Epistemological conundrum

[Willie]

What’s the difference between radical open-mindedness and gullibility? What’s the difference between entertaining a notion and adopting it as a new perspective/worldview? Why should I listen to what Leo says and not listen to what Alex Jones says? Does the degree with which I agree or disagree with either of them make it any more wrong or right? 
 

Skepticism is necessary as a bullshit filter, but how does one determine what gets filtered out? One’s own level of skepticism is a bias in and of itself, by necessity!

[Recursoinominado]

Well, open-mindedness to me is like you said, entertaining some new perspective, making a thought exercise, being receptive and THEN you contemplate about it. In order to not fall into false notions, i kind of feel how it sits in my body when talking about them, and i try to make that new notion "fit" my model of reality which i carefully developed through years of constant contemplation and experimentation. 

But, of course, this can lead to serious self-deception if you are not extremely careful.

Self-deception should be a constant question in your mind. 

[No Self]

It is necessary to put effort into your foundation.

For example, some of the worst disasters in human history (Soviet Communism and the Third Reich) came about as a result of 'open-mindedness' and a desire to destroy failing old systems like Tsarist Russia and Weimar Republic Germany. There were lots of angry overconfident men espousing conspiracy theories, too.

When one's mind is open to the radical, it gives the perfect opening for the worst demons to sneak their way in. And yet, we have some pretty bad demons even in our normal society, namely our destruction of our own planet's ecosystem. And solutions needed are pretty radical.

First have an historical and psychological understanding of the Mussolinis and Jonestowns of this world, be open as you wish and evolve at your own pace.

Or, if you want to go straight to the ultimate truth, there is no content, no evolution, no seeker, no self, etc. there. Ramana Maharshi is my go-to. 

Edited November 1, 2020 by No Self

[ivory]

@Willie Are you familiar with the phrase "not knowing"? You'll hear it a lot in Zen. It's pretty self-explanatory but basically what it means is that we don't know, we can't know, and we need to be okay with that. That said, once the mind realizes that nothing is knowable it's important to cultivate values such as love, kindness, and health. We literally know nothing but at the same time we are responsible for everything and life can seriously turn on you if you don't behave accordingly. Strive to live a healthy lifestyle and be wary of anyone who doesn't.

[Leo Gura]

Direct experience

[ivory]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Direct experience

Yeah that too

[Willie]

28 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Direct experience

Direct experience is a series of inputs that are interpreted. 

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, Willie said:

Direct experience is a series of inputs that are interpreted. 

No. It. Isn't.

That is your interpretation.

[Bando]

@Willie Pay attention to your epistemology and how your mind interprets info. If you feel uneasy, angry or unwilling to change your perspective seek to understand through direct experience or at least try to adopt multiple perspectives. You do this for a while and your intuition takes over and you can easily see all the epistemic traps someone might have when introducing an ideology. Alex Jones is childs play, if someone can't see what's wrong with him they've got a lot of work to do 

[Willie]

45 minutes ago, Bando said:

@Willie Pay attention to your epistemology and how your mind interprets info. 

Yes. I do this constantly.

45 minutes ago, Bando said:

If you feel uneasy, angry or unwilling to change your perspective seek to understand through direct experience or at least try to adopt multiple perspectives. 

This is where my problem is, I think. I can see from multiple perspectives. I have an open mind and it can change often. It’s not a very stable foundation.

45 minutes ago, Bando said:

You do this for a while and your intuition takes over and you can easily see all the epistemic traps someone might have when introducing an ideology.

This is what I originally labeled as  a “bullshit filter”. I’m not sure if mine is working well or not.

1 hour ago, Bando said:

@WillieAlex Jones is childs play, if someone can't see what's wrong with him they've got a lot of work to do 

Agreed! I filtered him out a while back.

[commie]

56 minutes ago, Willie said:

I have an open mind and it can change often. It’s not a very stable foundation.

Recognizing this is the point.

5 hours ago, Willie said:

Skepticism is necessary as a bullshit filter, but how does one determine what gets filtered out?

Try filtering everything you can. See what remains.

[Bando]

18 hours ago, Willie said:

This is where my problem is, I think. I can see from multiple perspectives. I have an open mind and it can change often. It’s not a very stable foundation.

What you do in this situation is try to find a way to get direct experience in whatever it is you're trying to understand, whether by speaking to somebody about the topic in real life or by going through it yourself. Then repeat again

Nothing cuts through the Ego-minds bs more than direct experience!