Disabuse - verb ('dis-a-BYEWS') and noun ('dis-a-BYOOSE')

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:49 pm

Disabuse - verb ('dis-a-BYEWS') and noun ('dis-a-BYOOSE')

Post by Luxin »

Dear philosophers! Hello! :)

The verb 'disabuse' (literally 'away from abuse') amuses and fascinates me.

A dictionary entry is:

"to free (a person) from deception or error; set right".

It sounds like a nasty thing, but it's not.

A concise and correct dictionary entry might be:

"to assist (a person) in realizing and freeing themself from their own self-deception or error".

My own lengthy all-purpose definition of 'to disabuse' is:

"to say, do or think whatever is required to prove to and help (oneself / another) to become free of (one's / their) effective Self-abuse [abusing one's higher nature, True Self, or Reason] and Self-deception [betraying one's own Reason] arising from (one's / another's) error or misconception. A misconception can have undesirable or harmful consequences, and therefore does represent abuse of oneself until the "abuse of Reason" or error ends". :shock:

The dictionary definition of 'disabuse' suggests one person X disabusing another person Y, but X does not and should not have the power to do such directly, as if by mind control or 'undue influence', a moral crime perpetrated by brainwashers. Person X can only say, do or think something that influences (themself / another; i.e. X or Y) to do their own self-disabusing or -correction. Similarly, what is called 'teaching' is more accurately (oneself / another) 'learning' if the capacity to so exists.

An example of the common type of error made regarding "to disabuse":

"I'm not sure where or when I got the notion that actions were replayed, but thanks for disabusing me of it".

We ideally should say "...thanks for telling me of it" (the mistaken notion). Thus, the amusing and seemingly self-disparaging "I am being disabused" is gone. Aww! :(

In summary, we disabuse ourselves of a mistaken notion. No one can ethically correct another's thinking directly; they can (usually) just tell us something that may or may not assist us to disabuse or correct ourself.

I recently disabused myself of my error that it might have been OK to speak of evil. I didn't know I should have been strictly following the third monkey's admonition to "Speak no evil".

My new bumpersticker is "Leave the disabuse to yourself". Disabuse or self-correction is something that can only be done by oneself.

Yours, Luxin

Assuming everyone is a "boogeyman", start with doubt and examine them and yourself. "An unexamined life is death" (Socrates). Look up to yourself, never to anyone else. Trust no one. A thinking mind is one's best protection, but intuition is good too, as in the Mother Goose rhyme:

"I do not like you, Mr. Fell;
Why I don't I cannot tell.
But I do not like you, Mr. Fell".
Posts: 5122
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Disabuse - verb ('dis-a-BYEWS') and noun ('dis-a-BYOOSE')

Post by Age »

'Dis' - a Latin prefix meaning “apart,” “asunder,” “away,” “utterly,” or having a negative, or reversing force.

'Ab' - a prefix meaning from, away, off.

'Use' - if used in terms of people, would generally relate to treating or using. If we are going to treat or use people, then the general consensus would be to treat or use them correctly or properly.

So, if we are 'ab-using' someone, (or something), then we are mis-using or not-using, treating them properly nor correctly. If we are ab-using someone, then we are using them away, apart, or from, their purpose.

The 'ab' means away from. For example like with the use of the word 'ab-original' when used by peoples who are trying to settle among and establish control over the indigenous, or 'original', settlers. The use of the word ab-original (not-original) is a way of, trying to, self-justify ones own real mis-use and abuse of those original owners. By just putting a prefix onto a word people can un-conciously distort the truth, and pretend that the ab-originals are not the real owners.

"To dis-ab-use" is better understood when one discovers, learns, and understands fully how they, themselves, have been abused by adults just about all of their childhood, and have/are abusing children most of their adulthood now. It is true; Disabuse or self-correction is something that can only be done by oneself. If and when an adult learns, by one's self, how to stop all mis-behavior on others, then disabuse is something that takes place. Or more simply, being able to use people properly and correctly for their intended purpose is known, and thus then able to be achieved.

Anything can be interpreted in any different way. Hear no evil, see no evil - speak no evil, could also mean; If children hear no evil and see no evil, then they will not grow up speaking (or doing) evil, which is abuse.
User avatar
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Disabuse - verb ('dis-a-BYEWS') and noun ('dis-a-BYOOSE')

Post by Luxin »

Dear philosophers Age et al,

Thank you for your fine analysis of the word 'disabuse' and its constituents.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:11 am Hear no evil, see no evil - speak no evil, could also mean; If children hear no evil and see no evil, then they will not grow up speaking (or doing) evil, which is abuse.
I don't agree with the first two monkeys' 'See no evil' and 'Hear no evil'. We must be able to see or recognize evil in order to protect ourselves from its influence. We must see or know the characteristics of both good and evil -- i.e. discriminate good and evil, or know the difference between the two -- so that we're not abused or led astray by evil. Blindness to evil is also evil, and brings karmic retribution.

It's not an error, but a natural thing to perceive evil; i.e. to see or recognize evil, or to hear it or of it. The degree of perception or intuition of evil depends on the person. Our protection from our own evil depends on not speaking of our own or others' evil to others in the sense of judging or opposing ourself or them.

Your protasis, 'If children hear no evil and see no evil', presents a hypothetical state that could only be found in a paradise in which significant evil no longer exists. It's likely in such a paradise -- where the good and morality prevails -- that teens would not speak or do any significant evil, after being 'good' as children. Parents would be watching them, and might give them a book of our history so they could see the evil of our recorded history. Such a utopia may be possible for more evolved human beings in the far distant future on this planet, or even now on another planet too far away to visit.

Your apodosis, 'they will not grow up speaking (or doing) evil', then, does not follow from your protasis, as its condition is presently impossible.

Here's an if-then construct that is true but generally impossible at present because of our general incapacity to not speak of or oppose evil:

If children could hear of evil and see evil yet not speak of it, they would not grow up speaking or doing evil.

Here's an elaborate variation of the above:

If good prevailed in the world and children saw and heard of evil yet -- with their goodness and compassion for themselves and others, especially the so-called 'evil' -- were not compelled to speak of or oppose evil and kept it discreetly to themselves, and they further learned not to speak of it after having heard about 'Speak no evil' and the awful consequences of ignoring this admonition, they would so be good as adults.

For the present, children are going to both see and hear evil, which is fine if they keep it to themselves, as in 'That's for me to know and you to find out', or with a solemn and mournful respect with tears for the losers in evil events, which are all involved, and there's no one to blame because it's about weaknesses that virtually no one can or could prevent. However, because of the present reality of evil, and our general tendency to speak about or oppose evil a.k.a. judging incautiously, many of us, children or adults, have very little protection from the evil karmic cause-and-effect backlash that returns to us because of the virtual law, 'Speak no evil', which Christ termed 'Resist not evil', reminding the 'wise', and admonishing those who might think of publicly opposing evil authorities, which often has disastrous consequences. 'The tongue is the neck's enemy'.

Another interpretation of the protasis could be relative to vulnerable mentally challenged childen. This delicate topic is best left alone, as therein lies the unspeakable.

If this response seems didactic to you, please forgive me; I cannot affirm things otherwise, and if I tried to, it would not allow me to review and analyze my words properly.

In this piece/response I have spoken of evil in a generalized way to stress the third monkey's admonition, and not in the sense of judging anyone. There are exceptions to the general rule 'Speak no evil', if one's intent is not to harm. Nature recognizes an intent to harm and instantly sends retribution back to us as bad feelings etc. through the cause-and-effect Law of Justice or Karma. Nature's feedback regarding good intent is good feelings.

I quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma :
'Good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and future happiness, while bad intent and bad deeds contribute to bad karma and future suffering'. This equates with the Bible's 'As ye sow, so shall ye reap'.

Many beings are compelled to fear, judge, seek vengeance and not forgive. It's no one's fault, and judgment brings danger. Divine forgiveness is rare, but that doesn't mean it can't be prevalent one day.

This could be another thread, but I'd rather leave that decision to a moderator. Thank you.
Posts: 5122
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Disabuse - verb ('dis-a-BYEWS') and noun ('dis-a-BYOOSE')

Post by Age »

Hi luxin

I am certainly not a philosopher, that is in the sense that you see what the word philosopher means anyway. My usage of the word and its definition is very different than yours. I gained this information not just from your first four words but it is also shown throughout parts of your other usage of words.

Anyhow, the fact is to use words such as "we must be able to see or recognize evil in order to protect ourselves from its influence" is an attempt at self-justification for an adult to do wrong/evil in front of, towards, and upon, children, and others. For adults to do wrong/evil in front of, towards, and upon children is abuse in and of itself.

The thing is children do not recognize evil when adults themselves are so well at self-justifying their wrong or evil ways. For example all those wrong/evil/abusive things adults do to children that they do not even recognize themselves doing children may well not see them as nor recognize them as wrong/evil/abuse. If children did see all the evil behavior that is being portrayed in the world past or present, recognized it as true evil, and did not truly want that for their children, then they would not copy and follow that evil. Yet that is what has and what is continually happening. Why? Because children do not see evil and recognize evil for what it truly is. If they did, and grew up with the true intention of wanting what is and wanting to what is truly best for children, then their would not be any evil being done in today's world.

I agree, wholeheartedly, that human beings on a whole are left to their own accord to learn and discover what is truly right and what is truly wrong for the very simple fact that human beings learn best by making mistakes rather than just being told what is right and wrong. One day after millennia human beings will learn exactly how to distinguish what is truly right from what is truly wrong in life and behave accordingly. Human beings have already been around for millennia. So, on a whole human beings have had to experience evil, in order to learn and discover better how to only do what is right and good. In order for that to happen human beings need to learn and discover why it is better to only do, and thus teach, only what is right or good. But first before that happens adults need to be truly open and honest about their abusive behaviors towards children, and how many of you are prepared to do that? Even before that takes place adults need to first recognize what is good, or wrong and evil. Now trying and get a group of adults together, especially a group who call themselves philosophers, to come to a consensus on that.

Good luck

By the way it can be very simply and easily done, with the right types of people.

In my previously not well explained, but hopefully more simple and easier better explanation of, Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, is if and when children grow up in a world where adults have already accepted and taken full responsibility for the evil world that they were creating and have already just changed and are creating a truly peaceful, evil/abuse-free world, then children will see no and hear now evil. If and when that is happening, then children are doing speaking of evil. The word speaking to me simply just means copying or following on from adults behaviors. If children are brought up in a world with no evil being done, then they will not bear witness to evil. They will not hear nor see evil. If children have not been born into and thus beared witness to evil, then they can not copy/speak evil. And, in this different evolved world if any child started to do any wrong or perform any evil, then adults now know how to rid that from evolving any further. They had obviously already gained the knowledge of how to rid the world of it previously.

In very simple terms; If children grew up in a world now without any human made alcohol or tobacco existing, in other words if they did not hear nor see these things, then the chances of them imagining and creating them now or in the future is highly unlikely. If a whole generation of responsible adults rid the world of somethings that they all considered bad or evil, then the chances of those things being allowed to be reinvented is not really that likely. Sure those human made things obviously were once brought into existence but if they are extinguished for being bad or evil things, then why would they be allowed to be brought back into existence?

The same example example could be said for guns. If children lived in a world where there were no more human made weapons, used for killing each other, and all children just witnessed adults being loving and caring with and towards each and all others, especially the children themselves, then where would a child learn to hate, and kill? Why would a child want to hurt another if every other was kind, patient, loving, and caring towards them?

I could go on forever explaining deeper and deeper this sense of If you witness no evil, then you can and will not do evil. But I will not for now. By the way speaking evil, from the judging others perspective, is the very reason why adult human beings are completely missing the mark in regards to the cause-effect of evil, itself.
Post Reply