Subconscious creation of philosophy through catch-phrases

[LoBagola]

Philosophy: Who Needs It

 

You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational conviction — or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew.

 

As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation — or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown.

 

 

 

I thought integration is exactly that, volitional. But here Ayn seems to be saying it's not. So it should be either integrate or not, rather than integrate consciously or integrate subconsciously.

 

Now this got me thinking. If my subconscious does some kind of integrative work in the background what is the consequence of uttering a philosophical catch-phrase? Is my subconscious able to reconstruct all premises implicit in a statement and then dress itself up in that philosophical framework? When do I come to 'accept' it's underlying premise(s) as my guiding philosophical framework?

 

E.g. if I'm driving my car and move lanes to what seems like a faster one, but now a massive truck cuts itself in-front of me and slows me right back down. Then I say "God dam! I should have known this will happen. Of course this happens to me!"

 

Will my subconscious then strip out the premises implicit in the statement and start making them my philosophy?

 

Some premises I can think of is:

metaphysics: intrinsic

epistemology: mysticism (knowledge through revelation)

 

Or do those statements reflect that as being my underlying philosophical system?

 

I'm slightly confused as to why I might naturally / instinctively say something that reflects a subjectivist / intrincist philosophy when I profess to hold Objectivist metaphysics / epistemology as true. And I'm curious as to what kind of damage is done subconsciously when I say those things.

 

 

Some other statements to think about would be everything out of that essay:

"Don't be so sure — nobody can be certain of anything."

"This may be good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice."

 

And what would happen if you are consistently told this or repeat it as a child.

Edited March 18, 2014 by LoBagola

[dream_weaver]

Ironic, I was considering this passage when addressing your question on principles, only "no choice" near "principles" did not call it up.

 

When driving down a highway, observing the traffic patterns ahead - your assessment of the situation is based on many things you know, how cars mover vs. loaded semi's, weather, a set of flashers ahead on the right, etc. You choose to switch to the left lane.

 

You're cruising along, patting yourself on the back as you pass a couple of slower moving vehicles for your fine decision when the semi-truck pulls into your lane doing 15 mph less than you.

 

"Darn-it," you hear yourself say aloud, "I should have know this will happen." A moment later you reinforce it with "Of course this always happens to me!"

 

Ok. Now. Stop. Put on the mental brakes.

 

Do you just accept what you have just said and drive on? If so, then any stale, or stagnant sub-conscious ideas you already hold are safe from your constantly developing your ability of keen insight.

For now.

 

Think back. How many times have you switched lanes on your trip up to this point? Was every one of them interrupted in a similar fashion? Yes? What about my last trip? What about that time driving up Telegraph Ave, and hitting every light green for 15 lights in a row. Now that was timing. Wait a sec, . . . this isn't about that. Why on earth did I just say "Of course this always happens to me!" Why am I thinking that events are stacked against me? [. . . introspection continues for resolution, or put on hold for a more apt time and place for further contemplation.]

 

Congratulations. You're on your way, cleaning up some of those earlier, unchallenged integrations.

 

The damage you are likely to inflict by discovering and challenging such things is to the previously unchallenged premise (false principle.) The consequence is your likely to discover you don't say such nonsense, once you've identified it for what it is.

 

edit:

Somewhere on one of these bookshelves is one entitled: "What to Say When You Talk to Yourself" by Shad Helmstetter. (Link to a pdf overview).

One of those "self-help" books. While there is some merit to his approach, uprooting the "weeds" in your own mental garden is going to be far more effective than just continually throwing more "flower seeds" and hope that they don't get "choked out".

Edited March 18, 2014 by dream_weaver

[New Buddha]

The term "subconscious" is fairly slippery, and you won't find many neurologist using it.  I would caution against thinking of your subconscious (and emotions) as something lurking under the surface, waiting to rear it's ugly head. Or be to concerned about what damage it's doing to you (or you to it).

 

I tend to see the brain/mind as a series of systems that have coevolved, and that have both strengths and weaknesses.  By trying to understand the evolutionary role that they might play in furthering your life - and why they developed - you begin to see that the human mind is a wondrous and wonderful thing.  Animals are not "irrational" and don't make cognitive mistakes.  So why did human's come to have the ability to be "irrational" ?  Why did we evolve something that is potentially so self destructive?

[Repairman]

"Luck is probability taken personally."-originally Chip Denman, often attributed to Penn Jillette. 

 

In regard to the reaction brought on by a sudden development during a potentially stressful experience, such as driving on the interstate highway with hazards all about, certain aspects of evolutionary psychology may be affecting one's judgement. I never worry too much about self-incriminating thoughts that may have interfered with otherwise rational judgement during a stressful moment. After the moment has passed, it all seems right. One is allowed to curse the laws of probability as a means of dealing with it, but you dealt with it. And one moves on. An awareness of evolutionary psychology is a helpful means to protecting one's else from its destructive potentials.

[LoBagola]

 

Congratulations. You're on your way, cleaning up some of those earlier, unchallenged integrations.

 

The damage you are likely to inflict by discovering and challenging such things is to the previously unchallenged premise (false principle.) The consequence is your likely to discover you don't say such nonsense, once you've identified it for what it is.

 

edit:

Somewhere on one of these bookshelves is one entitled: "What to Say When You Talk to Yourself" by Shad Helmstetter. (Link to a pdf overview).

One of those "self-help" books. While there is some merit to his approach, uprooting the "weeds" in your own mental garden is going to be far more effective than just continually throwing more "flower seeds" and hope that they don't get "choked out".

 

It's interesting because if I hold a premise that's wrong, e.g. a mystic epistemology I cannot act on it consistently. So I have it 'stored', but then when do I actually act on it? Only when I speak? Or perhaps... it can act as 'escape clauses' in stressful situations. E.g. you need to do something but the escape clause (faulty premise) allows you an 'out' for taking the right (moral) action by shrouding your mind in doubt.

 

 I generally dislike anything self-help because it all seems so trashy and vague. Have you read that book? I don't see any problem with working on problems externally as well as internally (through philosophical reprogramming).

[StrictlyLogical]

I think in some sense you can act on improper premises consistently because they are related to a wider system of knowledge/belief.

 

You do not need to specifically address a mystical "the world is against me" feeling, only when you feel it.

 

Thinking about reality, always being active in your assessment of your relationship to reality in general, and a commitment to rationality and your philosophy will have a wide effect on your "subconscious".... over time you will notice many of the isolated improper premises will have disappeared, or greatly weakened simply because they cannot occupy the same mind which in general rejects on principle anything like it. 

 

Trust that your active conscious activity eventually permeates your emotions, your feelings, your premises.. it does .. but it takes time.

[dream_weaver]

 I generally dislike anything self-help because it all seems so trashy and vague. Have you read that book? I don't see any problem with working on problems externally as well as internally (through philosophical reprogramming).

Yes, I did read the book many years ago. Somewhere on one of these bookshelves was actually a reference to the room I'm typing this from. In general, I don't purchase those type of books up any longer, Vague is a good description. A self-help book advertises that it works, but few of them try to get into why they work.

 

Again, it's been a while since I've read any of them, but Napolean Hill's "The Master Key to Riches", is one of the few that I recall tried to explain the 'how it works' behind it. One of his suggestions was to write down what you want. Seeing it, concretizes it. Putting it in a prominent location continually reminds you when you are in that vicinity. Even if you don't read it when you look at it, you'll recollect some of the things written on it. It helps to prioritize various material values and continually re-focus on them.

[Robert Baratheon]

One of the first self-help books was also the best: Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. Most of the modern-day self-help books that aren't feel-good dreck or psychobabble are really little more than HTWFAIP rip-offs in disguise, but without Carnegie's gift for clear communication and examples from his teaching career. The book possesses a deep insight into human social interaction and illustrates what makes certain people likable and effective. The Game by Neil Strauss is a good primer on pick-up artist techniques for men who are frustrated romantically. Unfortunately, a lot of the self-help industry is just selling books for profit and preying on people's gullibility and insecurities.

[dream_weaver]

Dale Carnegie's book is on my shelf too. "Seek first to understand, then be understood."

 

That particular quote was also quipped in Stephen Covey's "7 Habits of Highly Effective People"

 

Your summation, Robert, of preying on people's gullibility and insecurities is apt.

 

In Philosophical Detection, Miss Rand observes:

The field of extrospection is based on two cardinal questions: "What do I know?" and "How do I know it?" In the field of introspection, the two guiding questions are: "What do I feel?" and "Why do I feel it?"

 

In the ITOE Appendix-Concepts of Consciousness, she elaborates:

If men identified introspectively their inner states one tenth as correctly as they identify objective reality, we would be a race of ideal giants. I ascribe ninety-five percent or more of all psychological trouble and personal tragedies to the fact that in the realm of introspection we are on the level where savages were (or lower) in regard to extrospection. Men are not only not taught to introspect, they are actively discouraged from engaging in introspection, and yet their lives depend on it. Without that, nothing is possible to them, including [proper] concept-formation.