Can you "Purposely Shift Perspective" ?

[sakoz]

"think out side the box"  and  "think about thinking"  indicate NOT to be "locked in" a thought or level of thinking, but to be innovative in thoughts.
I'm suggesting a more radical "shift of perspective". The phrases  "locked IN a thought" and "innovative IN thinking". I'm suggesting "shift OUT OF thought" altogether.
I'm not suggesting changing topic or content of thought, but "transcending" thoughts. This is a 'novelty', even 'unheard of ' for many of you. A example/analogy may help;
If your IN the forest, you see the trees from that 'perspective'; but if you hover OVER the forest in a helicopter, you have a different (higher-big picture) perspective. Another example, the concentric circles of a target,larger circles keeps the smaller,circle intact but includes more area. A very dramatic demonstration of what I'm conveying is at  http://powersof10.com
click on FILM at that site. The film is by Charles and Ray Eames.
The few people that reply to my posts, none seem to understand my ideas; if this film doesn't help, I give up.

[SWM]

of the people who reply to your posts I have observed only one member that did not understand your ideas.

[SWM]

you asked a question about images and meta-images but I can't find that post now.

you asked if your secondary images were meta-images. secondary images are not necessarily meta-images. As voodoo scientist stated it would help if you used terminology which is commonly accepted. cognitions are better way to describe what you call images. anyway I will work with your language but that means it might not be as accurate for some readers.

in your example you were sharing something with friends and you reacted to you images. on reflection you recognized secondary images. you wondered if these secondary images are meta-images. they would be meta-images if they relate to yourself in the primary image.

example:
you imagine yourself falling down stairs. this is the primary image.

you imagine yourself feeling stupid and your friends laughing for you falling down stairs. this is a secondary image.

you catch yourself playing with these images in your mind and you tell yourself this is just a mental image, i am not really stupid nothing to be embarrassed about. this is meta-image.

[sakoz]

SWM, I wrote; "The few people that reply to my posts, none seem to understand my ideas." ( don't overlook the word "seem").
You wrote; "of the people who reply to your posts I have observed only one member that did not understand your ideas."(maybe you should use the word "seems").
I acknowledge I made a mistake using the word "understand" when I meant/intended any of these words, "practice", "realize", "experience", "actualize"; WHAT they understand.
You pointed out my mistake. I intended to point out the old saying; "Those that can, DO; those that can't, TEACH." There is a difference  between  'understanding' and 'applying/practicing' what is understood. My ideas are plain and simple. I start with the placebo effect; and point out that we do with 'mental images' what is done with fake pills, BOTH are mistakenly "believed" real, the 'believing' in both cases is done "unwittingly/inadvertently", but nonetheless unwarrented. Just as the word "symptom" is applied to many conditions, the word "placebo" can be applied to both fake pills and images. That's not difficult to understand. Stopping the 'habit' of automatically, unwittingly, inadvertently, mistakenly 'believing some images are real', is another matter.
When a person recognizes they have been 'mistakenly believing' a image was real,  they experience a visceral reaction, usually laughter, depending on the particular image that was believed. If a person recognizes that had been mistakenly believing that they were 'useless" or "unloved', they might feel relieved rather than laugh. Physiological/visceral reactions are involved in "getting it".
People can pay much in therapy fees for that 'experience', and if they "get it' here for free; they won't acknowledge it without so much as a 'Thank You"? I find that hard to believe. That's why I say their "not getting' viscerally even if they 'understand' the 'phenonomon' intellectually.

[SWM]

SWM, I wrote; "The few people that reply to my posts, none seem to understand my ideas." ( don't overlook the word "seem").
You wrote; "of the people who reply to your posts I have observed only one member that did not understand your ideas."(maybe you should use the word "seems").

I could say that i observed one member who expressed that they did not understand your ideas.

Meta-images??

[sakoz]

Mental Health Professionals of every persuasion and ilk are just as vulnerable and prone to 'falling for' the placebo effect as the rest of us.
The evidence/proof I submit is the article in SCIENCE magazine titled "On Being Sane In Insane Places"."  The gist of the article is: A placebo experiment was set up using people instead of pills or images. A psychology dept. sent 8 "pseudopatients" to different hospitals to pose as patients. They presented a generalized, ambiguous complaint that lacked substantiation. They were all admitted for  psychiatric treatment. After they were released (their stay was from 7 to 52 days, the average stay was  19 days). The results were published. A hospital said it could NOT happen at their hospital, they asked the experimenters to send them some 'pseudopatients'. After 30 days, they asked the experimenters to verify how correct they were in detecting the pseudopatients.( they found 14)
The experimenters said they did NOT send any.       (just the 'expectation')
( If that is not "unwittingly believing one's images are real"; you explain the above.)
I would like to see the 'Placebo Effect'  renamed to "Unrecognized Belief" Effects.
The staff of the psychiatric hospitals (including the psychiatrists) did NOT distinguish their 'subjective  images' and 'objective perceptions'.
And they  purport to help patients do so ? JEEZ. We better fend for ourselves.

[sakoz]

Why was it so easy to deceive/dupe the psychiatric hospital staff?(including psychiatrists)( They unbeknowingly colluded as 'shill and 'victim'.)
We are all as facile/adept at reacting to 'subjective images' as reacting to 'objective perceptions'. Sometimes we DON'T RECOGNIZE when doing which.
At those times we do not differentiate 'subjective images' from 'objective perceptions'. Our " perception/image reactor " is not designed/structured to recognize the difference;and so we are as vulnerable to "self-deception' as well as deceived by others.
By way of illustrating; are you familar with 'robotic vacuum cleaners'? The first models depended solely on the environment to change directions, that is, they bumped into something in order to change direction. When a 'program' was added, it could stop and change direction  without bumping into something first. See the 'parallel' with our behavior? We react to perceptions of/from environment; we also react to 'subjective images' via thought choosen programs. Not only are we 'programmable'; we also PROGRAM OURSELVES. ( I wrote elsewhere; " We are conditioned TO and BY language"). When you get a job, you need a map or directions to get there. Soon you depend on your image of the directions. Then soon, those images 'go' tacit/implicit/subliminal but they function everyday thereafter to get to work, as 'habit', without thinking. Which brings us back to the psychiatric hospital staff. Once they 'believed' "normal" people were 'patients', they reacted to their subjective image of patients.( They displayed HARDENING of their CATEGORIES  by treating normal people as patients.) Even though they were duped into believing a deception,
isn't it THEIR  responsibilty to recognize and differentiate THEIR objective perceptions  from THEIR subjective images? No matter how normal the "pseudo" patients acted, they were not recognized as normal, once admitted as 'patients'. Another example of 'subjective images' OVERRIDING 'objective perceptions' is when "looking" at a rope but "seeing'" one's subjective image of a snake, and react to it instead of to the rope.
Our 'task', if we choose to, is to RECOGNIZE and DIFFERENTIATE our own subjective images  and objective perceptions, thereby behaving rationally. Reducing and even eliminating emotional suffering, stress, etc.

Aren't you surprised Mental Health Professionals have not yet considered this as the common denominator of human emotional suffering? If they don't recognize it in themselves, then I guess they won't address it as a "problem".

Key question: " What will it take to RECOGNIZE when/while REACTING to 'subjective image' instead of to 'objective perception' ?"

[sakoz]

Is "believing" a cognitive function/process? Cognitions 'are' the subject/content OF 'believing', but is 'believing' itself cognitive? A basket may contain apples but the basket itself is not a apple.

Emotions are analogous to "black box effects/output" to laymen; neurologists may 'know' the physiological cause of emotions; laymen may know the amygdala et al are the seat/cause of emotions, but that information does not help regulate emotions when experiencing them.
( Black Box: In science and engineering, it's a device, system or object which can be viewed solely in terms of  input, output WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE OF IT'S INTERNAL WORKINGS.)
Emotions are aroused by "believed thought-images" ( also by 'objective perceptions of/from environment of threat and danger, which are real, therefore I won't be concerned about them here.)
"Believed thought-images" are NOT real but they arouse real emotions nonetheless. So what's the 'glitch'? The 'organs' of emotions do NOT distinguish/differentiate 'objective perceptions' (from/of environment) and 'subjective thought-images , (from memory/imagination); reacting to both AS IF IDENTIICAL. The distinction has to be made in order to avoid needless, inappropriate, painful emotions.
When we 'mistakenly believe' thought image is real, we are subservient to the belief (even though false) and it's "played out', experienced in the real world.

Some thoughts are believed.    Is "believing" a thought?