Warning! Warning! We have now left the thought experiment.
(Remember - the surgeon represents you - there are no “out of town” yous)
I didn’t leave the thought experiment!
If the surgeon (me) was useless, and the issue was psychological and seemed relatively easy to fix, I’d seek out an appropriate fixer (teacher, therapist, expert). If it seemed difficult to fix / unfixable, I’d either let it slide or try to fix it myself.
I’ve done all three of these, each has its strengths and liabilities. There is a fourth way: Observe and explore the issue without judging or trying to fix it.
Not long ago I proposed the thought experiment of What do you do when you’re lost in the forest with no sense of direction, and someone answered that they’d use their phone, and that was the end of it.
Anyone who has ever been lost in a forest with no clue as to which direction to go knows how it felt, but those who haven’t had the experience, can’t conjure the feeling, so they can’t participate in the experiment.
1 Like
This is what you believe to be true, but you haven’t actually found out if it is. Are you content to hold this belief?
I’m content to allow for the possibility that one (perhaps I at some point) can observe and explore without judgement or the desire to fix what seems to need fixing. In other words: I don’t know to what extent it’s possible for people in general or me in specific, I’m open to finding out.
If I am giving over my authority to a cocky one eyed surgeon who missed out on all the important medical classes - But I don’t trust the idiot to actually operate on my brain - should I trust their advice as to who else I should entrust myself to?
Or in other words, if I realise that believing in the authority of my own conditioning will only lead to more conditioning, should I put myself under someone elses authority? And how will I know whose authority to surrender to?
Or if I’m obviously a fool, should I trust my judgement? Can I trust my choices, when it comes to choosing a new master?
If that is true, I might not be able to participate in a thought experiment based on the notion that the thinker is an utter fool. I see my thinker as a mixed bag: foolish at times, smart at times, deluded, imaginative, shallow, deep. To stay with the metaphor, it would be a surgeon who was a bit off their rocker, but with moments of great clarity and rightness. I doubt I shall ever believe that my thinker is simply and thoroughly out to lunch, that doesn’t resonate for me.
As I just wrote to Inquiry, I don’t believe that my thinking (I) is a thorough fool, rather foolish at times, intelligent at times. So I’d wait for what I felt to be a moment of clarity and go with it.
If I surrender to the thought experiment and go with the idea that my thinking is an utter fool, deluded through and through, unable to offer any useful advice … then I’m truly lost, at sea.
Psychological knowledge and its effect on skill,
Charley ditched ophthalmologist #1, mainly because it was evident to Charley that he was using his psychological knowledge of Charley to evaluate how to talk to Charley. And since his psychological knowledge was distorted, he completely misunderstood Charley. Charley was concerned that this distortion would affect his skill. Charley also ditched the optometrist who recommended ophthalmologist #1, and Charley told this optometrist why. He reacted badly and considered it an attack on him personally, although he was too embarrassed to admit it, lol. Charley sent him an email explaining that he was more concerned with his ego (although Charley used different words - i.e. more polite words) rather than with Charley’s eyes.
Charley asked around and checked out ophthalmologist #2. He wanted to see if Charley frightened easily and gave Charley the stats on the possibility of the surgery going wrong - to which Charley burst out in a big belly laugh. He did a really good job with the cataracts. Charley ditched optometrist #1 as well, and found someone else, someone better.
The last time Charley saw ophthalmologist #2, as he was checking out his work, he said to Charley that she should apply to the CBC and read books so he could fall asleep listening to Charley’s voice. He got Charley !! 
That’s my problem with shrinks. I’ve always had a knack for therapy-think/talk and having seen a buncha therapists in my life has honed it. I haven’t shrinked out for years, but if I did again, I’d need to find someone who was able to see through both my intelligence and my stupidity (self-delusion). In my experience there aren’t many people out there who can do this.
One of the reasons I like this group is that people here can sometimes demonstrate my stupidity to me, though I’ll often seem to do my best to wriggle out of it! 
Taking things personally may not help us see clearly - thats why we use thought experiments.
A fool (not me, some other fool) thinks that some of their thoughts are great, and that some of their thoughts are fallacious. How do they know which are which? And should we trust their judgement?
You know when you know. Of course even when you know you know, you might be wrong. A fool (I think) I know often says to whoever will listen (or not listen): Thoughts and views and truths are stories, all the way up and all the way down.
Have you never been completely stumped, incapable of acting for lack of a clue as to what to do? Maybe you’ve experienced this so often that you’ve developed the habit of doing something rather than remaining completely clueless, at a loss. I had no choice but to acknowledge having no practicable strategy for action. I couldn’t escape my predicament by faking it, the way we can in our usual, ordinary, familiar situation. I was out of my element, and therefore out of the usual escapes we employ so casually.
The feeling that comes with the realization that I’m inescapably out of my element and totally perplexed, can’t be faked. I tried to present it as a thought experiment, but, as I now realize, it’s an experiment that can’t be performed by a mind that has never been sufficiently out of its element; has never been honest enough to acknowledge how lost one actually is.
If you believe being “truly lost at sea” is an impossibility for you, you are truly lost at sea, bouyed by your belief that you are not.
I shall exit this particular discussion on this positive note - please thank your friend.
If I believe anything, I’m at sea, including the belief that “if I believe anything, I’m at sea.” Where does that leave me? 
And you yours.
If I believe anything, I’m at sea, including the belief that “if I believe anything, I’m at sea.” Where does that leave me?
You said, “If I surrender to the thought experiment and go with the idea that my thinking is an utter fool, deluded through and through, unable to offer any useful advice … then I’m truly lost, at sea”, implying that you are not open to the possibility that you could be thoroughly deluded, truly lost. You believe you may be partially, but not completely, lost.
Suspending disbelief for a thought experiment (surrendering) is harmless, and possibly edifying, whereas holding a belief is delusional.
You’re sticking to your belief that you are not completely lost because the thought of having no clue, no sense of direction, no confidence, is too devastating to contemplate. Total self-negation is not an option for the mind that can’t stop reassuring itself.
Could be. Or it could be that the thinker is not clueless. (Or both. Or neither.)
But no matter what option is ‘true’ my inclination is to regard thinking as clueful. I might be flexible enough to entertain another notion about thinking, but I’d need to see hard evidence.