Logic to corner a Blue.. possible?

[thisintegrated]

This is a crazy ambitious idea, and I don't know if it's even possible, but I think there's a chance so it's worth exploring.

So I was talking about God with a Catholic Blue.. I started off very simple, and explained my views in simple terms.  But it seemed like they had some sort of mental block, and just couldn't comprehend even the simplest idea.  It's like they believe every idea must be from some dogmatic ancient text, and us humans are powerless to figure anything out for ourselves.

I was thinking.. there must be some flow of logic I could run through them to get them to understand consciousness/non-duality/god.  Some theoretically most elegant, most perfect way of explaining things in a way they'd understand.  Something that could be copy and pasted, and if it doesn't work then you know you've exhausted every possible option.

 

 

This is, in part, a video request for @Leo Gura as I don't think Leo's made anything like this for Blues.

[Yarco]

First you have to break them out of the thought loop. Their brain won't allow them to even entertain heretical teachings.

Their proof that the Bible is real is that God wrote it. God is real because it says so in the Bible, and the Bible is infallible.

For a certain kind of person, the best course of action is to turn the Bible against them. Point out as many contradictions as you can. Point out how immoral God is, how God sent a bear to maul a bunch of kids for making fun of one of his prophets, that kind of stuff.

There's a smaller minority of more nuanced person, who you can show a whole bunch of Bible verses through the lens that they're actually explaining non-duality and enlightenment through allegory.

Some people are brainwashed enough that you'll never break them out of it.

[Ulax]

Perhaps start off with the aim of instilling some sense of radical doubt in them.

Pyrrhonic scepticism might be a useful step. However, first maybe start off with some cartesian scepticism I think that would be more readily accepted. I think Descartes himself may have been christian, im not sure which sect tho.

That at least gets the intellect on board with the idea of the metaphysical doubt required to entertain ideas like non-duality. 

[AtheisticNonduality]

The omnipresence of God, the omniscience of God, and the omnipotence too are well established in standard Christian dogma and can be used to prove nonduality. Because God is everywhere, he must exist as the world, the world being his incarnation. In this way, the world is not separate from God except by the ignorance, illusions, spells, and lies of Satan. The omniscience of God means God must know everything about everywhere, including what it is like exactly to be that everything. This means that God must experience everything, even observing all human lives as a cosmic unseen Witness in the background, as the clear space behind your eyes. The omniscience of God is the consciousness of God. The omnipotence is the ability to create Everything and the world from Nothing.

[zurew]

I don't think you could make a text that could be copy pasted to any stage blue person and he/she would be able to comprehend it without any more  further explaining. I think the vast majority of stage blue people don't believe for instance in the Bible, because they find the Bible the most rational way and view to have, but because they got indoctrinated with it early on in their life. Also,most people believe in things out of fear.

If you want to target such stage blue people who believe in whatever they believe in, because they find that the most rational way to explain reality and they find that particular thing the most accurate view to have, then you could debate those people and they might change their positions. But i think such stage blue people are rare, and there is no one way to do this. You should engage with that particular person in a convo or in a debate where he/she can be challenged and also he/she can ask questions to you and you can clarify your position and shake his/her position.

It should be a dance between you two, because your vocabulary and the other person's vocabulary will be vastly different, especially around concepts like God.

One thing you should be aware of ,is that you shouldn't use the 'circularity' argument, because of the nature of language and the structure of arguments will always be circular. Even talking about God and nondulality will be circular so don't use that argument. ( you either make a circular justification or you have to justify your justifications to infinity)

You could use the "having the least amount of assumptions in my view argument". I think that you could argue why having solipsism as a view, is the best if you want to have a position where you can find the least amount of assumptions. After that you could explain that it shouldn't have to be only theoretical to the other person but she/he can validate it through direct experience.

But at the end of the day targeting stage blue people, i think not the best idea for this. Its too much big of a jump for them imo.

Edited May 27, 2022 by zurew

[Kksd74628]

@thisintegrated

The question you should ask from yourself is that why do you care about changing someone's mind in the first place. The only one who needs to understand things is you and the desire to prove itself only comes from the need of validation which usually is needed when one doesn't know something for sure. You could say that you try to help them, but actually arguing with them makes them more defensive, angry and unhappy and those are all opposite of what you try to do.

 

[thisintegrated]

28 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

@thisintegrated

The question you should ask from yourself is that why do you care about changing someone's mind in the first place. The only one who needs to understand things is you and the desire to prove itself only comes from the need of validation which usually is needed when one doesn't know something for sure. You could say that you try to help them, but actually arguing with them makes them more defensive, angry and unhappy and those are all opposite of what you try to do.

True.  I don't really care.  But sometimes I have to interact with Blues, and I have to talk about something.

When they ask why I'm not religious, and I want to have a productive/interesting social interaction, of course I'm gonna talk about nonduality and shit.. What else?  This is the only way in which I can meaningfully contribute to the topic, and display a side of my personality.  If I, instead, just nodded and agreed with everything they said, it would paint a completely incorrect picture of my personality, and the social encounter would go down as a complete failure and waste of time.

 

1 hour ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

The omnipresence of God, the omniscience of God, and the omnipotence too are well established in standard Christian dogma and can be used to prove nonduality. Because God is everywhere, he must exist as the world, the world being his incarnation. In this way, the world is not separate from God except by the ignorance, illusions, spells, and lies of Satan.

This is good.

 

1 hour ago, zurew said:

targeting stage blue people, i think not the best idea for this. Its too much big of a jump for them imo.

Definitely.  But they make up like 90% of humanity, so finding a way to convince them is more worthwhile anyone else.

 

1 hour ago, zurew said:

they got indoctrinated with it early on in their life. Also,most people believe in things out of fear

Yes????

Why is everyone so scared???? (@Leo Gura another video idea/request)

 

1 hour ago, Yarco said:

First you have to break them out of the thought loop. Their brain won't allow them to even entertain heretical teachings.

Their proof that the Bible is real is that God wrote it. God is real because it says so in the Bible, and the Bible is infallible.

For a certain kind of person, the best course of action is to turn the Bible against them. Point out as many contradictions as you can. Point out how immoral God is, how God sent a bear to maul a bunch of kids for making fun of one of his prophets, that kind of stuff.

1 hour ago, Ulax said:

Perhaps start off with the aim of instilling some sense of radical doubt in them.

Pyrrhonic scepticism might be a useful step. However, first maybe start off with some cartesian scepticism I think that would be more readily accepted. I think Descartes himself may have been christian, im not sure which sect tho.

That at least gets the intellect on board with the idea of the metaphysical doubt required to entertain ideas like non-duality. 

That's the long approach, and requires them to be able to engage with you at an intellectual level.

 

1 hour ago, Yarco said:

Some people are brainwashed enough that you'll never break them out of it.

??

I'm still thinking that, with complete omniscience, you should be able to figure out a combination of words which will get Blues to think.  And if that's true, then it's possible for us to figure it out, with enough time.

 

E.g. What's the first best thing to ask?  It could be something like "how did something come from nothing?" or "how did the big bang come from nothing?".  Something like this could be the best first step, as it's a broad/universal, profound, yet simple question.  And from there you could explain how everything else naturally came about.  If they managed to understand this, then their beliefs about God may seem unnecessary, and as not really contributing to solving any problems.

But that's just an example.  I'm wondering if there is a "best" set of questions, with a "best" order to ask them in, with the "best" language to use, etc., as if there is, then it would be worth conducting a proper study, possibly with thousands of participants, and figuring out the most impactful set of questions/ideas to give to a Blue.

Edited May 27, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Kksd74628]

@thisintegrated

In that case I wouldn't as you aim too high. Maybe talk about one part of spiritulaity that you 2 already agree on and little by little and see where your morality and philosophy differs. Most certainly you can't change their perspective and actually the best way could be by not trying to. Learn to talk with lower conscious beings so that you get insights from them even while their understanding is not as deep as yours.

That requires you not to talk about things they obviously have no good understanding towards. When you start to develop skill of reading people's understanding level you should automatically know which topics are healthy for both of you. Final words - don't participate in game, if the lose is almost inevitable.

-joNi-

[Osaid]

I don't think it's possible for it to happen purely through logical soundness. Logic that questions their beliefs is scary to them. It seems like they prioritize emotions, or the position of the person they are speaking to, more than how sound the logic is. For example, a blue person will probably be much more likely to change their mind if some priest or pastor told them to think differently about their religion rather than someone who isn't related to the church. That's just how it seems to be from my experience.

They need something radical that affects their emotions on a big level, or a talk from someone in a position they respect, or a combination of both. Otherwise they really do seem like robots that can't change at all.

[Gesundheit2]

Blue is authoritarian and will ignore and even demonize logic for the word of their holy book, or whatever authority they subscribe to.

Logic does not work on Blues, and it's always a bad idea to try to logic with them. But it might work on Oranges.

[caspex]

Thing is, I have tried this with a Muslim friend. I finally figured out that the fundamental reason he can't be broken out of it is because he doesn't want to be broken out of it. In his own words, "Man I don't care about being open-minded, all I care about is my family and friends." "What about your religion?" "That goes without saying."

Thing is, no matter how foolproof your logic is, as soon as it will start making sense, their core defense mechanisms will kick in, coupled with ignorance, it forms the best shield against any realization. The religion has also evolved in a way, through natural selection of those who couldn't grow out of it, which blocks your from thinking too outside the box. 

So what you must do is help them see the value of truth. They think they value truth, but they don't. You can see this by pointing out problems in their worldview, you'll see they will refuse to understand your point out of fear. Their worldview is a house of cards, but the cards are too heavily guarded to even blow wind at.

They don't see that what's true is what will bring them happiness. For them, happiness comes from stability of relationships and finance. When they reach that stability, they busy themselves in distraction until death.

For them to understand the value of truth it's important they open themselves up to you. If you are some religious figure that they will respect, it will be easy to help them value truth. If you could do miracles, that's another way of having them open up to you. The point is that they start believing you, instead of their authority. Which is hard to achieve. But if you do achieve it, from their on you can teach them the difference between knowing and believing and so on. Point is that they open up to you. Just using logic is like trying to force your way through a closed door. Once the door is open, the logic can enter easily. 

You can also systematically grow them up the spiral. Instilling an idea, not contradicting their worldview, that will eventually lead them to the next stage. But this process is so slow that it will take years. 

The best way to grow a stage blue would be to show them you can do miracles lol. Once they see you as an authority, it's easy to make them realize the value of truth. That's how Yogies and Gurus in India managed it. Thing is you gotta be insanely advanced to perform miracles, and at that point you wouldn't even care about growing others.

 

Which brings us to an important point. Why would you want to help someone grow? Is the reason egoistic or out of love? Either reason doesn't matter. Because if you truly loved them, you'd respect them enough to not want to change them. They are you, there is nothing wrong with what they are. Unless of course they want to change themselves, in which case you honor their free will and help them grow.

[Carl-Richard]

Tradition and dogma are extremely appealing, because they're powerful technologies which have stood the test of history. Logic is something mere individuals do, and individuals are fleeting and self-centered. They're focused on their own little ideas that they've gathered over their short lifespans and that they try to preach to you with their full conviction because their minds are so great. The traditional dogmatist however looks back and is humbled by the massive wealth of wisdom that has been gathered over thousands of years and shared among millions of people. Your logic and your life is a tiny micro speck in contrast to all that.

[Gesundheit2]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Tradition and dogma are extremely appealing, because they're powerful technologies which have stood the test of history. Logic is something mere individuals do, and individuals are fleeting and self-centered. They're focused on their own little ideas that they've gathered over their short lifespans and that they try to preach to you with their full conviction because their minds are so great. The traditional dogmatist however looks back and is humbled by the massive wealth of wisdom that has been gathered over thousands of years and shared among millions of people. Your logic and your life is a tiny micro speck in contrast to all that.

You're on fire these days! ?

[Oeaohoo]

What makes you think that mere logic could ever change someone’s religious convictions? Revelation will always trump logic: logic is just a little toy for children to play with; Revelation is the word of God made manifest.

You have to remember the traditional distinction between the esoteric and the exoteric: the wise of the past knew that most people do not really care about ultimate Truth, and so their path can only be one of faithfulness to the law and devotion to God as conceived in their religion. Only a few go directly to the Truth.

As Hesiod said, ‘He is the best of all who thinks for himself in all things. He, too, is good who takes advice from a wiser person. But he who neither thinks for himself, nor lays to heart another's wisdom, this is a useless man.’

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit2 said:

You're on fire these days! ?

? Haha thanks!