Application Three: Value and Denial
I mention my daughter’s incident at school, and part of the reason is because it was that text exchange combined with other reflections on that day that led to the identification of the Seq Comp processors, but Seq Comp is more a product of denial. When people will not read what you write and will go silent in conversation without acknowledging your points, you have to understand why people are doing this in order to establish communication.
My value of the truth is greater than my value of anything, which means when I discover I am wrong about something it doesn’t impact my value to myself because my highest value is truth. Other people have a higher value of things, and when the truth shows what they thought good or true to be bad or false it lowers the value of the thing and causes them to feel bad. They avoid it or do not acknowledge true information that challenges what they want to believe.
They want to believe it because of the associations it has with other things, and there are positive feelings associated with these things, which can include people and ideas. Objects are valued for the sensations they produce and ideas they are associated with. The objects cannot produce good feelings if they are found to be false or immoral. In changing the value of an object, the truth literally takes people’s joy away. I believe the negative feeling a person experiences when exposed to challenging information is the subconscious attempting to persuade the person away from the information, because the information is going to harm their values.
Since the objective of the mind is valued purposes, a valued purpose would be to protect valued purposes. We can look at this a few different ways but they ultimately lead to the same conclusion. The feeling can be perceived as imposition as the adjustment of value may compromise objectives. Or, it is the subconscious mind protecting joy or value by imposing a negative feeling that causes the information to be avoided, or not paid attention to. Included in compromising the value of subjects is the individual himself; it lowers his self esteem. Having operated out of the same mind as other people still do, I know the solution begins with understanding the value of the truth as it relates to liberty. Another possibility is new information is creating uncertainty, and uncertainty is what fear consists of.
The cause is irrelevant to me, because 1: I know there is a prohibitive feeling that prevents people from accepting information that challenges their beliefs. 2: I know the solution is understanding the value of the truth. I don’t have recent examples of my own because it has been a very long time since I’ve tried to protect myself from information.
There are two different types of denial, conscious denial and unconscious denial. Conscious denial is when a person understands they are wrong but refuses to admit it based on some valued purpose. Nonconscious denial occurs when information is prevented from joining sequenced information concerning the subject. The information cannot be comprehended. The reason relates to their interest in the subject, where their position or understanding isn’t motivated by the truth of the subject, but ensuring the subject remains as defined for the purposes they have for the subject being what they want it to be, not as it is.
I remember what it was like to have that value arrangement, with invested positions on shaky foundations, the feelings when exposed to information that challenged my beliefs. For most people it feels bad to be wrong, so they deny, and continue in preferred error, which as explained is against their own self-interest.
Nearly every exchange is an example of this in the Youtube comment section, but I am providing the following excerpt as I try to explain it to the person, I am exchanging comments with.
1st Comment: Mitch Letterman AOC is smart, withhold your endorsement for president after you see who backs your bill.
2nd Comment: Orion Simerl There you go, instead of developing a solid understanding to make an informed civic decision, let someone else make that decision for you.
4th Comment: Orion Simerl@Mitch Letterman I misread the comment, I didn’t realize it read for her to withhold her endorsement until she sees who will support her bill. I thought you were telling people to withhold their vote for president until after they see who AOC endorses, which I was mocking, which is most of the way politics works. People like what people say and associate them with the good feeling rhetoric. They vote for that person, and people who the liked person recommend.
Most of congress is selected by industry through the investment of dollars that allows a candidate to be competitive in elections. The candidates perform political rhetoric and people associate this rhetoric with the candidate serving their interest. Sometimes grassroots campaigns can elect a few people. These people are typically passionate about causes and are great creators and performers of political material. The groups they associate with build a campaign around the individual and they are elected to office. Once a grassroots candidate gets to office, they have a job to do they are often ill qualified for.
The general public doesn’t have a sound understanding of the economic and legal structures they live in. You can present a symptom and the symptom can be understood by the public through personal experience, but they don’t understand the problem or whatever buzz word (The Just Society, A Green New Deal) solution is being proposed. People can only elect people based on positive association not on substance.
People are elected based on their ability to orate. AOC for example started her service introducing the Green New Deal, which was the subject of great controversy, but primarily because it sold well to the public. Media earns money through subscription and advertising, therefore a topic that attracts attention will be pushed and promoted until the interest decreases. What AOC created was a list of goals with no ideas for achieving those goals. Yet many activists were under the impression and activist news broadcasting stations like Democracy Now, promoted the idea that the Green New Deal was a comprehensive plan to transform the economy through green initiatives, which would lead to this utopia of prosperity. I remember children in front of Diane Feinstein saying “we need to pass the green new deal”, and activists who were saying the same thing. It shouldn’t even have been taken seriously because it was basically taking the points of some socialist party platform and writing it in a resolution intent on creating a select committee to come up with ideas to solve these problems. AOC has benefited from the celebrity the GND farce created for her. Of course, she does well to insert herself places where she can say things her base likes to hear, which is how she was elected to begin with.
Here is my comment on the summary of her bills mentioned here.
The Just Society Bills for example. Going off of the summary provided by Amy Goodman it is another example of spending public funds which will not substantially improve the lives and opportunity of the 40 percent most in need of improvement. 1: Access to full social services for formerly incarcerated people means what? Food share, health care, job training, and maybe the return to a small stipend, all of which is presently available to formerly incarcerated people in most, if not all counties in the United States. 2: Cap annual rent increases. People living on the bottom typically are not subject to substantial rent increases because they cannot afford housing of any significant cost, and when their rent is increased it is generally unsubstantial. Meaning if they have a 0 to 5% rent increase and you cap rent increases at 10%, you haven’t helped anyone. 3: Push government contractors to improve employee benefits doesn’t affect the lives of poor and struggling people who do not work for government contractors if that is the intended interpretation. 4: Changing the way the government tracks poverty is of little significance to anyone living in poverty but may be of some use in expressing poverty related arguments. These arguments already fall on deaf ears and are taken up by people who, as is apparent, have nothing substantive to contribute to alleviating the problem.
Yes, I understand politics. I also understand your heroes’ ideas do not significantly change the quality of life for most people. Do you?
6th Comment: Orion Simerl@Mitch Letterman LOL I’m under no illusion that you read based on your comment. LOL The explanation is to give you the opportunity to learn, and for others who may see it to learn how politics works.
8th Comment: Orion Simerl@Mitch Letterman When people’s value of things is greater than their value of what is true, they avoid and refuse to acknowledge information that compromises the value of the things. There is a negative feeling associated with confronting such information as it compromises the value of a thing, in this case a person, and a political ideology. Showing that person or ideology to be false when it is believed to be true or good compromises the value of the believer to his or herself. It lowers their self-worth. Of course, it isn’t in the interest of a person to self-deceive, as such deception compromises motivation and know how. Everyone wants to do what they want to do, and so self-deception is against your own self-interest, affecting motivation, through (mistaken) value and circumstances. It is always better to confront the information. Which is why I live by truth over everything, and liberty is true.
10th Comment: Orion Simerl10 minutes ago@Mitch Letterman Let me break this down in a language you can understand, follow closely. 1: You like AOC, the position she associates herself with is consistent with what you think is good. 2: Because you value or like these ideas, and the understanding they are built on, you avoid information that could compromise that value. Value is compromised when something you thought was true is untrue, or something you thought was good is not good. 3: The reason you avoid the information is because lowering the value of these things lowers your value of you to yourself. 4: Because your truth is your identity. 5: It has a negative feeling associated with it because it compromises the value you have of yourself, it lowers your self worth. 6: So you avoid information or refuse to acknowledge information that challenges what you believe. 7: You did this when you asked me if I understood American politics and I provided you a functioning summary understanding of how American politics works and why your faith in AOC is misplaced.
(ADDITION: The 10th comment is still a little hard to follow. A more concise explanation is 1: There are ideas associated with AOC that causes him to feel good, and AOC herself causes him to feel good based on these associations. What she presents is consistent with feel good ideas and she is an object herself that causes him to feel good. 2: He avoids challenging information because this information damages assignments to the ideas (objects) and people (AOC object) that cause him to feel good. 3: There is a negative feeling imposed through exposure as a warning that the value of objects (AOC and associated ideas) is in danger.)