R28 - Il problema della falsa identificazione: un dialogo (virtuale) tra mentore e pupillo

Finally, a meeting! Well, since we live in the same body, it's not always easy. I take this opportunity to ask you a question. I'll do it without too many words. What do you think is the main problem of us human beings? Do you want a short answer? Certainly, even a concise one, if you can. The fundamental problem of us Homo Sapiens Sapiens or at least one of the fundamental problems is false identification. What does it mean? We have an increasing tendency to identify with everything that we are not. And why would it be a problem? Because false identification produces denial of reality. Well, you were definitely concise. I say, maybe even a little too much for my taste. What exactly do you mean by the term false identification? Do you own a car? Yes, a sports car, which I just bought. Imagine that right under your eyes, an individual approaches your car, scratching it all over with a key. Can you imagine it? Yes, I can. Tell me, what do you feel? Well, I feel pain, as if it were scratching me. And then I also feel great anger, the desire to strangle that bastard. Well, you have just experienced false identification. Explain yourself better. You are a human being, right? Without a doubt. You are not a sports car. Well, it seems obvious to me. So, for what reason, when an individual scratches your car, do you feel pain as if he were scratching your skin? Are you telling me that I would be identified with my car? Well, in a way, yes. And since you are not a car, but a human being, it is undoubtedly false identification. Well, I know very well that I am not a car. I own a car, which is different. Why do you suffer then? Well, because someone is damaging something of mine, something I care about. I don't see any problems in this, something wrong. Nothing. But if you prefer to live without suffering, instead of suffering, then it might be useful to ask yourself why this is happening. Don't you think? Do you mean to say why I suffer when someone is damaging my car? Yes. And your answer, if I understood correctly, is that I suffer because I would be prey to a strange confusion, because I imagine myself to be a car? In a certain sense, yes. And yet, I repeat, I know well that I am not a car, and I know that you know that I know that I am not a car. You are undoubtedly able to make the difference between you and your car. Well, then you agree. I did not identify with my car. Not in the strict sense, of course. But you cultivate thoughts about your car. Well, of course, it's normal. Thoughts you consider true. Obviously. Thoughts you believe in. Without a doubt. And, of course, those related to your car are just a small part of the thoughts you believe in and that you consider true. But tell me, are these thoughts or not part of you? Well, being my thoughts that I believe in, I think it can be said that they are a part of me. So part of what you are, of your identity, lies in what you believe in, in your belief systems. Well, yes, I think it is correct to say so, but where do you want to go with this? I have already arrived. You said you cultivate beliefs about your car. Could you give me an example? Well, let me think. My car is brand new and reaches 250 km per hour. This is a true thought about my car, which I believe in. Great example. So your belief systems, which partly define your identity, have many contents, including your car. So we cannot say that, through your beliefs about your car, you have partly identified with the latter. I agree in a sense, yes, it is so, but I do not see why this should constitute a problem. Now I'll explain it to you. Let's suppose that among your beliefs about your car there is also the one that states that no one should ever scratch it. Look, you do not need to suppose it. It is so. No one should ever scratch my car. People should always respect the property of others. So it is not a hypothesis, it is a fact. Undoubtedly, it is something you believe in, and since you believe in it, it is part of your identity. A very small part, however. I agree. A very small part with which you necessarily identify yourself. I do not see what is wrong with identifying yourself with the thoughts you believe in. It seems to me that it is a completely natural process. It can happen, but the process becomes problematic when the thoughts with which you identify yourself are false thoughts, thoughts that deny reality. What reality? Your personal reality. Everything that exists for you. But let's imagine again that individual who scratches your car. His action could be an act of unconscious vandalism. Do you think that such an action by an individual is possible or impossible? Well, it is certainly possible. Also because it has already happened to me, to tell you the truth. Are you telling me that your bolide, new flame, has already been scratched by someone? Well, yes, just yesterday I realized a scratch, and I'm sure it wasn't me. I think it happened when the car was in the parking lot. And what do you feel when you think of that scratch? I get very angry. Looking more in depth, what is behind that anger? Pain, I think. The pain that that scratch gave me. A bit like it was done on your own flesh. Something like that. Anger, you see, is often a reaction to pain, an aggressive reaction towards who or what, according to our point of view, has become responsible for our pain. Yes, I understand. Someone hurts me and I react trying to hurt him in my turn. In this way, however, a vicious circle is created. But we were analyzing your beliefs about your car. In particular, the belief that no one should scratch it. Do you think it is a true or false belief? True, no one should do it. But someone does it. It was you who confirmed to me that this is a possible event. Are you saying that the fact that someone could scratch my car means that my thought cannot be correct? It seems obvious to me. The fact that there are people who can scratch your car means exactly that. It is not true that they should not do it. But for what reason? For the simple reason that they can do it and that every now and then they do it, as you yourself have just confirmed to me. And if they do it, then it cannot be true that they should not do it. What is it? A game of words? No, it is not. The possibility that someone scratches your car is an aspect of your reality that de facto denies the theory you believe in. Maybe, but I keep thinking that no one should scratch my car. I know, this belief of yours is the real cause of your pain, not that individual who scratched your car. In other words, you are the only one responsible for your pain. Or am I not following you anymore? Let's go step by step. Your theory is based on the principle that no one should scratch your car. On the other hand, there are individuals who scratch other people's cars, violating de facto the principle on which your theory is based. Are you following me? I think so. The existence of individuals who disrespect other people's property implies that my theory cannot be entirely correct. If it is not entirely, it is not at all. These individuals obviously do not apply the principle on which your theory is based. These individuals apply another principle, opposed to yours, which sometimes they have to do, because in fact they do. If I understand correctly, you are telling me that, since my theory is false, it would be good to dispel it or at least correct it. Exactly. On the other hand, this is how scientific investigation works. Theories are constantly put to the test by means of critical experiments able to confirm or falsify them. And in the case of my theory, what would the critical experiment be? Simply the observation that there are individuals who enjoy scratching other people's cars. And since your theory does not contemplate the existence of these individuals, it is necessarily a false theory. Obviously, it denies the reality of the facts. I understand. Reality does not behave in this way. It is only my desire that is based on a wrong conviction. A conviction that does not take into account the data in your possession. And since you did not correct your theory using these data at your disposal, when someone scratched your car, you suffered. In my final analysis, it is therefore self-inflicted suffering. I am missing a passage. I agree that I should have corrected my theory when I already had the elements to do so. But I do not believe that I am responsible for my suffering, let alone that individual with his acts of vandalism. Once again, it is a wrong conviction. Explain yourself better. Do we agree that your convictions are only your responsibility? In the sense that it is only you who chooses which theories to believe in? I agree. No one forces me to believe in anything. You are a free man. Undoubtedly. Free to believe or not believe that no one should scratch your car. Right? Yes, although now I understand that my belief should be corrected. It would be useful to correct it because it denies reality. But now ask yourself what caused your pain when I asked you to imagine that individual scratching the body of your car? Well, not what, but who was that individual causing my pain? It's surprising. It was perhaps a magician. What do you mean? Well, he must have immense powers. Without even touching you, he was able to cause you an intense pain. How did he do it? To tell the truth, I do not know. Do you know how the pain mechanism works? Only vaguely. But maybe you can remind me. Our body is provided with specific receptors called nociceptors. Every time we suffer an aggression of any nature, this activates our nociceptors that send a message to our brain that translates into a sensation of pain. This sensation of pain is of a protective nature, that is, it informs us that an aggression is taking place and that we must take measures. And what does this have to do with our discussion? Now that you know about the existence of nociceptors that are responsible for our sensations of pain, I can ask you a question. How did that individual activate your nociceptors from the moment he didn't even touch you? A nice mystery. No mystery. He can't have activated your nociceptors because he attacked your car, not you. By the way, I would like to remind you that you felt pain even just imagining the scene. Well, I give up. If that individual, imaginary or real, didn't touch me, well, by force of course, he can't have activated my nociceptors. Who else remains? In your opinion, would I be the one who, very masochistically, would have infested myself with that pain? In a certain sense, yes. But I don't understand. If there is an aggression, then there is a victim and an aggressor. There are at least two entities. And if I exclude that the responsibility is of that individual, then I am the only one left to personify both roles, of victim and aggressor. How is this possible? There are two possible levels of analysis. At the first level, you are right, two entities are necessary. An entity that attacks and an entity that is attacked, that is subjected to aggression. But at the second level of analysis, it is discovered that the attacked entity is itself responsible for its own aggression. For what reason? Because it chooses to be attacked when it could avoid doing so. In this sense, it is itself the mastermind of its own aggression. At the first level of analysis, who would be the infamous aggressor, if we exclude that individual? Reality. Would reality have attacked me? In a certain sense, yes. Let's be clear, it has nothing to do with you on a personal level. Then why did it do it? Because you provoked it. Are you kidding me? But it was more serious. You see, reality firmly believes in Newton's third law. Do you remember it? If my memory serves me correctly, Newton's third law states that if an entity A acts on an entity B, then the entity B in turn acts on the entity A. Something like, if I kick you, then you kick me. Exactly. This is why Newton's third law is also called the law of action-reaction. Now I understand well, would reality have attacked me as a reaction to my action? No. What would I have done so terrible? You tried to deny it, claiming that it should be different from what it is, but reality cannot be different from what it is. For this reason, we cannot deny it, although we often try to do so. I still don't understand, though, when exactly did I try to deny it? You did it when you believed your false theory, the one that states that no individual, no human being, should ever scratch the car of another. Reality, as you yourself admitted, does not agree with this theory of yours, which therefore constitutes a nice and good attempt to deny it. Well, I have the impression that reality is a bit too susceptible. Mine was just a theory. Reality is not susceptible. Reality simply is, and cannot be anything other than what it is. If you throw a plate of porcelain against a concrete wall, it will disintegrate because of the reaction exerted by the wall. Would you say, perhaps, that the concrete wall is too susceptible? Ok, I think I have missed the point. With my theory, I denied reality, and because of Newton's third law, reality reacted. It reacted by denying in turn your theory, that is, falsifying it. But for what reason is the effect of this reaction so painful? Because your theory is part of you. You are, in part, what you believe in. Do you remember? That is, reality reacts by denying what I am. Not everything that you are, only that part of you that tries to deny reality. Like the plate of porcelain that tries to deny the solidity of the concrete wall? Exactly. But the plate cannot hope to do it. The porcelain cannot penetrate the concrete. But in order for there to be pain, it is necessary for there to be a contact with the aggressor, right? Right. And in fact, you and reality are always in contact. A very intimate contact. If it were not so, you would not be part of it. If I understood correctly, when I adopt a false theory of reality, such as the one that states that no one should scratch my car, I am a bit like a plate of porcelain that clashes against a concrete wall. Reality reacts to these false theories of mine, causing it to crumble. And this activates my nociceptors, a bit as if my body was made, formed by all these theories, my theories of reality. Not as if, it is just like that. Well, but mine was just a metaphor. It is much more than a simple metaphor. Have you ever heard of body-mind interaction? You tend to say that my mind perceives reality through my body. And when my body is attacked, well, yes, in the final analysis, the one who perceives the pain is my mind. Exactly, but things also go in the other direction. When your mind is attacked, your body gets hurt. When you try to deny reality through a specific thought, reality reacts by denying that thought, thus attacking that thought, in the final analysis, attacking your mind. And because of the interaction mind-body, also mediated by the brain, all this ends up affecting your physical body. That is why they say that thinking in a negative way is not healthy. Negative thoughts are often false or they are subjected to the opposite reaction from reality. I understand. It is as if our body could not make the difference between physical reality and what is imagined by our mind. If you imagine biting a lemon, what happens to your salivary glands? Well, they activate as if you were biting a real lemon. Just like that. Our mind-body has such an intimate connection. It would not be right to say that they are one. That is what I just said. Our body and our mind are part of a single reality, a reality that cannot be completely separated. And this strange body-mind, what would you call it? Simply mind? Or body-mind, as you suggested? Are you telling me that we, human beings, are essentially mental entities? Well, not just us human beings, every living being, even a microbe, has a mind to possess. You do not need a brain. Not necessarily. The mind, understood as the seat of cognition, can be assimilated to the very process of life and its evolution. In this sense, the mind does not depend on the existence of a brain, since the perception itself is already sufficient even for a simple microbe to confer the ability of cognition, even if at an elementary level. According to this point of view, we living beings are all purely cognitive, mental entities, whose body structure is nothing more than the support through which we make manifest our theories of reality, or at least part of their content. More than living organisms, then we would be a kind of living theories of reality. In a sense, yes. But do not forget the second level of analysis. What do you mean? At the first level of analysis, reality attacks our false theories of reality, a process that in science is called falsification. At the first level of analysis, there are therefore two entities, the reality that attacks and you who are attacked. This analysis, however, is incomplete, because the theories we choose to identify with are our responsibility, our choice. If we choose to identify with false theories, we cannot then consider the responsible reality of its apparently aggressive reaction, just as we cannot consider a wall of our hematoma responsible when we go to fight against it. So at the second level of analysis, we discover that victim and aggressor are in some way the same entity. Among other things, if it is true that we have total freedom of choice on which theories to adopt, this means that we are not responsible for the sum of our theories, that we are much more than that. Would you assimilate a sculptor to his statues? Well, of course not. A sculptor is the author of his statues. And perhaps we are not the authors of our cognitive processes, of our theories of reality? Well, yes, of course. Then you will agree that it is not exactly correct to say that we are living theories of reality. We are much more than that. We are builders of theories. It makes a big difference, don't you think? We are not statues, but sculptors. Yes, creators of inner realities in which we integrate our knowledge of the whole reality. So we can't even say that we are like mere mental entities. We have a mind, or a body-mind, but we are not a mind. What are we then? Something more. And that something... does it have a name? We can call that something more consciousness. The word consciousness derives from Latin a combination of con, which means to possess, to have, and sciere, which means knowledge. So a consciousness is a being, a subject, endowed with knowledge. Knowledge of what? Of reality, both inner and outer. A knowledge in continuous evolution, made manifest through the construction of theories of reality. Theories that consciousness elaborates on the basis of its own experience, and then integrates into the intimate structure of its own body-mind. If I understood correctly, our body-mind would be a sort of dynamic, ambulant memory in which we integrate all our experiences in the form of theories of reality. In a sense, it is so. And as we refine, expand, and deepen our experience, our knowledge of reality, we instantaneously rewrite our whole memory, replacing obsolete theories with more advanced theories. A process called evolution of consciousness. Grazie dell'ascolto. Grazie per l'ascolto.