MODERN MYSTICISM: Perception and Cognitive Deception

Announcing: Modern Mysticism, Perception and Cognitive Deception republished from 2004 now available in hardback. No profit is taken from the sale of this book. http://www.lulu.com/shop/lee-hempfling/modern-mysticism/hardcover/product-23992801.html

Preface:

In “The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing” the mechanisms of brain function were detailed.

In this book, we apply those mechanisms in evaluating selected recent studies as well as engaging the brain itself to evaluate some rather interesting misinterpretations in brain research.

If the reader has not yet digested “The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing” , it is recommended as reading prior to approaching this book.

Living in a realistic world, where truth is truth and perception has an interesting way of disagreeing with that, it is fully understood that old ignorance dies hard.

The chapter on the politics of brain function details materialism in depth.

Neuroscience has been caught up in the same “Monkey see – Monkey Do” protocol ever since Aristotle. The only things that have changed are the toys used to see with and the names they are given.

The title of this book pretty much says it all: Perception is indeed Cognitive Deception shrouded in Modern Mysticism.

Excerpt:

Chapter One
Awareness

There is a general assumption that the relation of opposites is equality.

As a kind man recently mused, “hmm, how are we to get somewhere, then..”?

The opposite can only be in relative relationship. Not total opposites as they do attract, but they can never combine to make a new thing.

Only a vibrating, non-zero and majority condition can survive together.

It is why we observe waves at all, Werner.

There is no distinct, like you stink where did that come from?

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

Its’ what long-term memory winds up doing when left to its own devices.

Read it again, I dare you.

The basic function of long-term was left to its own mixture for output.

The memory of the past is reaching the ability to join the ‘now’ and the depth of the standard way of reading is just about there, as well.

The moment of the ‘where did that come from’ connection, no matter how small it may have been, was the moment of realization of something not quite right.

It looks like a center in the brain, when it is just the first stage of memory for a specific sense… the highest amplitudes, the brightest image from the result needs the most nutrients.

Slow down that perception and see the rate of processing, equal to the rate, the incoming signal of your brain would see: your perspective.

Everything would be in everyplace, but fuzzy wherever the value of the first level of memory function was weaker and the rate of processing differences in sense pathways would make the rest the same shade.

Sample one pathway collection from the same input receptor, a single eye, or a better yet, a single taste bud.

The result will be an image showing that specific area with all of the rest of the brain would appear to not have a thing like it. From time to time a person’s brain wiring is found to be different and the test would then have a disclaimer.

So much, for fMRI brain scan’s reliability!

When you look at something and deduce its cause, you are deducing a perspective that is upside down to the reality of the thing you are observing.

Look at a red car. Notice to you, its color is red. But color is a perception of your brain, based in the wavelengths and amplitudes of the visible spectrum provided to the input receptors of your brain’s visual pathways.

Your eyes are not seeing. You are seeing, through your eyes.

But what are you seeing?

Light that is not absorbed by the item you are looking at is reflected. Your eyes are seeing the reflected light, sending it to your brain, where you perceive it to be real.

But if the item is rejecting a wavelength and thereby reflecting it, then the item is not the color of the reflected wavelength, but rather the color of the absorbed, wavelength.

That red car is red to you, because it reflected every color it, is not.

Things change when you observe a light source.

No light is reflecting from a light source. The light being observed from a light source is the result of a friction process.

The light observed from an object that is reflecting light, is a rejection process.

It is called ‘complimentary’ color.

Since the observation perspective, is that of your brain’s perspective, it is possible to use complimentary colors exactly as they are used in painting, to determine the real color of an object.

               After all, is not the real color of something, what that something projects as its color, and not what something rejects as not being its color?

Your eyes see rejected colors, unless you are observing a light source.

So what is the real color of that red car?

Take the three primary colors: red, yellow and blue.

What ever color you are seeing, remove it from the list. Combine the remaining two colors.

               That is the real color of the item you are observing, as you are observing its rejected color. (Read http://www.tonyvanhasselt.com/tips/tip0601.htm for the details and source.)

The combination of yellow and blue is green.

The red car is actually green. It just makes you think it is red, as red is the color is says it is not.

Imagine if you were to do that with your skin color? Skin color is no different than any other reflected color.

The method to really understand anything made by you is to take the first thing of it and use that start as the direction of everything to come after it.

To know what to do next, just look at what you just did.

It does not work the same way if someone else is reading something you wrote.

That someone else, will have to take the first thing, or the first part and, turn it upside down, or they will read whatever you said, from their perspective and what you intended to say, will not be understood at all.

It’s a nice safety hint, the next time you write a business letter, or a legal document, or anything that someone else is going to have to make a judgment of.

If you want to make your point, without requiring the other person to turn it upside down, to understand it at all (unsuspecting reader), then write the first thing, or say the first thing that is in the other person’s perspective.

Keep every bit of the rest of the letter, or brief or anything else you say or do, in the same perspective.

A great deal of confusion would simply stop if the speaker would speak to the crowd, in their language and perspective, instead of the crowd having to listen to the speaker, only to perceive the speaker had ulterior motives.

When you have to read written words, or comprehend spoken words from the third perspective, as in telling the story of someone or something else, other than the original thing or person: then taking the first or opening words, phrase or concept and turning it upside down, works the same way as if the writer had done it for you. But a lot harder.

Treating the interpretation of someone else’s intentions, words or actions is the same as the color choices.

Take away red, as it is what you see, and you are left with the average of yellow and blue.

Take away blue, as it would be the color of what you are observing, and you are left with the average of yellow and red.

A story, letter, legal brief, handwritten note, or anything at all, all have the common thread of being made of three parts.

Each of those single parts, do not become the act or purpose of the letter without the letter being measured in some form.

It stands as only interim knowledge until either the writer is present, as in when it is being written, or the reader is present at the time of reading.

The letter exists no matter how you measure it, as the contents of the letter, the letter’s amplitude is what matters, not the vehicle it uses to be usable. When amplitude is measured a new thing is made, a product of the two amplitudes making up the interaction.

If the contrary were true, then email could not exist. It is partially true, as email is having a hard time being accepted by typewriter users, due to the resistance of understanding that the manner of delivery is not the point, the contents are the point.

Take away cause, as it is what starts the process, and you are left with the average of the knowledge of a lack of cause, and the knowledge of a cause, and the result, is an understanding.

That understanding is the moment the awareness of that event, thing or subject, becomes known. It is a system of degrees, after that.

It has been referred to in cartoons as a light bulb going off.

Actually, it starts with knowing. It becomes amazement. It finally stops, in admiration.

It can also start in knowing, become shock or revulsion, and stop in hate.

It is not at all consciousness. It is awareness. Awareness of self is what really matters in humans.

With two processes going on, long-term memory and processing, and short-term processing, a sense of self can set up in either one.

It depends which one is dominant.

If short-term is dominant and is responsible for creating the loop of awareness in itself, as well as long-term memory of such an awareness, then long-term serves short-term and the person is in control of the use of their abilities.

If long-term is dominant and is responsible for creating a loop of awareness in itself, then short-term is nothing but a way station for better muscle control and faster speed and better bar fights.

Short-term is wired to create a loop in humans, while long-term is not.

A short-term loop will override any long-term reaction if it is strong enough and dominant enough.

A long-term loop will control short-term processing and make the human wonder why they do the things they do; if they have a slight degree of short-term self-awareness, or totally ignore the condition of being controlled by environment, or being controlled by a misconception; of who the person really is.

Being stuck on oneself is a good example of the latter.

The cycle of poverty and hate and abuse, are examples of the former.

Long-term loops are fine when used to support short-term awareness but a disaster waiting to happen when short-term is ignored.

The more short-term is in control, the less potential there is for any false sense of self to exercise control.

Sure, we all have the moment of jealousy, or the fit of depression, no matter how slight.

But jealousy only comes from a perceived sense of self that is based in having or being or doing, what the object of jealousy, already has acquired or become.

And fits of depression, short or long, come from a perceived sense of self, that is based in not having, or not being, or not doing, what the trigger of the depression, has failed to reach.

Turn it upside down, and you will see the perceived notions of jealousy and depression are both involved in hope.

Hope can be positive or negative.

Positive hope, sets up the long-term based false sense of self, for a fall, as a goal was established not based in the ‘now’ of the short-term: rather based, in the past as that is all long-term is. If short-term had been in control, hope would have comforted.

Anti-Positive hope, sets up the long-term based false sense of self, for a fall, as a goal established that is based in the ‘now’ of the short-term, is not part of the ‘now’ of the short-term as the short-term is not in control at all. If short-term had been in control, anti-hope would not have been.

Starting to become aware of something requires starting at the beginning of that something.

No matter what that first thing is, by turning it upside down one will see how that first thing will be interpreted, or understood.

Why?

The root cause of anything is its first step.

From the perspective of that first step, emerges every point, every message contained in everything, after it.

When looking upon that first step the perspective is from the results of it, not from the realization that it is the first step, made of two steps.

So what is awareness?

A loop formed in amplitude, that is built to be controlled by the faster and more refined short-term process but can be falsely created by the long-term process if short-term is not in control.

To know is to be aware of knowledge. The awareness of the knowledge will occur when the non-zero of knowledge, that missing part, is finally understood.

In other words: Awareness is: knowing that you know.

When that condition applies, to more than the majority of a person’s specific sense, self-awareness takes its form:

Every point, subject and concept is capable of being understood to the point of awareness. It is what gives the detective his ‘gut’ feeling.

Self-awareness can be resident and irrelevant; making the person live the lie of the past’s confused and upside down perspective of reality, or dominant and controlling; where the ‘now’ has more importance than the ‘then’.

If ‘now’ is the winner, reaching that degree of understanding is followed by amazement or confusion or deception and ends in admiration or hate or a victim, and the variations of them all.