Pre-Concieved Notion's

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." (Shoshin)Shunryu Suzuki,

Two terms to become familiar with to begin to understand my meaning of "Pre-Concieved Notions"

Sohshin: is a word from Zen Buddhism It refers to having an attitude of openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions when studying a subject, even when studying at an advanced level, just as a beginner in that subject would.

I believe we forget that until about 150 years ago,humanity moved at a relative slow pace as far as technology,..due to technology.,we now have to evolve mentally..at the pace we now have created,and with the fewest harmful effects"That's Truth". We can not do what we did in the past and expect to Flouish

Maybe our Greatest,and most Dangerous :"Pre-Concieved Notion is

                   Anthropocentrism -literally means human-centered, but in its most relevant philosophical form it is the ethical belief that humans alone possess intrinsic value. In contradistinction, all other beings hold value only in their ability to serve humans, or in their instrumental value.

  in Essense, forgetting or just simply never being taught, we are as much as Nature as the tree in your yard,the stream,the air.
My belief thus,if to call it religion is Nature,thus Nature is God,we are apart of God's body(Nature)-this is the only Universal belief,I can hold.
My boat I began building in 1998 to be called"Pre-Concieved Notions"

I believe this video touchs deeply on a "form " of pre-conceived notions,which here, Leo explains wonderfully.(by form of words)

So believe me,I have spent 20 years researching,studying humanity,cultures,,based on " Pre-Concieved Notions "

My idea is..."We must strive to --over-come-- Pre-Concieved Notions(dogmas,pragmatic views)...to attain Eudaimonia (happiness/awareness of mind,etc.).".to truth-fully perceive,we must truthly be aware"

To truthly see reality we must be Skeptics or I call" Few things can be 100% Certain" In Leo's video he talks of :

Pyrrho, also known as Pyrrho of Elis, was a Greek philosopher of Classical antiquity and is credited as being the first Greek skeptic philosopher.
Leo talks of...Eudaimonia: Happiness

I believe this video of Leo's best presents a look at "Pre-Concieved notions"...as I view it

This is a Foundational talk!

.........1 Bertrand Russell heard the sound of his knuckles rapping his writing table, felt the table's hardness and saw its apparent colour (which he knew 'really' to be the brown of wood) change significantly under shifting lighting conditions

...he already knew the table was "brown"...he was now pre-conceived to a degree...and....unlearn this to a degree to experience it as it is at the..."Moment"

.........2 "Argument from illusion".......

The argument from illusion is an argument for the existence of sense-data. It is posed as a criticism of direct realism. Naturally occurring illusions best illustrate the argument's points, a notable example concerning a stick: I have a stick, which appears to me to be straight, but when I hold it underwater it seems to bend and distort. I know that the stick is straight and that its apparent flexibility is a result of its being seen through the water, yet I cannot change the mental image I have of the stick as being bent. Since the stick is not in fact bent its appearance can be described as an illusion. Rather than directly perceiving the stick, which would entail our seeing it as it truly is, we must instead perceive it indirectly, by way of an image or "sense-datum". This mental representation does not tell us anything about the stick's true properties, which remain inaccessible to us.

With this being the case, however, how can we be said to be certain of the stick's initial straightness? If all we perceive is sense-data then the stick's apparent initial straightness is just as likely to be false as its half-submerged bent appearance. Therefore, the argument runs, we can never gain any knowledge about the stick, as we only ever perceive a sense-datum, and not the stick itself. This argument was defended by A. J. Ayer

Area's to study(topic's related..I feel to pre-conceived notions)


In philosophy and certain models of psychology, qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/; singular form: quale) are claimed to be individual instances of subjective, conscious experience. The term qualia derives from the Latin neuter plural form (qualia) of the Latin adjective quālis (Latin pronunciation: [ˈkʷaːlɪs]) meaning "of what sort" or "of what kind" in a specific instance like "what is it like to taste a specific orange, this particular orange now". Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, as well as the redness of an evening sky. As qualitative characters of sensation, qualia stand in contrast to "propositional attitudes",[1] where the focus is on beliefs about experience rather than what is it directly like to be experiencing.

Philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett once suggested that qualia was "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us".[2]

Much of the debate over their importance hinges on the definition of the term, and various philosophers emphasize or deny the existence of certain features of qualia. Consequently, the nature and existence of various definitions of qualia remain controversial in light of the fact that the existence of qualia has never been independently and scientifically proven as fact."Wikipedia"

Mary's Room

I would say this video best relates to my Idea of "Pre-Concieved Notions" and why it is such a big deal!

(next time you see something out in the world,,a bike,a stop sign ,,anything,, you know,,,..notion how you automatically name,it..,how did you know ,what to name.it?,,society?,,yourself,,?..all those names are on the most part a simple form of "Pre-Conceived notions"..these names in essense a dogma/belief,,,and only reason you call a bike is because you where told it is a bike!

The thought experiment was originally proposed by Frank Jackson as follows:

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like "red", "blue", and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence "The sky is blue". [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?[4]

In other words, Jackson's Mary is a scientist who knows everything there is to know about the science of color, but has never experienced color. The question that Jackson raises is: once she experiences color, does she learn anything new? Jackson claims that she does.

There is disagreement about how to summarize the premises and conclusion of the argument Jackson makes in this thought experiment. Paul Churchland did so as follows:

  1. Mary knows everything there is to know about brain states and their properties.
  2. It is not the case that Mary knows everything there is to know about sensations and their properties.
  3. Therefore, sensations and their properties are not the same (≠) as the brain states and their properties.[5]

However, Jackson objects that Churchland's formulation is not his intended argument. He especially objects to the first premise of Churchland's formulation: "The whole thrust of the knowledge argument is that Mary (before her release) does not know everything there is to know about brain states and their properties, because she does not know about certain qualia associated with them. What is complete, according to the argument, is her knowledge of matters physical." He suggests his preferred interpretation:

  1. Mary (before her release) knows everything physical there is to know about other people.
  2. Mary (before her release) does not know everything there is to know about other people (because she learns something about them on her release).
  3. Therefore, there are truths about other people (and herself) which escape the physicalist story.[6]

Most authors who discuss the knowledge argument cite the case of Mary, but Frank Jackson used a further example in his seminal article: the case of a person, Fred, who sees a color unknown to normal human perceivers.

Attitudes to the world

a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or something, typically one that is reflected in a person’s behavior

This section addresses how individual psychology influences one’s attitudes towards the world and its constituents. In essence it is about two quite different modes of being that differ in intellectual development and their attitude towards authority. This becomes apparent in the form of different degrees of self-empowerment and disempowerment, and eventually in whether individuals and societies structurally thrive or dwindle.

A short outline of these two modes of being follows below. Much more background and details follows in the subsections.

Dependent thought

Also authoritarian thought or shallow understanding

The least developed mode of being can be called ‘authoritarian’ or ‘dependent thinking’ and can be interpreted as a shallow understanding of reality that leads to a strong and generally subconscious urge to reduce the complexity of the world through an acceptance of and adherence to external authority and intolerance to and suppression of diversity. Because authoritarians feel forced to exhibit a particular type of behavior they are not (fully) deciding on their own behavior. A large majority of the populations is characterized by this mode of being. In fact everyone starts in this mode of being during childhood, and as long as you do not learn to develop the quality of your own thought processes far enough so that you can rely on your own judgement most of the time you remain in this mode of thought for the rest of life. Maslow call this ‘deficiency cognition’ because this mode of though is characterized by problem solving: where the problem is indicative of a deficiency of some sort (otherwise it is a problem that can be ignored without consequences). All forms of deficiency cognition are targeted optimization (problem solving).

Independent thought

Also libertarian thought or deep understanding

The more developed mode of being can be called ‘libertarian’ or ‘independent thinking’ and can be interpreted as a deeper and more pervasive understanding of reality in combination with an individual urge and ability to use the innate dynamics of the world to co-create shared benefits. Essentially, libertarians can decide on their own goals without any reference to of influence of external authority. Only a minority of the population of our Western societies is characterized by this mode of being. This mode of thought is the result of well-developed critical thinking capacity that is continuously used to dispel erroneous beliefs and to adopt more empowering beliefs. The result is a more realistic “truthful” and empowering understanding of the world and one’s role in it. This gradually erodes the need for external authorities that determine the content of your thoughts and beliefs. Maslow calls this ‘being cognition’ because it is a form of cognition that optimizes the quality of our ‘being’ in this world in the absence of pressing problem. Being cognition is for pervasive optimization.

“When you don’t cover up the world with words and labels, a sense of the miraculous returns to your life.” – Eckhart Tolle

Life is meant to be contemplative. To experience the gift of divinity within as we attend to creation is a fruit of contemplative practice. We are better able to sense and let go into the God-life as it is in all of creation. Without a regular practice that draws attention into the heart we can forget to attend with the heart in life. In this forgetting we lose out, not only to experiencing divine love now, but also to the experience of being who we truly are. To be here now is to live in the unity that is Being and being – God and us – together.

To be contemplative in life also requires a certain degree of integrated thinking. For too long now life in the West has been dominated by ‘left brained’ thought. The human brain has two hemispheres linked by the corpus callosum.

The left hemisphere deals with the world in abstract ways. It has a narrow focus so as to serve day-to-day activity and function. Left on its own it will calculate and manipulate the world without a sense of its own limitation. It will become ridged in its ideas, ideologically fixed.

The right hemisphere deals more in metaphors. It is the explorer rather than the dissector. It sees the bigger picture of interconnection and relationships. It is about what is unique to the particular, not the particular’s generalisation. It is that part of reasoning that knows the limits of reason. It is the backdrop and frame of balanced function. It provides meaning and context to the day-to-day.

We need both hemispheres operating together if we are to function in a holistic way. Both are needed for healthy reasoning and a healthy emotional life. Consciousness in harmony is about both working together. As the neuroscientist Iain McGilchrist says in The Divided Brain and the Search for Meaning

The problem lies in the psychology of human judgment. Much research going back to the classic work by Kahneman and Tversky demonstrates that when people make a judgment about some topic with which they are not expert, they tend to use a strategy called "anchoring and adjustment." First, people access a belief (which serves as the anchor) and then adjust that belief to take into account additional factors. This strategy is remarkably effective in most situations. It can be flawed in situations in which the anchor is inaccurate, or in which they fail to adjust properly.

Prejudice is an affective feeling towards a person or group member based solely on their group membership. The word is often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, feelings towards people or a person because of their sex, gender, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality, beauty, occupation, education, criminality, sport team affiliation or other personal characteristics. In this case, it refers to a positive or negative evaluation of another person based on their perceived group membership.[1]

example of Pre-judice other day...a individual the other day ,said to me a "hey! since, you like sucking cock, your a freaking gay fag"

..he got ..part right,,I do like sucking cock..beyond that,,how does he know me?


People have slaughtered each other in wars, pogroms, genocides, inquisitions, crusades, and political actions for centuries and still kill each other over beliefs in ideologies, politics, philosophies, and religion (and usually a combination of several reasons). These belief-systems, when stated as propositions, may appear mystical or genuine to the naive, but when confronted with a testable bases from reason and experiment, they fail miserably. I maintain that faiths (types of beliefs) create more social problems than they solve and the potential dangers from them could threaten the future of humankind...

The problems with beliefs

by Jim Walker

Part of reason...if news,a topic,event is new,strange or something insulting,like a belief,that a individual or individuals(group) share..by telling others,,they get a ego boost ,by becoming important to others..at least for the moment,they themselves, get anothers undivided attention!....now the rumor, unusual belief , invention , difference ,.the news spreader also,may be or sense a feeling of even,,being in their own illusion (naïve,state of being anonymous)..etc. Usually,poorly educated naïve,lonely,un-popular type people like to spread news that will, degrade others(misery seeks company)

A person whom spreads rumors, normally has little concern if it true,they just need that ego boost,something to say,so they are popular for a few moments.

       2. In chart below,they are very in-mature  "Psychologically "..in chart below " between red and blue "yet often mostly red..so very  low in empathy( can't relate to Consequences of their rumor spreading)..or wish to actually create harm.

       3. If left alone,(in solitude or group such as they relate to) would easily revert back to primitive form or worst of human.

       4. This type person in modern society is likely to have been raised by others like themselves

An example of how much of the Public looks at Art
  In Leo's (from "Actualized.org)- "Grasping the illusory nature of thought ", He descirbes: Picasso in a conversation with a man,whom has just ,sat with him a train ride to some where. The man starts asking Picasso about why he paints in the fashion in which he does,..ultimately tells Picasso, " you go to all effort to paint these paintings that are not realistic, that have nothing to do with Life, and They are thus Useless effort!
  This is a" Form " of  pre-Concieved Notion  that artists  have always contended with,..a viewing audience, unable to see ,to truely take the time to attempt to see,..thus by stating it is "useless,not good",..the viewer has in the end got what they needed ,  " A Certainty ", in their own mind, now they can move on to their " Next Adventures ", so many adventure this audience has,,ever seeking that " Certainty"

Tabula rasaan -absence of preconceived ideas

Within the field of psychology, the concept of autonomy is both central and controversial. Autonomy is central in that developmental (child), personality, and clinical psychologists have long considered autonomy to be a hallmark of maturation and healthy or optimal functioning. It is controversial in that the concept of autonomy is often confused with concepts such as independence, separateness, and free will, generating debates concerning its relevance and import across periods of development, gender, and individualist versus collectivist cultures.

The issue of autonomy was originally imported into social psychology through the work of Fritz Heider and Richard deCharms. Heider argued that it is people’s “naive psychology” (their intuitive understanding) that determines how they interpret events and therefore how and why they act as they do. Among the most important dimensions within his naive psychology was Heider’s distinction between personal causation, in which behaviors are intended by their authors, and impersonal causation, in which actions or events are brought about by forces not in personal control. Heider reasoned that individuals usually hold people responsible only for behaviors that they personally caused or intended. Subsequently, deCharms elaborated on Heider’s thinking by distinguishing two types of personal causation. Some intentional acts are ones a person wants to do and for which he or she feels initiative and will. These are actions deCharms said have an internal perceived locus of causality. Other intentional behaviors are attributed to forces outside the self, and these have an external] perceived locus of causality.
Self-determination theory is a contemporary perspective that builds upon the Heider and deCharms tradition with a comprehensive theory of autonomy as it relates to motivation. Self-determination theory specifically defines autonomy as the self-determination of one’s behavior; autonomous action is behavior the actor stands behind and, if reflective, would endorse and value. That is, autonomy represents a sense of volition, or the feeling of doing something by one’s own decision or initiative. The opposite of autonomous action is controlled motivation, in which behavior is experienced as, brought about, or caused by forces that are alien or external to one’s self. Controlled actions are those a person does without a sense of volition or willingness.

Any behavior can be viewed as lying along a continuum ranging from less to more autonomy. The least autonomous behaviors are those that are motivated by externally imposed rewards and punishments. Externally regulated actions are dependent on the continued presence of outside pressure or reinforcements and thus, in most contexts, are poorly maintained. A student who does homework only because parents reward him or her for doing so is externally regulated but not very autonomous. When the rewards stop, the effort on homework may also fade. Somewhat less controlled are introjected regulations, in which a person’s behaviors are regulated by avoidance of shame and guilt and, on the positive side, by desires for self-and other-approval. When a teenager refrains from cheating because he or she would feel guilty, this would be introjected, because the teenager is controlling him- or herself with guilt. Still more autonomous are integrated regulations, in which the person consciously values his or her actions and finds them fitting with his or her other values and motives. A person who acts from a deeply held moral belief would be acting from an integrated regulation and would feel very autonomous. Finally, some behaviors are intrinsically motivated, which means they are inherently fun or enjoyable. A person who plays tennis after school just for fun is intrinsically motivated and would feel autonomous in doing it.

Several theorists in social and personality psychology have suggested that autonomy is a basic psychological need. This is because in general, when people behave autonomously, they feel better and perform better. Lack of autonomy makes people lose interest in their work and can even make them sick. Accordingly, factors that support autonomy can enhance not only the quality of motivation but also the individual’s overall adjustment.

Many studies demonstrate how social events can affect perceived autonomy and, in turn, people’s ongoing motivation. When parents, teachers, or bosses use rewards to control behavior, pressure people with evaluations, take away their choices, or closely watch over them, people typically feel controlled. Conversely, when authorities provide others more choice, allow them to express opinions and make inputs, and provide positive and noncritical feedback, they foster greater autonomy and enhance motivation and persistence.

The topic of how external rewards can affect people’s autonomy has been very extensively studied and is very controversial, because it is a very important issue in settings such as work, school, and family life. Studies show that when rewards are administered in a manner intended to control the behavior or performance of recipients, they typically undermine a sense of autonomy and thus diminish both interest and intrinsic motivation. Thus, a child who is learning to play a new musical instrument might become less interested after someone gives her a reward for playing. Now the child would only want to play if again rewarded, which means the child is less intrinsically motivated. However, rewards can also be used in non-controlling ways, such as when they are given unexpectedly or as an acknowledgement of competence; when given in this way, rewards usually do not under-mine autonomy.

As noted previously, autonomy is a concept that is often confused with independence. One simple way to distinguish these ideas is to think of independence as not relying on others for resources or supports, whereas autonomy concerns how volitional or self-determined one is. Thus, people can be autonomously or willingly dependent, as when they choose to rely on someone else for help. People can also be forced to rely on some-body else, in which case they would lack autonomy. Similarly, one can be heteronomously independent, as when forced to “go it alone,” or autonomously independent, as when one desires to do something by oneself, without getting help.

Distinguishing autonomy from independence is especially critical for developmental and cross-cultural studies. For example, research has suggested that adolescents who autonomously rely on parents tend to be better adjusted than those who are more detached or independent of parents. It is also clear that cultures differ greatly in values regarding independence, with individualist cultures placing greater value on people acting independently and collectivist cultures more focused on interdependence. Research suggests, however, that whether a person engages in individualist or collectivist practices, it still matters whether or not they feel autonomous. It appears that people in all cultures feel better when they are acting choicefully, even though what they normatively do may differ. This is why people around the world often fight for freedoms and the right to pursue what they truly value.

Similarly, autonomy is not associated with separateness. Separateness refers to a lack of connection with close others. People can be very autonomously connected with others, as when they love someone and want to be close to that person. Indeed, people are often very autonomous in trying to connect with and take care of people they love.

Another important distinction is between autonomy and free will. Free will, by most interpretations, involves some notion of an undetermined action, or action that is caused by a soul or self that is completely independent of an environment. Autonomy, in contrast, does not have these implications. Most social scientists believe that all behaviors have an impetus or cause either within the organism or its environment. But even if all actions are caused in this sense, they can still vary considerably in the degree to which they are volitional or autonomous.

Practical applications of research on autonomy can be found everywhere. Insofar as people who are acting autonomously are more persistent, perform better, and are more adjusted, it becomes important to identify factors in the real world that facilitate autonomy. Thus there has been a lot of research on how to support autonomy in domains such as education, sport, work, health care, and psychotherapy. Across domains, both the structure of incentives and supervision styles have been shown to influence autonomy and the positive outcomes associated with it.

Autonomy also is something that can be cultivated from within. Because autonomy concerns regulating behavior through the self, it is enhanced by a person’s capacity to reflect and evaluate his or her own actions. One can learn to engage in reflection that is free, relaxed, or interested, which can help one to avoid acting from impulse or from external or internal compulsion. Within self-determination theory, such reflective processing is characterized by the concepts of awareness and mindfulness. Greater mindfulness can help people be clearer about why they are acting as they are and can provide information that helps them subsequently act with more sense of choice and freedom.


  1. Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822-848.
  2. Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 97-110.
  3. deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.
  4. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
  5. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social devel-opment and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
  6. Taylor, J. S. (2005). Personal autonomy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Psychology Research and Reference

Psychology Research and Reference


Inclusion and Autonomy: A study in belonging
 We are social animals and we need to feel a sense of belonging, and yet independence is
important to us and we would like to believe that we behave as individuals. This is the first
premiss upon which this dissertation is based. The second is that belonging to a group
precipitates a degree of ideological interpellation within the group members. I ask the
question: how far is it possible to belong to a group and yet to retain autonomy of identity,
autonomy of moral self-legislation, and ideological autonomy?
 The ancient Greeks used the term ‘auto nomos’ to refer to a city-state outside the control of
another city-state. Autonomy therefore meant independence and the ability to govern oneself without outside domination1. The Concise Oxford Dictionary takes autonomy to mean: ‘right of self government; personal freedom; freedom of the will’2. In this dissertation, I will
therefore be using a broad definition of autonomy to refer to independence of thought or
action. Bernard Berofsky raises Haworth’s idea that this must necessarily be a spectrum
originating from ‘the manner in which we pass from totally dependent creatures to ones who are more or less equipped to operate independently and responsibly’3. I take belonging to
mean an affirming identification with a group, be it a family group, a social circle, or
enfranchised society.

My views on we have be Autonomous,in order not to fall victim of "Group-Think"

Yet still belong,still need for Roots,.

Eclecticism is a conceptual approach that does not hold rigidly to a single paradigm or set of assumptions, but instead draws upon multiple theories, styles, or ideas to gain complementary insights into a subject, or applies different theories in particular cases. However, this is often without conventions or rules dictating how or which theories were combined.

It can sometimes seem inelegant or lacking in simplicity, and eclectics are sometimes criticized for lack of consistency in their thinking. It is, however, common in many fields of study. For example, most psychologists accept certain aspects of behaviorism, but do not attempt to use the theory to explain all aspects of human behavior.