From: robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Lying to oneself and erroneous assumptions...
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:51:37 CDT

Thank for the conversation, Stephen, but I am a little sad.
You at one point were willing to tell me your story, and you
later change your mind.  You are more than welcome to email
me.  I truly am interested, and you will find me to be more
Socratic than Dogmatic.

But to continue...
: > 
: >To deny the possibility, I would have to lie to myself.  
: 
: .. but to deny the possibility, and yet to lie to yourself in parallel 
: mitigates the entire question and, indeed, validates the point of our 
: existence. 
: 
: (This is my attempt at humor. The above sentence says *nothing* because, as 
:  your sentence above it, it's a circular reference.)

Yes, it does get complicated.  That is why I am really curious about
how one burrows thru the paradox.

: Sorry, Rob, but you just raised convoluted to an artform.  I *think*
: you trimmed *one* too many sentences out of my post 'cause I can't remember 
: to what you are referring here.  Without context, I'm afraid I can't make 
: much sense of it.

Yes, time constraint and this "post" dialogue form both contrive to
create information loss.  On the other hand, a face to face discussion
often loses even more information because each person spends much of
the time they should have been listening in thinking of what they will
say next.  That we can communicate at all is the miracle.

: E-mail ok ? I try *not* to disembowel myself in front of *large* crowds if 
: at all possible.

I wish you would.  You may find that my private face is less stoic and
unbending.  In public, and in discussion, if you want to know the 
fallicies of a position, argue it.  I would more often rather have
people disagree with me than agree.  Agreeing with my "wise sayings"
is boring, unenlightening, and at worst, inflates the ego.  Disagreeing
makes me sit up and pay attention, think about what I will say.  We
may still end up disagreeing, buy I know that I will feel better for
having looked at the question thru your eyes.

: >Even the one pathological liar that I met always knew that he was lying,
: >but he justified his behavior by claiming that he would do it to "them"
: >because they would do it to him.  
: 
: Not at *all* my situation ...

No, and I am sorry for that.  But I don't know your situation, or anyone
else's for that matter, because no one is willing to provide an instance.
That it is personal and probably profound in your life, I do not doubt.
So I am forced to only imagine instances.  You see, I could probably 
come up with instances from my own experience, but in each case I have
thought of, I realized that even when I was telling the outside world
and myself, yes, and myself, one thing, there was still an angel of
truth sitting on my shoulder.  I cannot truly think of an instance
where I had truly bamboozled myself.  The truth has always been 
there.

: (No flame here, really) Ignorance is *not*, by definition, self deception.

None taken.  And I would grant that people, myself included, are often
ignorant of the truth, and I also agree, not self-deception.

: 'cept mine, of course. Want it in e-mail ?

Yes, please.  I swear I will treat it in confidence.

: >I can't ask them questions that will elucidate answers.  
: 
: Uh... did you mean *elicit* here ?

No I meant elucidate -- to make clear, by explanation.

We are speaking of this group of people who
have lied to themselves, successfully.  But to date, except for
yourself, I have only heard about "other people" who the poster
knows is "lying to themselves".  Never a "I did it, truly, and
here's how".  I would talk to these other people, to make clear
how they have done this thing.

You are the only person who has even offered.

: A *recent* example is when I jumped into this thread.  I told myself, and 
: believed it, that I could change your mind.  I *should* have known better, but 
: I jumped into the fray *fully* convinced that I could sway your opinion. For 
: the duration of that first reply, I successfully lied to myself.

Did you really believe that you could, or that you would?  There is a 
difference.  If you believed you could, then you were telling yourself
the truth, and it is still a possibility.  But if it was "would", then
you have indeed provided an example.  But if so, then you have
convictions about strangers that are inordinately strong.

Let me say what it means to me if I say I believe something.  That
means I am sure.  It is a sure thing.  If someone were to offer to
bet money on a sure thing, I would take it, and I am not a gambler.

Would you have bet $10 that you would have changed my mind?
How about $100?  $1000?  At what point does your conviction
break down?  It is my experience that most peoples' surety will
dissolve quickly if it were a "could", and not a "would".
Pathological gamblers need not apply.

So how much did you believe your "lie", and how much faith would
you have been willing to place in it.

As an example, would all atheists be willing to sign a document
consigning their soul to Satan?  I have a friend who did, to prove
his conviction, but I've met others whose faith starts to falter
here.

: The other experience I talked about is too personal to post, and since I am 
: now convinced that I cannot sway you with my words or experiences, it 
: would serve no one for me to reveal it to you.

If so, so be it.  But I hope you change your mind.

: No charge, and thanks for the stimulating conversation Rob.

And thank you as well.

Anyone else care to bare their soul -- for it seems that it is just
such a thing that will serve?

I am surprised that no one is even willing to contrive an example.

 (but if you do, please, do not bring up Hitler.  All
conversations that are failing will invariably bring in the Nazi's).

rob derrick