Deception tampers with perception

"Without confusion in the mind it can not harbor any intent to deceive."

The key factor in the serious study of human psychology is an ability to
realize the critical role any deception has in the decay of
perception. Imagine a face that has never been controlled, inflection
that has never been other than utterly spontaneous, and words that
have never been designed in any way for any effect. Everyone has been
that way, and yet in the adult there is no way to even look back and
find oneself having been that way. To the adult it seems that to let
go of the things under conscious control is to let go of living
itself, and yet we were all living when we had no such control and no
idea that such control exists.

Mind is perception, and so to pollute the mind with deception is to
pollute the perception. And everything people have done with words is
deception. Give people true words and their minds begin immediately
to transpose them into deception. Deception gives the impression of
being the key to all gains, all rewards, all pleasures.

Let us say that we are teachers, and our students are waiting to hear
from us. What would happen if we gave these students the power to
find man transparent? They would see past our deceptions. They would
watch us thinking. They would identify our secret rewards. They would
dismiss our respectable exteriors no matter how unwavering our faces,
our voices and our words. So the usual teacher has one priority: to
keep children from finding man transparent. And this results in a
disabled mind; now that he has insured his security, perpetuated his
privacy, he will begin programming his students' disabled minds to
serve society in the traditional fashion, a fashion which will as
always lead to an escalation of both man's capacity for violence and
the violence he has accomplished.

When we see ourselves on the horns of this dilemma we tend to imagine that
we are responsible. We would like to help the children by keeping
their minds clear, not adding any deceit, not inflicting on them the
viruses our thinking is always hacking. But we have to keep our
privacy private. Our lies have to work!

But how are we responsible? Are we responsible because we are the ones
doing it? If our confusion is doing something, is this ourselves
doing it? In our idea of ourselves we see ourselves as someone in
control, but in truth those who confused us are in control. The idea
that we are not confused is their intended effect. If we understood
that we are confused we would understand that we have been deceived.
So when I say that I am responsible I am adopting the theory that I
am not confused, which is the theory that I have not been deceived,
that either no one has tried to deceive me, or that I found
them all out when they did so that I was not deceived in any case.

Without confusion in the mind it can not harbor any intent to deceive.

Confusion

Conviction

is when confusion rather than clarity comes to conclusions.

Corruption

is when it is intended to confuse someone such

that his confusion will reach conclusions.

The intent to communicate.

The human mind is divided into two intents. The original intent is to
perceive and communicate, and the contrived intent, which is the one
we have established as the key to human progress and experience, is
to be duped and to deceive. If we are not duped we disappoint
authority, which is bad politics and certain to reduce our
renumeration, and if we do not deceive we have no authority of our
own.

The original intent accompanies the contrived intent. In other words the
intent to communicate accompanies the intent to deceive. We can not
have the intent to deceive as a substitute for the intent to
communicate, but just as an alternative focus. Perhaps we have all
heard it said that a criminal always has an unconscious desire to
help the law catch him, so that he leaves clues behind no matter how
conscientiously he tries not to. So while we are being duped the
person doing it to us is also communicating with us, and if we want
to free ourselves of our conditioned responses, what we must do is
find out how and where we are attuned to this communication.

It seems to the experience, experience being what comes of being duped,
that this faculty where we are attuned to the unconscious
communication of those who are consciously trying to con us (to add more images to our accumulation of experience), must be very subtle, like a
subsonic dog-whistle. This is because, according to experience, everything
clearly observable seems perfectly accounted for. However, there is a
serious error in this accounting. There is nothing subliminal about the evolved sense to communicate and to perceive this communication. We are all receiving
the communication in a very obvious but incomplete way. The only
problem is that we allow the conscious self to interpret it,
rendering it vacuous, hollow.

Reality versus images.

The success of every adult to imitate ideal personality through control of facial expressions, inflection and word choice creates an environment which acts as alternative to reality, and this environment is "experience"; this is what accumulates in memory along with the facts, equations and theories the various educational media provide.

Each of us have been collecting this "experience" since we were born. We have become accustomed to this alternative world. And, of course, this means we are all incapable of the most elementary virtue: being realistic!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When someone deceives us he is generating an image. This image seems to him to serve the purpose of substituting for something real and true.

The mind is what has been perceived, not in a lifetime, but throughout evolution. The mind is evolved. There is no way to introduce into the actual mind something that is not real and true. So when someone deceives us he is establishing an alternative to the mind. And since the mind connects directly to the real and true through perception, then this alternative to the mind also requires an alternative to perception, which is self, the thinker of the thoughts, the observer of the experiences that were not real or complete, and the controller of the affected exterior, the vanity, the fraud or the pretense of charm, respectability, integrity or whatever.

How can someone deceive us? What is the foundation? It is simply that we are born in an alternate environment. We are like a squirrel born in a glass cubicle, except that our captivity is very intricate. Like the rodent, we are evolved to perceive every natural thing, and so we find ourselves completely out of our depths when thrown into an unnatural environment.

How did this environment get here? Through the explanations given as history? Not at all! History is all deceit. There is no reality in it. Those who decide what history will say have no concept of what it would need to say in order to be true or real, nor do they harbor any inclination to care. It has never been the function of language to communicate, because to communicate is to refute the need to persist with man's endeavors. Any expression of the need for man's endeavors to continue is as contrived as man's environment.

Communication, perception, mind, and reality; these things are as one. They have an impetus dating back billions of years. They go on. But they have this competition from this alternative to the mind, "conscious", which is as one with images from falsehoods and with self, and this alternative also has some small impetus once we have accumulated enough imagery into memory.

Consider a very early falsehood. Let us say that each of our mothers, or in some cases, fathers, told each of us that they were so devoted and endeared to us during our infancies that we never shed a single tear, that our infancies were idyllic. What is the impetus of this one deception? It leads to a problem we have learned to call "Oedipus complex", where we just can't get over our mothers; we become her slaves, want to bring her flowers, etc. Even if we for some reason eventually learn to hate these mothers, we are always attached to them, and they can always pull our chains and make us jump through hoops. But let's say that we suddenly discover a collection of videos or movies of ourselves as infants, and these moving pictures show us wailing, screaming, obviously in torment almost continuously. What happens to this image the mothers imprinted upon our memories, and the impetus she intended?

Reality obliterates image! And to find reality you don't really need video, as we will see when we continue.

welcome to the first science of psychology

This blog will be devoted mainly to the impediments to deep learning, creativity, perception and related emotional fulfillment which ordinary people suffer, although the things we will be looking at also relate to more debilitating problems.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Psychology as it has been practiced up to now addresses the intellect as the source of all problems, including common problems. The intellect is not the mind, and the self which refers to the intellect as its mind can not find the mind, except as a reference to it called "unconscious" or "subconscious" or "instinct" or "intuition". Intelligence is of the mind, not of the intellect, so that to address the intellect with a proposed cure is actually a sham.

The intelligence is an evolved faculty, and is not separate from perception. We begin our lives as merely evolved creatures, and this means as merely intelligent creatures. Evolution/Intelligence becomes "mere" when it is confronted with an environment or situation that is outside its scope, and the only solution to this is to add new related intelligence/perception (which of course is what we will be doing here). This is 'to adapt'! To adopt is intellect, and this is quite the opposite of to adapt.

There is no intellect in early childhood. All our psychological or emotional or attentional problems, if we are not in some way physically defective or deficient, stem from what people have done to us for the purpose of defending themselves from our intelligence/perception. This is much the same thing as a predator insuring his meal by approaching the prey from downwind and making use of available cover.