davidbanner99@ wrote:Last night I was watching Columbo - How To Dial A Murder. Featured was a successful psychologist with two dogs and a thriving business. He gave lectures on how words condition and control people from the cradle so the episode was based on this character. Watching it, I thought the psychologist was applying his field very successfully. I mean the psychlogy I research is rewarding but not of interest to the general public. Anyway, the focus on words gave the story a great angle. I agree, words do constrain people. It's easy to analyse a subject with bias imposed by culture.
Yes, words to condition people, similar to priming.
My question, is all conditioning bad? Why would you ever want to be free from all conditioning? Why did Jiddu see it as such a problem? In my opinion, it is an unhealthy philosophy.
I get that it is a popular philosophy that has been discussed for thousands of years. From Buddha to Zeno it has been delivered in different forms. In some sense, it is a philosophy that "conditions" a person to believe that to not be free of conditioning is a problem.
No one is free from conditioning, so it is easy to say that it is a problem. It is impossible to say that being free from conditioning is a superior or healthier way to live, because it has never been achieved and never will be achieved. As Candid pointed out, we are born with innate responses, e.g. salivation.
If I say elephant, it is impossible not to think of an elephant. Try it. You can't do it.
So I argue either Jiddu did not literally mean all conditioning, or that he was wrong. I'm leaning towards Jiddu having a different concept of what it meant to be conditioned.