From: afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison)
Subject: Re: Lying to oneself and erroneous assumptions...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Ancient Souls Inc.
Date: 10 Apr 1992 17:23 EST  

In article <1992Apr10.115017.25278@hemlock.cray.com>, robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes...
>First of Stephen, good show!  A very well written response.
> 
>  [Stephen, commenting on my anti-lie assertions]
> 
>: robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes...
>: >Stephen writes:
>: *DAMN*, you're old ! :-)
> 
>Only in body.  In mind, I have far to go.

Actually, *I* have just the opposite problem, *right * Teresa ?

:-)

> 
>: So, you *admit* the possibility, right ?
> 
>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.)


>Can't do it.  I could say it, mind you.  But I would doubt it and so
>I wouldn't really believe it.

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.

> 
>: >But every doggone time I take an honest look at myself, 
>: 
>: .. and *herein* lies the crux of my assertion.  Not *everybody* takes 
>: periodic honest looks at themselves. Since, for a time in my life, *I* 
>: succeeded in believing an artificially created `image' of me, *really* 
>: believing it, then the *fact* is that it can be done.  I am *not* just 
>: projecting the behavior on somebody else because I disapproved of them, I'm 
>: speaking from experience, and *that* experience lets me spot similar 
>: behavior in others, 'kay ?
> 
>Very good.  But, if it's not too personal, exactly what form did this
>self-deception take?  I don't doubt that you tried, so I wonder how
>you would describe how well you succeeded.  That's what I would like
>to hear.

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

> 
>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 ...

>Whenever you feel the need to prop up a lie with a Rationalized 
>Justification, then I don't think you really have faith in your lie.  

*I* never *did*... I just blindly continued as a person I *wasn't*. Big 
difference.

>Of course, then you have a RJ, which is a fancier lie.  But it will 
>probably have to be propped up too.

Again, you are describing one situation.  You can bracket in *any* theory 
and, within that frame of reference, make it *appear* to be law.  I 
*believe* that is what you're doing here.  Since each case is unique, and 
since *I* have the best seat in the house when it comes to *me*, you'll 
just have to trust me on this one. I *did* it.


> 
>: Or, more to the point, why would I *care* ?  If your lies to yourself don't 
>: effect me or my circle of friends, I wouldn't be motivated to see or debunk 
>: them. 
> 
>Well, a general consensus here is that I am lying to myself by stating that
>I don't believe that it is so easy or probable for people to really lie
>to themselves, which doesn't affect anyone here, but you and they sure
>seem to care, at least enough to comment strongly.  A paradox, no?
> 

Since I don't see you as *lying* by stating your opinion on *any* subject, 
the `motivation' factor doesn't apply here.  I am merely discussing an 
issue much as I discuss Star Trek... I don't believe in Commander Data 
either. :-)


>I mean, you are trying to debunk what you perceive to be my self-deception.
> 

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

When I am ignorant of a subject, it is not because I have all the data and 
reject it, but rather because I *don't* have the necessary data to form a 
reasonable conclusion.  I believe that *I* have all the data (my own 
experience) I need to unequivocably state that a person can successfully lie 
to himself, while I don't believe that *anyone* can have the necessary data 
to say that *nobody* can lie successfully to themselves. One *is* provable, 
the other is *not*.

..unless you have the word of *every* living human that they *can't*, and *I* 
screw that up by stating that I *have*. 


>: Some of the people I *assumed* were lying to themselves (later verified by 
>: their own admission) ...
> 
>Yes, the "I've been lying to myself" is a cliche in our society.  But is
>it really true.  

Not a question that can be empirically answered... *ever*.

>I would still like to hear you or someone give a real
>example.  All I hear are third-person some people stories.  

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

>I can't ask them questions that will elucidate answers.  

Uh... did you mean *elicit* here ?

>I ask you.  When did you really lie to yourself.  

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.

You may say that I *always* knew that it was hopeless, but you lack the 
data to back that up.  I will say that I *didn't*, and if I *don't* back 
down, then you have no case, right ?

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.

>Describe how you really believed it.  I think you will most likely find 
>chinks in the wall of your believe that you knew were there all the time.

Again, too personal, and if you choose to interpret that as an excuse to 
protect my opinion, so be it.  It's really not that important to me.

> 
>:               These people in *NO WAY* disgusted me, but rather the 
>: opposite.  I helped them to see their own worth, thus making them less of a 
>: target to the `moochers and looters' (thanks for that phrase, Colin.) who 
>: would prey on them.  *Those* "M & L's" *do* have my disgust, but they got 
>: it the old fashioned way ... they eaRRRRRrrrrrned it ! :-)
> 
>Yeah, the "disgust" crap I wrote bothered me when I wrote it, but I was
>in a hurry, so I left it in.  See, I tried to lie to myself that it was
>an acceptable example, but I really knew it wasn't.  I'm glad you noticed.

No charge, and thanks for the stimulating conversation Rob.

-- Stephen 

(The only two valid e-mail addresses from now on are ...)
afdenis@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov,  afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov
.. boring .sig follows, press n to skip it.

	Never regret a *choice*.  Rather, save your regrets for the
	choices you *didn't* make.

Xref: sparky alt.romance:6864 soc.couples:2013 soc.singles:10858