Can you tell lie to yourself?

[Huyen John]

Do you lie to yourself?

What is the difference between lying and being mistaken? To be mistaken is to err because of ignorance, and to lie, is willfully repeating something you do not believe is true. So how can a person willfully repeat something to themselves that they know is not true? Is it even possible?

I have been told that the answer can only be either yes, or no. But maybe there is a middle ground. Because in order for one to lie to oneself, you can only do so in ignorance that you truly are lying to yourself: which looks like ‘mistaken’. There is a difference though, because of what you are willfully ignoring of what you can know.

Let’s say that you are told that your significant other is cheating on you. You choose not to believe it. You find evidence in the form of a love letter; your significant other informs you that it is an old letter from a past lover. Many in this situation have found it possible to convince themselves it is not true. Because they cannot, will not; accept the truth for the pain of it. As long as the verification does not come from the significant other, people have found a way to tell themselves it isn’t true. When they have access to the evidence they need to prove otherwise: It is a willful deceit—a lie. But it can only be maintained as long as there is no definite proof ‘from the horse’s mouth’. And such a person will not examine evidence to ‘prove’ the lie wrong, because they could not handle the truth, and are too afraid of what they would find. So they find workarounds to remain ignorant enough to hold on to the lie.

The path to lying to oneself then must begin with ignoring evidence. Indeed, even warping evidence if necessary to maintain the façade we have built our lives on. When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change. And so, be careful little eyes what you see, be careful little ears what you hear, because knowledge cannot be unlearned, it can only be ‘adjusted’ by the viewer to support their belief system with disregard for any other truth than the first decision of what is true to measure truth against.

Let me try to put it another way: if you have accepted one truth that Jesus is the son of God, as an ultimate truth, it is now impossible for you to truly entertain any idea’s that go against that truth. So when a paper titled ‘Jesus is not the son of God, and why I know he isn’t’ becomes available, many a person will not read it, because it does not affirm their belief it is true. That individual is lying to themselves. A person who believed such honestly, would not refuse to read it, or even fear reading it, because they believe the truth honestly, and would probably read it just to tear apart the paper as false and so then strengthen their faith, and have belittled a liar.

The evidence of a person lying to themselves is evident in what they will refuse to examine at all costs. You can beg, you can plead, you can offer money, or reward, but an individual that is lying to themselves will not examine any evidence that will potentially destroy the lie. They do this without even really being aware of doing it, but in the back of their mind they know. They are consciously aware that whatever it is they are lying to themselves about must not be a lie. And the only way to protect that is willful ignorance.

[Age]

Do you lie to yourself?

What is the difference between lying and being mistaken? To be mistaken is to err because of ignorance, and to lie, is willfully repeating something you do not believe is true. So how can a person willfully repeat something to themselves that they know is not true? Is it even possible?

I have been told that the answer can only be either yes, or no. But maybe there is a middle ground. Because in order for one to lie to oneself, you can only do so in ignorance that you truly are lying to yourself: which looks like ‘mistaken’. There is a difference though, because of what you are willfully ignoring of what you can know.

Let’s say that you are told that your significant other is cheating on you. You choose not to believe it. You find evidence in the form of a love letter; your significant other informs you that it is an old letter from a past lover. Many in this situation have found it possible to convince themselves it is not true. Because they cannot, will not; accept the truth for the pain of it. As long as the verification does not come from the significant other, people have found a way to tell themselves it isn’t true. When they have access to the evidence they need to prove otherwise: It is a willful deceit—a lie. But it can only be maintained as long as there is no definite proof ‘from the horse’s mouth’. And such a person will not examine evidence to ‘prove’ the lie wrong, because they could not handle the truth, and are too afraid of what they would find. So they find workarounds to remain ignorant enough to hold on to the lie.

The path to lying to oneself then must begin with ignoring evidence. Indeed, even warping evidence if necessary to maintain the façade we have built our lives on. When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change. And so, be careful little eyes what you see, be careful little ears what you hear, because knowledge cannot be unlearned, it can only be ‘adjusted’ by the viewer to support their belief system with disregard for any other truth than the first decision of what is true to measure truth against.

Let me try to put it another way: if you have accepted one truth that Jesus is the son of God, as an ultimate truth, it is now impossible for you to truly entertain any idea’s that go against that truth. So when a paper titled ‘Jesus is not the son of God, and why I know he isn’t’ becomes available, many a person will not read it, because it does not affirm their belief it is true. That individual is lying to themselves. A person who believed such honestly, would not refuse to read it, or even fear reading it, because they believe the truth honestly, and would probably read it just to tear apart the paper as false and so then strengthen their faith, and have belittled a liar.

The evidence of a person lying to themselves is evident in what they will refuse to examine at all costs. You can beg, you can plead, you can offer money, or reward, but an individual that is lying to themselves will not examine any evidence that will potentially destroy the lie. They do this without even really being aware of doing it, but in the back of their mind they know. They are consciously aware that whatever it is they are lying to themselves about must not be a lie. And the only way to protect that is willful ignorance.

So, if 'you' KNOW all this "huyen john" WHY then do 'you' keep lying to 'your' 'self'?

[surreptitious57]

You can most definitely lie to yourself but only when you do not actually know it is a lie

[Veritas Aequitas]

Lie = to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
Generally a person cannot lie to oneself, but to nit-pick ..

There are many layers of selves within a human system.
Example, the empirical self, the intellectual self, the conscious self, the unconscious self, the rational self, intuitive self, the primal self.
Note the case of multiple personalities disorder where a person has many selves.

When the primal self triggers a fact of hunger, the intellectual and reason self can tell itself itself there is no real hunger. As such the intellectual/rational is lying to deceive the primal self so that one is not driven to eat obsessively to the dangerous level of obesity leading to the threat of death.
There are of such situation as above involving the interaction within the various selves within a person.

In the case of multiple personalities disorder, one personality can lie to another personality, thus overall, one is lying to oneself.

[Walker]

The moment of pitiless clarity caused by waking up to self-lies and the past actions caused by self-lies could well be the cause of suicide, of even the dark night of the soul, thus the appeal of forgiveness and redemption promised by Christianity.

[gaffo]

Do you lie to yourself?

of course 80-percent of lies/"mistakes" are just that.

out of Ego/pride.........ie, refusing to look at self in the mirror.

What is the difference between lying and being mistaken?

in the true sense there is no difference, but in the real world, its easier to admit a mistake than a self lie.

i.e most of use, myself included, are more able to admit a misstake per others than per our own self image.

the former still allows "blaiming others" except in this instance, the latter requires self honesty and self conviction on all things.

[gaffo]

You can most definitely lie to yourself but only when you do not actually know it is a lie

nope 100-percent the other way Sir!

subscience (ego) rules.

all that lie to themselves know they are liars internally.

so well all know we are liars when we defend our actions/thoughts as wrong (but justify they are not wrong)

we call it rationalisation (cowardice IMO).

[gaffo]

Lie = to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
Generally a person cannot lie to oneself, but to nit-pick ..

we do it all the time Bubba.

[gaffo]

The moment of pitiless clarity caused by waking up to self-lies and the past actions caused by self-lies could well be the cause of suicide, of even the dark night of the soul,

indeed, for the awakened.

thus the appeal of forgiveness and redemption promised by Christianity.

ok, assuming i cannot forgive myself (per Christian dogma) for former folly, tell me more about your view of the merit of christianity.

you are a christian?

[Walker]

The moment of pitiless clarity caused by waking up to self-lies and the past actions caused by self-lies could well be the cause of suicide, of even the dark night of the soul,

indeed, for the awakened.

thus the appeal of forgiveness and redemption promised by Christianity.

ok, assuming i cannot forgive myself (per Christian dogma) for former folly, tell me more about your view of the merit of christianity.

you are a christian?

Hey Gaffo. How’ve you been? I trust you understand that here we exist as the written word, that writing is an intellectual activity, and that in the intellectual realm one need not be a Christian or a Christian hater to understand the truth of Christianity. Neither does one need to be pro-abortion or anti-abortion to understand the psychology of either. Neither does one need to hate Trump or love Trump to understand his popularity, to understand why he is reviled, and to understand his success. Neither does one need to live in samsara to understand the nature of suffering, or hate. One does not need to contemplate to intellectually understand the nature of contemplation because it is an intellectual activity. However, one does need to meditate to intellectually understand the nature of non-intellectual meditation, just as one needs to have sex to intellectually understand the non-intellectual nature of sex.

The intellectual principles of Christianity are easily accessible, particularly in the 4G Age for anyone who has awakened to self-lies and is removed by time or circumstance to undo the harm caused by personal ignorance.

[Impenitent]

lots of people believe in socialism turning into communism...

-Imp

[gaffo]

deleted post........its the same as the other. wtf? where is the "delete button" option?

[gaffo]

The moment of pitiless clarity caused by waking up to self-lies and the past actions caused by self-lies could well be the cause of suicide, of even the dark night of the soul,

indeed, for the awakened.

thus the appeal of forgiveness and redemption promised by Christianity.

ok, assuming i cannot forgive myself (per Christian dogma) for former folly, tell me more about your view of the merit of christianity.

you are a christian?

Hey Gaffo. How’ve you been?

I'm doing well Sir, and thanks for asking - likewise i hope you are well?

I've always like you not because we are the same politically ((though similar artistically/music/art)(i fwe are not the same in that it would not matter in my estimation of you) - just pointing out our similarities here) - but you have shown here on the "net" your true character, and from it i think that character is good (of course maybe i'm a dick of no character and so see another like myself (I don't think myself a dick nor you - just posing a possible cynical view of it here, fopr universal objectivity possibility)

I think I'm a good enough judge of character to affirm my view of you.........but of course maybe i'm a fool and do not see you are a fake, and me a poser of morality.............(ya, just playing Devil's Ad like above).

I think - though maybe prideful, i do judge myself as a "Goodish" guy, and see you as one of the same.

Pride is a sin though, so one must be weary of it - including per one's self image of oneself (ego+pride).

Humility (not the same as being a doormat (but disserning the difference is not easy!!!!!!!!!) is the opposite (a virtue(, and though dreary, is the goal in this life - IMO.

I trust you understand that here we exist as the written word, that writing is an intellectual activity, and that in the intellectual realm one need not be a Christian or a Christian hater to understand the truth of Christianity.

I understand Sir.

as i hope you understand that few/some/most are of Faiths/NonFaiths do not hate your Faith.

Ya, there are as many "christian hater" Athiests (nearly all of them were born in fundie christian homes - and have pyschological trama and when they grew up and made "war with God". not sure of the percentage of "those" Athiests, verses my type (never born in a devout Christian home - and just did not see evidence of your God while growing up, and just "not seeing Him" via evidence (not hate nor war with your God).

I'd like to know the percentages of each type of Atheist personally. (both here in America and worldwide) - just for education reasons.

per myself (I've never spoken for Athiests, though i am one - i speak only for myself), I do find more value than not in your Faith (Christianity) - but more in your older version Judiasm,

the latter values Works, the former does not. so asshole (Hilter - 4 sec before he blew his head off - excepts christ in his life) goes to Heaven forever.

while Ghani living a selfless life of moral conduct but never had faith that your Christ was YHWH's son burns in Hell forever.

so valuing/worshiping the "right person - Jebus" is of more value that right conduct (rightousness) - that is not a Judaic problem since they do not affirm Jesus, but it is a problem - for ME - per Christianity.

as for the overall themes of Christianity, i affirm. help the poor, be humble, etc (outside of "Jesus is God/God's son - christianity values the same things as Judiasm).

Neither does one need to be pro-abortion or anti-abortion to understand the psychology of either

Agreed, but don't be a Frank Lutz bot, the term is pro-choice.

I personally am anti abortion (i do not think killing an embrio is the same as a baby - but think the option of carrying to term for adoption is the better choice personally)

But not equating embrio to a kid, refuse to make that bad option of ending the life of an embrio as illegal for women.

I'm a Libertarian, so do not like The State having such power to make abortion (though i do not like it) illegal.

To be honest all the "Red meat" debates - mostly guns/gays/aboution bores me, and do not care about much. As a Lib i only wish The State to not have power into my personal life - until my conduct threatens other persons (embrios are exculded here) life and liberty.

I care about Jury Power/Pardon (an issue no-one care about, and which The State has been at war with for 150 yrs, chipping it away.

Global Corporations, which now are not only "persons legally" since the 1880's but now are so HUGE they have more power (just buy out small nations' governments - and our congre$$ (I'm convinced Nunes and 2-3 others in the Republican Camp in congre$$ have been given huge Putin checks to look the other way per the Rule of Law and our Constitution).

"Globalism" in the mindset of mass communication (the net)- IS GOOD!!!!!!! (make the wold smaller and to see we are all the same), and it has helped the shit-dirtpoor Namibians/Bangali "joe ave's" - 40 yrs ago those folks were litteraly starving to death, now they are instead poor, but living.

though all the while the top 1-percenters via the same Globalization, are raking in money by the second!!!!!!!!!!!!

the former - i'm glad for, the latter - fk em!

so parse the "globalization" - (its not "Bad" - its both good and bad - cut out the bad from the good Sir!).

anti-glo0balization (nationalism) i always bad.

ww1, ww2/etc.........

. Neither does one need to hate Trump or love Trump to understand his popularity, to understand why he is reviled, and to understand his success.

I understand it - per "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore"!!!!!!!!! - peter finch, via movie Network

I get it!!!!!!

but take note of 2 things in my anger (which i've been "mad as Hell" now for around 20 yrs - if you want to know).

1. I take not of the "savior" - Trump's history is not one championing "the people" (Woody Guthrie was - Trump is not woody) - in fact Trump is Andy Griffith's "A Face in the Crown")

phoney.

2. its easy to destroy, hard to create. anger and will tear down a corrupt government, but the former's destruction in no way (and history shows this (French Rev) will make a reformed gov after said destruction (usually the result the SAME as the prior corrupt system - but the "pleabs" feeling happy over the destruction of the former, as spent, and so allow a reconstuction of corruption without protest later.

i think The Who had a song about that Sir.

"meet the new boss, same and the old boss"

so "won't be fooled again" should be named "fooled again" (I'm sure there was a sense of irony in The Who's title of that song and understood what i'm talking about, and named the song the opposite of reality)

bleak/black humor.

Neither does one need to live in samsara to understand the nature of suffering, or hate. One does not need to contemplate to intellectually understand the nature of contemplation because it is an intellectual activity. However, one does need to meditate to intellectually understand the nature of non-intellectual meditation, just as one needs to have sex to intellectually understand the non-intellectual nature of sex.

The intellectual principles of Christianity are easily accessible, particularly in the 4G Age for anyone who has awakened to self-lies and is removed by time or circumstance to undo the harm caused by personal ignorance.

what is "Samsara"? just asking.

thanks for reply Sir!

[Immanuel Can]

The phenomenon of "self-deception" is well-known and frequent.

Here's a simple example.

Your friend is being beaten by her spouse. You counsel her to take the kids and leave, for her own safety. She assures you she does not need to do that. She says, "He was really, really sorry afterward. Anyway, I provoked him, and I won't do that again. He's the father of my children, and just think how much it would hurt them if they knew, or if we separated." Despite your best efforts, she remains resolute: the problem's over, and she is safe. You are worrying for nothing. She is definite about that.

And you can see she's definite, because she doesn't leave.

But when he comes home one evening and slams the door, she jumps.

But why? She's certain he's never going to harm her again, isn't she? She's so convinced that she stayed with him. So what has happened?

She's become a divided person. On one level, she knows that your warning is justified and your advice is good. But on another, she is choosing not to believe that your warning is justified. And she's in such bad faith about that, that she cannot stop herself from jumping at random sounds, or maybe raising her hand to protect her face when he lifts his arm to put a dish in the cupboard.

She's deceived. But she's her own deceiver. And she's not so deceived she doesn't know on some level. But it's hard to say what it is she really knows.

[Age]

The phenomenon of "self-deception" is well-known and frequent.

Here's a simple example.

Your friend is being beaten by her spouse. You counsel her to take the kids and leave, for her own safety. She assures you she does not need to do that. She says, "He was really, really sorry afterward. Anyway, I provoked him, and I won't do that again. He's the father of my children, and just think how much it would hurt them if they knew, or if we separated." Despite your best efforts, she remains resolute: the problem's over, and she is safe. You are worrying for nothing. She is definite about that.

And you can see she's definite, because she doesn't leave.

But when he comes home one evening and slams the door, she jumps.

But why? She's certain he's never going to harm her again, isn't she? She's so convinced that she stayed with him. So what has happened?

She's become a divided person. On one level, she knows that your warning is justified and your advice is good. But on another, she is choosing not to believe that your warning is justified. And she's in such bad faith about that, that she cannot stop herself from jumping at random sounds, or maybe raising her hand to protect her face when he lifts his arm to put a dish in the cupboard.

She's deceived. But she's her own deceiver. And she's not so deceived she doesn't know on some level. But it's hard to say what it is she really knows.

Is this something like believing in God, and God's supposed word about being rewarded with eternal life after one person's own death, but not really trusting that, and not really wanting go there because they will do absolutely every thing they can to stay alive, in this place, that they know and can actually trust?

They are deceived. But they are their own deceiver. Do they want to leave and be eternally happy or do they want to stay here, no matter what happens to them? They are not so deceived that they do not know on some level. But it is hard to say what it is they really know?