|
Home
Doors
Essays2007
Essays2008
Essays2009
Essays2010
Wisdom
Gallery
Links
Bios
Contact
|
..:: Deception ::..
By
Alan Schneider
Deception may be defined as
any circumstance or perception which fundamentally misrepresents the
accurate and truthful nature of a phenomenon. Unfortunately, deception
is the essence of experience on the Physical Plane of
expression. All of the perceptions shown to us by the physical
senses are woefully inaccurate, and substantially misrepresent what they
appear to portray.
The senses are belabored by
that crippling condition of our physical perspective on the Physical
Plane – the body of flesh. The organs of perception that account
for the impressions of the senses are themselves composed of protein and
protoplasm as subcomponents of the body, and function not universally in
perception but only partially, and in focused aspects that are subject
to continuous transition and modification. So it is that the nature of
our experience on the Physical Plane is utterly subjective in character
– right down to the personal ego, we can only know our
personal lives, feelings, and impressions of what is undoubtedly a
much more expansive realm of expression that is both external and
internal. Such is the burden of the body and its perspective on life,
constrained to a linear temporal sequence of necessarily inaccurate
assessments of its status and progress.
Given that we cannot even
know the truth of our own experience, it is perhaps not surprising that
we are so challenged in disclosing that truth to each other. Even the
mind of an Einstein or Gandhi was still embedded in the body of flesh,
however far beyond that constraint these two may have seen. And they
were, to all apparent intents and purposes, fundamentally benevolent and
well-intended observers of phenomena, both substantially devoid of
excessive personal motivation and bias. When the normal human condition
fraught with fear, pain, suffering, confusion, and uncertainty – however
illusory these may be – is considered, we find that a heightened level
of personal bias and self-interest is almost invariably the order of the
day. That we are supremely challenged by our condition is an absolute
understatement! It is amazing that we can know anything at all,
even the phantom impressions of the senses, and the tenuous conclusions
of the ego about those impressions, as certain as they often appear to
be. Life is the theater of the absurd, and we are all actors on that
stage...
Given the subjective nature
of knowledge and experience described in the previous paragraphs, what
are our options for meaningful achievement as a race of partially
sentient beings? How can we at least attempt to transcend our
circumstances as evidently imperfect observers? What can we do
as a species to bridge the gap of perspective that we are all burdened
with, and successfully reach out to each other?
One thing that both Einstein
and Gandhi did was learn to recognize the subconscious
assumptions that filter so much of human perception, and question them
as utterly and completely as possible. These assumptions are legion in
character, and comprise a bewildering array of valences – that we must
misrepresent for our own personal survival and advantage, that we only
exist objectively in the guise of the body, that we can know God through
mass religion, that the physical universe is composed of impersonal,
mechanical interactions that are devoid of any intrinsic consciousness,
that we ourselves are machines – all are examples of the many frequently
wholly subconscious assumptions that delimit our perception. If
we are thus hamstrung by our physical circumstances, the least
thing we can do is release our mental and spiritual perception to
explore the world as freely as possible through open inquiry and, most
importantly, open discourse about the truth. It is not
sufficient that we only question our assumptions – we must then share
the results of this examination in the most revealing discussion and
communication with each other that we can achieve.
Naturally, these two elements
of free inquiry and interaction tend to threaten vested interests
located in privileged sectors of society. These privileged parties all
too often have learned how important these are to human happiness and
satisfaction, but have not learned the equally important lesson
that they must be shared among all human beings, not controlled as the
possessions of the few. Through social hegemony, political repression,
and media censorship, the power elite have all too often attempted to
stifle freedom of inquiry and expression throughout human history. In
these attempts, we see the demonstration of yet another element of
deception, the willful and intentional misrepresentation of factual
experience. As if our condition was not difficult enough, we have the
intrinsic capabilities of manipulation and distortion to further
complicate matters! Again, it is miraculous that we have been able to
determine anything under these circumstances, and not surprising that
what we determine is so questionable.
The processes of open inquiry
and discourse are mutually supportive in terms of reducing the deception
inherent in our human condition. Although they can exist apart
from each other, such separation is a serious impairment to the
efficiency of either element. It is of the greatest usefulness to have
access to the input and opinions of other observers regarding our
personal observations, provided that these are given in
constructive contexts. The discussion of what constitutes constructive
and destructive contexts forms the balance of this SYNERGY essay.
Not wanting to make any
assumptions if I can possibly avoid doing so, I will not assume
that the reader shares my opinion that willful deception is almost
always undesirable, and an impediment to the productive investigation of
most phenomena. There may be cases when this is not so, but they are
far and few between in my experience – open investigation is almost
always the most effective investigation. Thus, calculated
misrepresentation is, in my opinion, to be discouraged in here, and the
underlying assumptions that support this practice dredged up and exposed
to open inquiry. United we stand, and divided we fall, in life, and in
discourse.
The discovery of
underlying assumptions is something that cannot be overemphasized in
human affairs – as egos, we tend to live and die in our
assumptions, expectations, and habits. We die there because this is
where we frequently stop questioning, investigating, and learning, and
these are the processes necessary for the ongoing existence of a healthy
consciousness. In many ways, identifying and releasing or modifying
assumptions in the light of free inquiry is the process of
learning and knowing. To question everything in life, even life
itself, is to discover the hidden truth present everywhere.
Knowledge of the common
pitfalls of open inquiry is also most useful. Again, these may be
conscious or unconscious in nature. A good example of the conscious
variety is the tenets of epistemology – the rules by which sound
conclusions may be reached. Foremost among these is the scientific
method of investigation, with the use of experimental and control groups
referenced for data comparison regarding an experimental variable.
Philosophically, there are known methods of examination that have
survived the test of time across the millennia of existence, including
appointing a “Devil’s Advocate” to challenge any or all aspects of
theories, subjecting theories to additional outside verification by
presumably disinterested investigators, encouraging the development of
opposing theories and viewpoints, and stressing the use of the simplest
possible theory as the most preferable.
On the unconscious side, one
of the best possible lists of epistemological stumbling blocks is the
synopsis of Freudian defense mechanisms. These are the more or less
well known subconscious means by which we, as egos, will attempt to deny
or distort our real interests in social interactions. They include such
notorious examples as projection, in which we ascribe what is, in
fact, our personal agenda to various others around us, denial,
wherein we simply refuse to acknowledge the implications of a condition
to our personal existence, and sublimation, the symbolic
expression of one motive in another, apparently unrelated context.
There are many more as well, and a complete listing and discussion of
them is well beyond the scope of this essay, but these few give one the
flavor of what is often present beneath the surface of personal and
social interaction. Such complete listings and discussions of them are
commonly available in most bookstores today, should the reader wish to
make further inquiries in this area, as are the general tenets of
epistemology and scientific investigation.
In terms of social
interaction, some form of orderly presentation of information and
conclusions in group contexts is absolutely necessary. Feelings
can become quite heated when assumptions and defenses are being
challenged, and impartial governance is most desirable at these times.
The use of an empowered moderator to organize discussion on topics of
interest is known to be effective, as is the use of a talking rule
– the recognition of only one speaker at a time during discourse. At
the extreme – one which I personally feel uncomfortable about, but
nevertheless admit the usefulness of – is the imposition of Robert’s
Rules of Order, particularly in larger public assemblies where
sensitive issues must be openly examined.
Since the ego is the arbiter
of self-interest on the Physical Plane, and this plane absorbs so much
of our time and attention, techniques of ego regulation and negation are
also helpful in the practice of free inquiry and discourse. Foremost
among these, again in my opinion, is meditation. I have had so
much to say about this process in these essays that any more said here
would be redundant – anyone wishing to read what I have said in this
area is encouraged to visit my website, The Searchlight, at
http://www.searchlightforyou.com,
and take a look through the copious amount of material present there on
this, and many other topics of my personal investigation. Suffice it to
mention here that the trance condition characteristic of meditation
practice affords one the opportunity to step outside the boundaries of
the ego and waking mind and experience expanded states of perception
largely unattainable through any other means of observation. As one
continues this practice, thereby attaining successively higher levels of
perception beyond the Physical Plane and ego, more and more subtle
expressions of the truth become attainable for conscious experience and
subsequent discourse.
At the most extreme perceptual distance from the Physical Plane and the
ego is the Logoic Plane, nominally the Seventh, and final,
Plane of Ascension. At this perceptual level, only the Divine Love,
Light, and Presence are experienced by the observer, as observation
itself reaches the peak of expression possible. Paradoxically, this
state of being is both the most and the least
self-interested – the most because it is focused to the greatest
possible extent in what is absolutely present at the foundation of all
consciousness and all knowing, the Jungian Primal Self, the core of all
being – and the least because no vestige of the ego, the little self
of Freudian psychodynamics, is present at this level. Thus, the
ultimate expression of knowledge, and the least deceptive
condition of experience, may well be universal Love, expressed as Light,
in the Presence of God as the Logos.
- With Love, Alan -
(Copyright 2009, by Alan Schneider)
Return to Top
|