Mind Your Step

Great idea!! It got featured on Thingsthatmakeyouhappy with a lot of images:
http://thingsthatmakeyouhappy.com/2011/06/09/mind-your-step/

Poor guy. The other people ruined his film.

Visual illusions are great pieces of artwork because they penetrate the depths of the psyche. However it is much harder to see other forms of illusion. Like when someone demands an apology, and perhaps because this is so common-place, we fail to see that it amounts to a kind of atonement, a lowering of oneself before the other person. It would be sufficient to say "I made a mistake, I now see the truth, it shouldn't happen again." This would be congruent with the real condition of humanity, but instead we want an apology like "I'm terribly sorry, I beg of you, please forgive me! I don't want to lose you, I am nothing without you, please have mercy on my soul!" What erroneous aggrandizement of the one accepting the apology, but how are they to see through the illusion of their own desire when they themselves are carried along by it? Most, if not all of these sorts of illusions hinge on a central delusion of the free autonomy of the homunculus self. If we could see past the delusion of a self-within controlling us as if from a command-center in our brain. This belief is completely false, and so are it's children; pride, envy, etc.. Yet we cannot see it, someone can walk over it to try to show it is an illusion, but it is still very hard to see.

It's also unusual that people are willing to accept that they can be visually deceived, but no further, and even at that there is a sense of "I knew it all along". I think this is why people fail to read and comprehend web-based articles, they already know what you are trying to say. Or at least, they think they do. A clear pointer to the illusory homunculus is the fundamental attribution error which facilitates the delusion in contradictory ways. It attributes pride and shame, praise and blame in ways that are self-aggrandizing.

I try not to imagine whether I can win or make a name for myself, but for me it is entirely a question of what is right? What should I do to honor the truth in myself and in others? And I come up with some difficult answers like; Tell them, they will hate you, but tell them anyway. And I think; but what if I'm wrong? To which I answer; nobody is perfect but if we can't stand in the light of inquiry, how can we stand in the fire of truth? At least in inquiry there is some hope for delusion. I get a vision of how it ought to be and that includes each of us striving for truth, alone and together, and frequently something is uncovered which bears a resemblance to someone's behavior and that person somewhat shamefully admits they had been decieved, but no more! And the project continues. Sometimes the deceived one is me, and I think; then won't they hate me? Won't they feel I'm a hypocrite for pushing this hard and also being deluded? But I resolve to the knowledge that this question is derived from the idea of a homunculus, they would be making such statements about a presumed soul-controller that doesn't really exist, and so why should I fear criticism of something that doesn't exist? If a bad light or even a good light is cast on this controller, I know it is fundamentally deluded and what really exists is a Kluge, haphazardly constructed organic computer that is prone to all kinds of error, and none should expect such a system to be controlled from the top by some nebulous soul or homunculus. That is the primary illusion of which our whole societies are victims, the illusion which we cannot accept because of the demotion. None of us are any better on the base of things, though we may have different strengths and weaknesses, so it is said the difference between the one who is enlightened and the one who is not, is that the one who is enlightened knows there IS NO DIFFERENCE. Such apparently contradictory paradoxes are common at this depth, which is what signifies the actual depth of inquiry, it is only in the shallows that things take on a strictly dichotomous form. For example with respect to Neatorama staff, they are clearly superior to me at web-design, but no different in the ultimate sense, without their being a top-down controller, they must be controlled from the bottom-up which means, by the laws of nature. And this starts to draw an image similar to a "divine plan" if one traces the progress of these laws.

Plato was doing it right when he formulated the allegory of the cave. If you drop the homunculus (ego) and try to move through this world without it, you will find you are at odds with the world. Though you can see a much brighter world outside the cave, the people in the cave cannot and are afraid to venture outside. Indeed, in Plato's allegory the man who did escape and returned to free his brethren was promptly banished from the cave by his very cave-mates because they did not want to see the light, but preferred the shadows.

And on that note, I wonder if it isn't best sometimes to abandon the people in the cave, it is after-all what they want.

Glad you liked it.

Can someone please just block Ryan's verbose and useless comments?

@ Ted

Then don't read them if you don't like them.

Or go read the comments on YouTube.

I don't read them. It's just tedious having to scroll past them all the time.

Actually all it would take is for Miss Cellenia or another Neatorama staff to politely ask me to refrain from posting comments. I do it all the time for my family. Keep my mouth shut. I was just at a party over the weekend in which a gentleman asked his grand-daughter what her favorite color is, she said "blue". I was standing near-by and said "You know I don't have a favorite color, I like them all just the same." her grand-father then corrected me "It doesn't really apply to colors." Moments later the grand-daughter was playing with smooth grey stones and remarked on one of them "This one is special!" to which her mother said "God created them all special." and moments later she found another stone which she claimed was special, this time the grand-father said "They are all special!"

I see a contradiction here, you are teaching the little girl to pick favorites when it comes to colors, but then maintaining that all stones are created equal. Another party-goer spoke as well "Actually, you want to know how those stones are made? Water and sand!" (referring to weathering effects). Which was clearly a veiled jab at their religious beliefs. Later that night we left to another party with the party-goer who had remarked on weathering causes of stone shapes. While there we were presented with a audio-clip which was highly critical of Christianity and satirically depicted God as the Flying Spaghetti monster. One of the most memorable lines was "If this offends you, then f-k you!" and this I thought was incredibly shallow-minded. But when I tried to explain to the host that I thought it was offensive, not because it challenged my beliefs, but because they clearly didn't care if they did offend anyone and appeared to be trying to offend, she didn't want to discuss it. At best the clip is something like-minded individuals can listen to and get a gleeful sense of intellectual superiority, but they are missing the true theological meaning of Christianity as given by the church or the high priests, they are only really making fun of the idyllic mythology of childish Christianity. But they don't want to know! They don't want to know what the truth is, neither Christians or Atheists or anyone wants the truth. They want to feel superior, like they have the right stuff, and they can turn around and point the finger, and say I'm innocent, they are to blame.

Of course, I didn't say much, I know how stubborn people are especially when it comes to these ridiculous beliefs. But you can't teach a child to pick favorites and then expect it will only apply that mechanism to colors and not stones or people. Of course I've studied Christianity at least as much as them and frequently cite passages they are unawares of, and when it comes to science... well I know and understand quite a lot. Like I said to my GF, your dad's hobby is RC helicopters and Harley motorcycles, and because that is his interest he can talk about it and share it with others, but because my interest is psychology, philosophy, and religion, and more particularly depth psychology, I can't share, everything I have to share is offensive to someone.

I get it, so it doesn't take much and I'll be gone. I will just look at the neat pictures and perpetually bite my tongue. So as not to hurt your feelings. I already do it in every other aspect of my life; I can't lecture my boss on his managerial skills or organizational policies, it doesn't matter how much I enjoy behavioral economics.