It’s not different from the ability to convince people of sense.
This concept you describe apears to have its origin in western religion and phylosophy. Where we learn that some things are better then other things. This idea,that something is better then another thing , then vibrates through all our opinions and ideas.
Its a concept that is not found in the perception that budhism has on the world. A perception which probably comes closest to my own perception.
This whole discussion is somewhat alien to me for that reason.
2 Likes
I haven’t studied Buddhism directly (at least not beyond the basic high school social studies coverage) but one of the authors I’ve been enjoying recently (Mark Manson) has claimed to be inspired by Buddhism. It’s on my list of things to study someday, eventually, when I get to it.
I’m going to give you a keen observation point for that post.
i think it´s a classical case of both things can be true.
I agree with Neverlucky, it´s really western culture often seeking polarization in detail instead of looking at the whole.
We´re all the same and we´re all different are both the same oversimplified view just from one side of the medallion.
1 Like
It is important to read into the context of the person rather on the words alone.
The person is probably addressing on a more general sense where people need rest(love) after a hard day.
On the other hand OP wants to emphasize on the importance of individuality.
Again, it is a different context.
More importantly, most people will have different stages of life where we need our individuality and another time some unconditional love.
In the sense that the ease of persuasion is almost entirely dependent on how convenient it is to be persuaded.
Therefore, the rejection of inconvenient truths (sense) in favor of convenient falsehoods is very prevalent. While inconvenient falsehoods (nonsense) are very easily shattered by convenient truths.
Because of this asymmetry, it is much easier to peddle convenient falsehoods than truth. Everyone’s already been persuaded to convenient truths, and since falsehood is an unbounded space, you never run out of them.
1 Like
One thing I really dislike is the typical cliched McUnderstanding™ of yin and yang, which creates its own oversimplifications. The casual handwave “it’s all black and it’s all white”… no, it’s definitely not that. Either it’s all gray, or it’s part black and it’s part white in some kind of alternating pattern, or some combination of these two things, but we are not all white, period, full stop.
So we are not all the same. Period. Full stop.
The true understanding of yin and yang is not of a lazy alliance between two sides, but of an eternal war (with its occasional truces) which results in a desirable homeostasis. Sameness and difference aren’t two lovers who snuggle at night, they’re (usually) trying to kill each other and, for the good of everyone, failing to do so completely.
I think what you’re trying to say is that truths are few and untruths are limitless, therefore untruth has an asymmetrical competitive advantage for “top explanation” because it runs more entries per contest.
If so, I love your argument and I’m going to steal it for later.
1 Like
There’s a fantastic book on this.
The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker.
He also explains where this idea of sameness is being promulgated in the modern world.
Using a simplified analogy, where one thinks is deck his/her the one and only unique deck… Unknowing that there are same decks around just that they never met.
More to add to the list. Thanks for the suggestion.
1 Like
Yes, but also because they are limitless, that you can keep telling untruths until you find the convenient ones for your given audience, which is the key to persuading them to, say, support you politically (or any other con).
Sort of. Untruths don’t necessarily get along with other untruths. It’s not as simply as truth vs lies, it’s more like truth vs Lie Alliance #1 vs Lie Alliance #2 vs … Vs Lie Alliance #n. You can’t just come up with a lie cluster that convinces everyone (thankfully).