believe is untrue.

What matters is what the things you believe, make you do and feel.

[Thanatos13]

On 1/17/2018 at 7:42 AM, Mighty Mouse said:

The truth about what?

 

Part 2

(apparently when Leo spends two hours explaining what he means by self-deception, people still don't understand what he means by self-deception... seems quite ironic I would say)

Because he literally spent two hours saying nothing about self deception. He keeps saying we are being deceived but fails to prove his case. To claim deception you would have to know the truth, but then that calls into doubt how do you know such truth? It’s pretty much amounted to “this is what reality is and if you think otherwise you are deceiving yourself”. It’s the same as anyone with an opinion who expounds on it.

 

I think the whole “paradox” argument is a cop out. Experiencing something for yourself doesn’t make it true or real because the sense can be fooled and don’t tell the truth or lie. 

 

It seems like Leo gets a free pass on everything he spouts. If you don’t know what he meant is because he literally said nothing about it. It’s like an informercial telling you to stay tuned to something great but it never gets there. 

 

Be like the Pyrronhists and suspend judgment on all nonevident matters, and this is as non evident as it gets.

[MisterMan]

49 minutes ago, Thanatos13 said:

I think the whole “paradox” argument is a cop out. Experiencing something for yourself doesn’t make it true or real because the sense can be fooled and don’t tell the truth or lie. 

 

 

How?

Here is an example of a paradox.

Existence and non existence, are the same thing. If you look at it through the subjective lens you see that we are beings that create stories, stories are based on hierarchies of values depending on where you are and want to go, but also at the same time if you operate from an objective viewpoint, the very same thing is of equal value to everything else. Meaning (oh strange loop, getting dizzy) existence and non existence are the same thing.

It's crazy crazy stuff, from the objective viewpoint all values are equal to each other, hierarchies don't exist. To derive meaning from something that has no meaning should make your head explode.

[Thanatos13]

25 minutes ago, MisterMan said:

How?

Here is an example of a paradox.

Existence and non existence, are the same thing. If you look at it through the subjective lens you see that we are beings that create stories, stories are based on hierarchies of values depending on where you are and want to go, but also at the same time if you operate from an objective viewpoint, the very same thing is of equal value to everything else. Meaning (oh strange loop, getting dizzy) existence and non existence are the same thing.

It's crazy crazy stuff, from the objective viewpoint all values are equal to each other, hierarchies don't exist. To derive meaning from something that has no meaning should make your head explode.

Existence and non existence aren’t the same thing. Nothing to say about that. You can’t assign a value to non existence because it does not exist. It’s not a paradox but a simple resolution. We cannot fathom non existence so the point is moot.

We cannot know what an objective viewpoint is, for it is simply colored by our beliefs of what it is not. 

What you said doesn’t prove existence and non existence to be the same. Something either exists or it doesn’t, it cannot be both and they are not the same. 

 

We we like to believe all things are equal in objectivity, but that’s merely human projection as to what that is. If I were to guess I would say that all things are not equal from an objective sense. Why do humans assign fairness to objectivity. But hierarchies do exist, you see it in nature and in humans. Choosing to gloss over them doesn’t make it any less so. Also humans don’t derive meaning from the meaningless (something existentialism has already covered, it’s hardly what I would called head exploding). It’s rather we give meaning to things. So it’s wrong to call something meaningless for as long as someone exists to give it meaning then it has it. 

It could be argued that without humans to give meaning it would not exist, but there isn’t a way to test that theory.

[Faceless]

I don’t what Leo says but...That’s the problem with thought. Thought doesn’t now when it is in action. Thought attributes the quality of not being thought. Or not operating when it actually is.