Bring4th

I was interested in hearing some of your thoughts regards how these 2 concepts interrelate; that is, the notions of naivety and discernment.

Are they diametrically opposed?

With naivete, there is a certain innocence and inexperience, which can verge into the gullible.

With discernment, there is a rigorous comparison of data-points, and subjecting opinions and claims to analysis; and yet skepticism and cynicism can also result from an excess (in my opinion).

Do the two form some sort of balance?  Especially when it comes to spiritual matters, and claims are made which cannot be fact-checked or subject to lab analysis; then one is left with going on 'vibes' and an individual's reputation.

My feeling is that sometimes we can suspend our own discernment, and willingly be gullible in the desperate hope for changes that we don't think are achievable by our own means.

Spiritual Seekers can come in many varieties.  There are those who have founded their understandings on concrete experience; and then there are those who turn to spirituality, because they've somehow given up on everything else in their lives, and it's their last lifeline.  The latter can definitely transition into the former, given the re-instatement of discernment.

I don't think they are diametrically opposed. I have been slightly influenced by Mark Passios "Natural Law" seminar however which leads me to conclude they are not. What Mark described as being the opposite of naivete, was "scepticism". He used a bell mouth to articulate where sound or balanced judgement would lie. And that was somewhere near the centre, while naive and sceptic were on the extreme ends. 

So you could say that naivete is lacking in discernment, as is scepticism, using the analogy I have shared above. Or, if naivete is being oriented towards taking things at face value and accept what is offered, then it's opposite would be refusing to accept what is offered with a bias towards suspicion. So the balance lies with developing discernment for both opposites, as they are both assumptious positions. That's how I see it at least.

Also, I don't think going on 'vibes' as a discerning indicator should ever be underestimated. For me personally, a smile tells me all I need to know. It informs me whether I can trust the person or not. That said, this does not actually validate the data that a person I deem trustworthy has shared with me. More it informs me that they are not being knowingly deceitful. I cant quantify this type of smile like a body language expert might be able to, which is why I rely on the 'vibe' thing. 

As for the variety of spiritual seekers, I imagine I would fall into the latter generalisation. Although, "There are those who have founded their understandings on concrete experience" reminds me of Amber Jayanti, where she emphasizes to her avid readers, to "seek what is real!".

Too much of either leads to entropy and a great latency in reaching conclusions in one's seeking. Although too much naivete as its own entropy and latency is just a passive existence that could and ought to be more vivid, dynamic in experience. Discernment provides the catalyst to allow for a more efficient and fulfilling mental, spiritual existence, as one seeks sustenance on these levels.

Too much discernment leads to a collapse and forgetting of previous work that is usually inherently, naively accepted, trusted within the self. This corruption at its final point is negative polarization, as the entity begins to strictly reject any point that is "not the self."

(11-12-2015, 06:10 PM)Nicholas Wrote: [ -> ]So you could say that naivete is lacking in discernment, as is scepticism, using the analogy I have shared above. Or, if naivete is being oriented towards taking things at face value and accept what is offered, then it's opposite would be refusing to accept what is offered with a bias towards suspicion. So the balance lies with developing discernment for both opposites, as they are both assumptious positions. That's how I see it at least.

that's definitely a good way of putting it.

(11-12-2015, 06:10 PM)Nicholas Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I don't think going on 'vibes' as a discerning indicator should ever be underestimated. For me personally, a smile tells me all I need to know. It informs me whether I can trust the person or not. That said, this does not actually validate the data that a person I deem trustworthy has shared with me. More it informs me that they are not being knowingly deceitful. I cant quantify this type of smile like a body language expert might be able to, which is why I rely on the 'vibe' thing. 

I wasn't in any way denigrating vibes; I definitely use it a lot!  

The only other thing that I would add (which is not related to your example at all), is that sometimes fear-based thinking can sneak under the radar as 'vibes', and then it's only after the fact that one realises that one has acted out of a fear-based scenario, rather than really vibing with a deeper current of truth and intuition.  

That is perhaps something that has made me a little wary of just trusting vibes; and yet, at the same time, if it's genuine good vibes, then being sceptical of it can delay the moment of action until the real moment has passed, and then it's too late.

So I guess the essence of my OP was about evaluating inputs, and the various burdenings we bring to the table even before we can assess a situation/data.

To me, naivete corresponds to a state of mind.  It is a lack of awareness.  I believe awareness leads to discernment which is also a state of mind. 

(11-12-2015, 09:09 PM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]The only other thing that I would add (which is not related to your example at all), is that sometimes fear-based thinking can sneak under the radar as 'vibes', and then it's only after the fact that one realises that one has acted out of a fear-based scenario, rather than really vibing with a deeper current of truth and intuition.  

Yes. Your statement that I have highlighted reminds me of the 'hall of mirrors'.

This facebook meme was why I returned to this very thread ...



Edit: The meme doesn't appear when I click the 'preview post' button so here is the text.

"Apply oneself to Solitude. One who is given to solitude knows things as they really are" - The Buddha

(11-12-2015, 09:09 PM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-12-2015, 06:10 PM)Nicholas Wrote: [ -> ]So you could say that naivete is lacking in discernment, as is scepticism, using the analogy I have shared above. Or, if naivete is being oriented towards taking things at face value and accept what is offered, then it's opposite would be refusing to accept what is offered with a bias towards suspicion. So the balance lies with developing discernment for both opposites, as they are both assumptious positions. That's how I see it at least.

that's definitely a good way of putting it.

(11-12-2015, 06:10 PM)Nicholas Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I don't think going on 'vibes' as a discerning indicator should ever be underestimated. For me personally, a smile tells me all I need to know. It informs me whether I can trust the person or not. That said, this does not actually validate the data that a person I deem trustworthy has shared with me. More it informs me that they are not being knowingly deceitful. I cant quantify this type of smile like a body language expert might be able to, which is why I rely on the 'vibe' thing. 

I wasn't in any way denigrating vibes; I definitely use it a lot!  

The only other thing that I would add (which is not related to your example at all), is that sometimes fear-based thinking can sneak under the radar as 'vibes', and then it's only after the fact that one realises that one has acted out of a fear-based scenario, rather than really vibing with a deeper current of truth and intuition.  

That is perhaps something that has made me a little wary of just trusting vibes; and yet, at the same time, if it's genuine good vibes, then being sceptical of it can delay the moment of action until the real moment has passed, and then it's too late.

So I guess the essence of my OP was about evaluating inputs, and the various burdenings we bring to the table even before we can assess a situation/data.

Hmm I'm not so sure. I'd definitely not consider anything brought to any given experience as burdensome. More like biases and lessons.  

As for the relative comparison of naivety and discernment,  instead of seeing them as opposites or even something comparative,  how about possibly in a linear fashion? 

One could look upon a world and any particular experience with the eyes of a child,  full of wonder and naivety with an open heart yet once this open heart has been balanced,  it can then open the higher energy centers to allow discernment of said experience. 

It can also possibly go the other way as well. Say someone is a tad too over balanced in wisdom and logic yet lacks the heart and emotion needed for a truly balanced view of a situation. By allowing this  rigorous yet logic based reaction,  it can then allow work back down the energy centers  so that one can see the fruits of their rigorous labor ad truly appreciate that moment with love.