"Gratefulness" in relationship to family

[secrets0stolen]

This is something I've been thinking about for a long time. Parents often use the "ungrateful" card as a form of manipulation (that you owe them something), and on the other hand they are to thank for our existence. I've been thinking for a long time about how to have a healthy relationship with this concept. And I heard something, that wasn't specifically talking about parents, but paradigms he terms as "religious" and "spiritual".

In the religious paradigm, being born is a sin, and you must submit and make amends for it to an authority structure. In the spiritual paradigm, being born is a gift that you accept with responsibility into your own hands.

That characterizes it so well, doesn't it? Both of attitudes we can take to our parents, and to life and your higher power of choice.

[nklplnt]

lol @ the "religious paradigm"-- why in the world would being born be a sin...?

I don't believe in "owing" anyone anything, unless they state in advance that they expect payment and you don't pay.

As far as I'm concerned, if you are expecting something in return, it ain't a gift.

I never turn down gifts anymore either. Why should I deny you the pleasure of gift-giving/ generosity?

I think that parents pull the ungrateful card because they want to feel like all of the things they did for you are appreciated. They need to feel like any "sacrifices" that they might have made for you weren't wasted. It's just an insecurity. What would their reaction be if you pointed out how ungrateful they are toward you, or anything else in their lives?

imo parents shouldn't expect their kids to pay them back for anything.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by nklplnt

lol @ the "religious paradigm"-- why in the world would being born be a sin...?

Christianity says that pretty directly. It's called "original sin".

[nklplnt]

Yeah I get it it's just so crazy.

But hey, I'm a filthy sinner so what do I know?

[st33med]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Christianity says that pretty directly. It's called "original sin".

That reminds me of one of my songs using that. "Hero" by Regina. That explains the lyrics.

"Open wide -- here comes original sin."

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by st33med

That reminds me of one of my songs using that. "Hero" by Regina. That explains the lyrics.

"Open wide -- here comes original sin."

I love that song. One of my favorites.

YouTube - Regina Spektor Hero of the story

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Christianity says that pretty directly. It's called "original sin".

Isn't it only Catholics who use that?

I'm pretty sure that in my Church, when I was little, everybody was innocent until you did something wrong... (protestant church, but not like the US protestant churches).


Other then that, yes I think it is a good way to describe the 2 attitudes.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Isn't it only Catholics who use that?

I'm pretty sure that in my Church, when I was little, everybody was innocent until you did something wrong... (protestant church, but not like the US protestant churches).


Other then that, yes I think it is a good way to describe the 2 attitudes.

I know Presbyterians (particularly Calvinist) and Baptists (at least all the churches I've encountered in the US) use that idea. I bet there are some non-denominational ones that don't.

[James81]

Yeah, a lot of people interpret it as being "born into sin." We tend to make that mean that we are inherently sinful and that we need to be "saved" by the "blood of the lamb."

With my flippity flop perspective, I interpret it a different way these days. I think we are born into the ideas of "good and evil." It's an awareness that can be traced all the way back to the beginning, with the inception of the idea that "we are naked" and that that is bad...and that we must cover ourselves up to hide our nakedness (i.e. our "sin"). And the the message of "salvation," living in a state of GRACE transcends the notions of good and evil...that all we have to do is BELIEVE what Jesus said...that his words will create a new idea in our minds that will lead to eternal life...and the idea is that to take our focus off our awareness of good and evil and put it onto the fact that the kingdom of God exists within us, that we are a part of God, and that we are NOT inherently sinful...our "sins" are already forgiven! They've been forgiven for 2000 years! That was the whole purpose of the salvation thing. That we aren't born into sin, but we are born into perfection...we are inherently perfect and all that we need to do is believe it...to just believe it and feel that it's true.

But enough of that...that wasn't really the question...

You were talking about gratefulness for our parents. I think that idea is in the shift...the way you think about them. We tend to get so focused on what they aren't giving to us, on the ways that they aren't loving us, and the things they do that we feel invalidate us...but we rarely ever think about the ways that they are sharing their love in the only ways they feel they know how...we rarely ever think about the thinks they have given us...because they are meeting certain needs, they don't even register on our radar because we only feel the areas where a need ISN'T being met.

And the realization that it's not your parents job to met ALL your needs, so focus on the needs they ARE meeting and generate the needs that aren't being met in your own new and powerful ways.

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

In the religious paradigm, being born is a sin, and you must submit and make amends for it to an authority structure. In the spiritual paradigm, being born is a gift that you accept with responsibility into your own hands.

Responsibility is another authority structure. It is a paradigm that corporations and kings and other folk desiring authority can exploit to exercise control over others. Responsibility implies an external source of motive power; despite the general acceptance of the phrase, one cannot have a responsibility to one's self without dividing one's self in two. It is a divisive tool of manipulation.

[secrets0stolen]

The Cloud: I think going down that line of thought would bring the the conversation entirely into the realm of semantics. In issues like this it tends to be about what you make it mean. And I'm using, and interpreting, it in the sense that "100% Responsibility" is used around here.

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

And I'm using, and interpreting, it in the sense that "100% Responsibility" is used around here.

Which is exactly the sense that I disagree with.

[James81]

Originally Posted by The Cloud

Which is exactly the sense that I disagree with.

That sucks dude. It's a really empowering perspective to use.

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by James81

That sucks dude. It's a really empowering perspective to use.

Only the disempowered need empowerment; thus, the use of empowerment implicitly reinforces the disempowerment that made it necessary in the first place. An empowering state will never raise you beyond the point of needing to be empowered.

[James81]

Originally Posted by The Cloud

Only the disempowered need empowerment; thus, the use of empowerment implicitly reinforces the disempowerment that made it necessary in the first place. An empowering state will never raise you beyond the point of needing to be empowered.

Well, I wasn't talking about empowerment. I was talking about an empowering perspective. That is to say, a perspective that puts the power in your hands rather than the hands of others in a way that allows you to get the things you want without needing to funnel it through any one thing outside your influence.

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by James81

Well, I wasn't talking about empowerment. I was talking about an empowering perspective. That is to say, a perspective that puts the power in your hands rather than the hands of others in a way that allows you to get the things you want without needing to funnel it through any one thing outside your influence.

Which should only be necessary to combat a perspective that puts the power in someone else's hands; if the power never left your hands, there would be no need for an empowering perspective.

Plus, an empowering perspective does not funnel your energy through you, but rather through an artificial image representing you that must be constantly reinforced and defended. Such artificial images are likely generated as a response to social influences, which means that you are allowing the infamous indeterminate "they" to direct your energy while simultaneously fooling yourself into believing that it is still your energy going to your purposes.

In summary, good perspectives are only needed by those with bad perspectives, and a person that has neither should have no need of either. Assumed in this is that perspectives are not absolute requirements of human nature.

[st33med]

Originally Posted by The Cloud

Which should only be necessary to combat a perspective that puts the power in someone else's hands; if the power never left your hands, there would be no need for an empowering perspective.

If you are talking about physical power like being a leader of a country, I would highly recommend still having an empowering perspective. This allows you to make better decisions for yourself and and other people.

Plus, an empowering perspective does not funnel your energy through you, but rather through an artificial image representing you that must be constantly reinforced and defended. Such artificial images are likely generated as a response to social influences, which means that you are allowing the infamous indeterminate "they" to direct your energy while simultaneously fooling yourself into believing that it is still your energy going to your purposes.

An empowering perspective doesn't involving defending yourself to an inauthentic threat. That's more of a gremlin perspective where things have to be what you want it to be or you get very attackish and defensive about a lot of things.

If you are using an empowering perspective, how would "they" be able to hold power over your energy, your values, and your ability to consciously make a decision that is positive and empowering for a lot of people?

In summary, good perspectives are only needed by those with bad perspectives, and a person that has neither should have no need of either. Assumed in this is that perspectives are not absolute requirements of human nature.

Hahah, you made me laugh! By stating that there is no need for a perspective, you just made your perspective clear! You have a perspective Cloud!

[James81]

Originally Posted by The Cloud

Which should only be necessary to combat a perspective that puts the power in someone else's hands; if the power never left your hands, there would be no need for an empowering perspective.

Plus, an empowering perspective does not funnel your energy through you, but rather through an artificial image representing you that must be constantly reinforced and defended. Such artificial images are likely generated as a response to social influences, which means that you are allowing the infamous indeterminate "they" to direct your energy while simultaneously fooling yourself into believing that it is still your energy going to your purposes.

In summary, good perspectives are only needed by those with bad perspectives, and a person that has neither should have no need of either. Assumed in this is that perspectives are not absolute requirements of human nature.

Well, I disagree with the notion that in order to use an empowering perspective it has to combat a disempowering perspective. An empowering perspective can be synergizing in nature rather than conflicting. That is, it can add power to soneone who is already empowered. For example, if I'm already a hall of fame ball player who just shattered a record, I could still add to my skill and move beyond the record and improve my game. Which is exactly what a perspective of 100% responsibility can do.

Also, a shift in perspective is no more artificial than the perspective you're already believing us "reality." in fact, what you already know as the truth is really just a bunch of unconscious patterns you've observed throughout your life that you have reinforced through focus. It helps if you come to realize that your beliefs are not who you are as a person. They are just tools you use (either consciously or unconsciously) to move around in the world...to survive, to thrive, and to self-actualize.

Thus, a shift in perspective can sometimes feel unnatural, but that's only because what you naturally believe has been working unconsciously for so long that you forget that it's just a perspective.

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by st33med

An empowering perspective doesn't involving defending yourself to an inauthentic threat. That's more of a gremlin perspective where things have to be what you want it to be or you get very attackish and defensive about a lot of things.

If you are using an empowering perspective, how would "they" be able to hold power over your energy, your values, and your ability to consciously make a decision that is positive and empowering for a lot of people?

An empowering perspective is not fundamentally different from a gremlin perspective; they operate by the same mechanism. Otherwise, I imagine they would not all be associated together as perspectives. Your assumption is that it is the end of the perspective that matters, and not the means; therefore, the means of a gremlin perspective could be repurposed to serve a more positive end.

My argument is that it is the means of a perspective that are at fault, rather than the end. A perspective is necessarily exclusive, and thus necessarily limiting. It tells you what you are, and what you are not. Most often it is wrong, and when it is not wrong it still prevents growth and change because you are limited by a model that forces you to be consistent with itself rather than with reality (which can change much faster than your mind).

The only way I can see perspectives as being useful is if there is a function superior to perspective that is able to immediately and dispassionately discard perspectives as they become useless. The way most people use perspectives is to use other preconceived perspectives to dictate which to generate or discard, which is obviously ineffective since initially flawed perspectives can only generate further flaws. Ipso facto, perspectives can only be properly used by those that don't need them.

Originally Posted by st33med

Hahah, you made me laugh! By stating that there is no perspective, you just made your perspective clear! You have a perspective Cloud!

It's not a perspective if it's true.

Originally Posted by James81

Well, I disagree with the notion that in order to use an empowering perspective it has to combat a disempowering perspective. An empowering perspective can be synergizing in nature rather than conflicting. That is, it can add power to soneone who is already empowered. For example, if I'm already a hall of fame ball player who just shattered a record, I could still add to my skill and move beyond the record and improve my game. Which is exactly what a perspective of 100% responsibility can do.

Also, a shift in perspective is no more artificial than the perspective you're already believing us "reality." in fact, what you already know as the truth is really just a bunch of unconscious patterns you've observed throughout your life that you have reinforced through focus. It helps if you come to realize that your beliefs are not who you are as a person. They are just tools you use (either consciously or unconsciously) to move around in the world...to survive, to thrive, and to self-actualize.

Thus, a shift in perspective can sometimes feel unnatural, but that's only because what you naturally believe has been working unconsciously for so long that you forget that it's just a perspective.

I guess my only argument against this is that I do not think you meet the requirements you've set for someone who is able to rationally choose their perspectives. I don't think you've touched on anything outside perspective, and so are trapped by your unconscious patterns. Whatever you or I would have to say on the proper use of perspective would be flawed by our inability to transcend the unconscious patterns you mentioned, because those unconscious patterns would dictate any use of perspective we tried to make.

I suppose that means that perspectives may not be entirely useless; they're only useless to anyone that would have to ask about their proper use. Quite frankly, that includes nearly everyone.

s0s: Please let me know if I'm hijacking your thread.

[James81]

Originally Posted by The Cloud

An empowering perspective is not fundamentally different from a gremlin perspective; they operate by the same mechanism. Otherwise, I imagine they would not all be associated together as perspectives. Your assumption is that it is the end of the perspective that matters, and not the means; therefore, the means of a gremlin perspective could be repurposed to serve a more positive end.

My argument is that it is the means of a perspective that are at fault, rather than the end. A perspective is necessarily exclusive, and thus necessarily limiting. It tells you what you are, and what you are not. Most often it is wrong, and when it is not wrong it still prevents growth and change because you are limited by a model that forces you to be consistent with itself rather than with reality (which can change much faster than your mind).

The only way I can see perspectives as being useful is if there is a function superior to perspective that is able to immediately and dispassionately discard perspectives as they become useless. The way most people use perspectives is to use other preconceived perspectives to dictate which to generate or discard, which is obviously ineffective since initially flawed perspectives can only generate further flaws. Ipso facto, perspectives can only be properly used by those that don't need them.



It's not a perspective if it's true.



I guess my only argument against this is that I do not think you meet the requirements you've set for someone who is able to rationally choose their perspectives. I don't think you've touched on anything outside perspective, and so are trapped by your unconscious patterns. Whatever you or I would have to say on the proper use of perspective would be flawed by our inability to transcend the unconscious patterns you mentioned, because those unconscious patterns would dictate any use of perspective we tried to make.

I suppose that means that perspectives may not be entirely useless; they're only useless to anyone that would have to ask about their proper use. Quite frankly, that includes nearly everyone.

s0s: Please let me know if I'm hijacking your thread.

Well, I might suggest that rather than, as you said, trying to argue against it, you took the time to truly understand it. But only if you are willing and only if you want to create massive doses of inspiration, passion, and emotional breakthroughs in your life--as those are the things that I am currently experiencing using a perpective of 100% responsibility. And I'm watching my relationships transform before my eyes and seeing how I've been self-sabatoging myself over the years.

I must say, though, that to take on such a perspective is very confronting and it will be very hard to see because it's hard to see the things we do that work against ourselves. Which I imagine is why you want to reject this notion (granted, I don't think you're doing it consciously).

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by James81

Well, I might suggest that rather than, as you said, trying to argue against it, you took the time to truly understand it. But only if you are willing and only if you want to create massive doses of inspiration, passion, and emotional breakthroughs in your life--as those are the things that I am currently experiencing using a perpective of 100% responsibility. And I'm watching my relationships transform before my eyes and seeing how I've been self-sabatoging myself over the years.

I must say, though, that to take on such a perspective is very confronting and it will be very hard to see because it's hard to see the things we do that work against ourselves. Which I imagine is why you want to reject this notion (granted, I don't think you're doing it consciously).

I don't disagree that I'm not doing much consciously. I don't think it's because I'm afraid of confrontation, though; am I not taking a very unpopular stance, especially considering the community in which I am taking it? I'm questioning the very basis of what many consider to be personal development, and I am not doing so by default.

I can't argue with your results; I can only say that they may not be what you think they are. There's certainly nothing I can say to convince you, though, given the lack of hard evidence. I could very well be wrong, although my instincts are not entirely unreliable in cases such as this.

[James81]

Sure, I see you question that basis a lot around here actually. I enjoy your perspective (even if I don't agree with it at times).

I've noticed that the notion of 100% responsibility isn't a popular one actually. Even around here it gets it's fair share of criticism. I talked about it on another forum that I mostly lurk at anymore and the peeps there replied as if I had just spoken Greek to them. Lol.

I think it's because we are not used to looking at things from that perspective. It's really easy to consider that the person we are talking to is a douchebag, than it is to look at our role (notice I say role there) in the interactions we are in. That's not an assignment of blame (but I think it's easy to hear blame in that). It's just noticing our own unconscious behavior and deciding our next move based on that rather than deciding our next move based on the reaction of another person.

[st33med]

Originally Posted by The Cloud

An empowering perspective is not fundamentally different from a gremlin perspective; they operate by the same mechanism. Otherwise, I imagine they would not all be associated together as perspectives. Your assumption is that it is the end of the perspective that matters, and not the means; therefore, the means of a gremlin perspective could be repurposed to serve a more positive end.

My argument is that it is the means of a perspective that are at fault, rather than the end. A perspective is necessarily exclusive, and thus necessarily limiting. It tells you what you are, and what you are not. Most often it is wrong, and when it is not wrong it still prevents growth and change because you are limited by a model that forces you to be consistent with itself rather than with reality (which can change much faster than your mind).


The only way I can see perspectives as being useful is if there is a function superior to perspective that is able to immediately and dispassionately discard perspectives as they become useless. The way most people use perspectives is to use other preconceived perspectives to dictate which to generate or discard, which is obviously ineffective since initially flawed perspectives can only generate further flaws. Ipso facto, perspectives can only be properly used by those that don't need them.

A perspective doesn't have to be limiting. It can be very empowering. I think you have a very different definition of perspective. In my knowledge, a perspective is a combination of observations, beliefs and opinions on something that affects how you look on something. Just by saying that you don't have a perspective and that perspectives are limiting is a perspective (and a limiting one at that) because it is an observation and opinion about yourself and others.

It's like me asking you if the glass is half full or half empty (or some funny thing in between ). No matter the (relevant) answer, you have formed a perspective on that glass.

It's not a perspective if it's true.

Another perspective.
And what exactly is The Truth?

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by st33med

A perspective doesn't have to be limiting. It can be very empowering.

Which, by necessity, limits your disempowerment (unless you are empowering your ability to be disempowered; I don't think that's what you meant, though). "I am great" excludes "I am not great," which doesn't sound so bad, except for the fact that it is a self-imposed limitation based purely on arbitrary opinion. It's bad science.

Originally Posted by st33med

It's like me asking you if the glass is half full or half empty (or some funny thing in between ). No matter the (relevant) answer, you have formed a perspective on that glass.

If the glass is half full, and I say so, that is not a perspective. That is a description of how full the glass is. I am not excluding the possibility that it is half empty; in fact, I am implicitly stating that it is half empty, since the other half of a half full glass is necessarily empty.

Of course, you could say that the other half is full of air, except that the statement that the glass is half full also implies that it is half full of a specific substance or combination of substances, in which air is not included.

So if I say the glass is half full, I am either right or wrong. It is not a matter of opinion, and only a matter of perspective in terms of the measurements I have taken. No change in my perspective will change how much water is in the glass.

[st33med]

Originally Posted by The Cloud

Which, by necessity, limits your disempowerment (unless you are empowering your ability to be disempowered; I don't think that's what you meant, though). "I am great" excludes "I am not great," which doesn't sound so bad, except for the fact that it is a self-imposed limitation based purely on arbitrary opinion. It's bad science.

I'm not quite understanding what you are saying. When I say you are using an empowering perspective, like being at cause for what you want, that means you are choosing things that work toward your benefit and what you want. When I say limiting, I mean limiting in the fact that your actions and beliefs prevent you from getting what you want and sometimes generating more of what you do not want.

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by st33med

I'm not quite understanding what you are saying. When I say you are using an empowering perspective, like being at cause for what you want, that means you are choosing things that work toward your benefit and what you want. When I say limiting, I mean limiting in the fact that your actions and beliefs prevent you from getting what you want and sometimes generating more of what you do not want.

I mean limiting in the strict sense of imposing limitations. I don't think that the most important problem with limiting (your definition) perspectives is that they prevent me from getting what I want; the most important problem with them is that they are inconsistent with observable reality. What I want really isn't that important, and is in fact usually an artifact of learned social values, most of which are arbitrary and fear-based.

Therefore, mechanisms allowing me to get "what I want" will exist in service of a fear-based architecture and will themselves be generated as a part of that architecture. A desire/perspective based reality is essentially a fear-based reality, and more importantly is not consistent with an objective reality. It may be mostly self-consistent, but it will not be consistent with the observable universe, and so will necessitate a constrained view of reality in order to shoehorn it into fitting with observed phenomena.

[James81]

Originally Posted by The Cloud

I mean limiting in the strict sense of imposing limitations. I don't think that the most important problem with limiting (your definition) perspectives is that they prevent me from getting what I want; the most important problem with them is that they are inconsistent with observable reality. What I want really isn't that important, and is in fact usually an artifact of learned social values, most of which are arbitrary and fear-based.

Therefore, mechanisms allowing me to get "what I want" will exist in service of a fear-based architecture and will themselves be generated as a part of that architecture. A desire/perspective based reality is essentially a fear-based reality, and more importantly is not consistent with an objective reality. It may be mostly self-consistent, but it will not be consistent with the observable universe, and so will necessitate a constrained view of reality in order to shoehorn it into fitting with observed phenomena.

Your observable reality is based on your focus and your focus is driven by your perspectives. If you change your perspectives consciously, your observable reality will also shift. Thus, being at cause (100% responsibility) is a matter of consciously changin your perspectives.

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by James81

Your observable reality is based on your focus and your focus is driven by your perspectives. If you change your perspectives consciously, your observable reality will also shift. Thus, being at cause (100% responsibility) is a matter of consciously changin your perspectives.

My focus will not change the amount of water in the aforementioned glass. I may find out, on further inspection, that the glass is 2/5 full instead of half. What I will not find is that my change of perception has filled the glass where it was not full before.

I admit that perception can affect observation. A change can only improve (or degrade) my measuring capacity, though. It cannot alter the nature of what is being measured.

What do you mean by "your observable reality will also shift."?

[James81]

Originally Posted by The Cloud

My focus will not change the amount of water in the aforementioned glass. I may find out, on further inspection, that the glass is 2/5 full instead of half. What I will not find is that my change of perception has filled the glass where it was not full before.

I admit that perception can affect observation. A change can only improve (or degrade) my measuring capacity, though. It cannot alter the nature of what is being measured.

What do you mean by "your observable reality will also shift."?

How can you know the amount of water in the glass without a measuring tool? And also, how can you be so sure that that measuring tool is the objective truth of how much water is in the glass? If I'm using British units, the measuring tool will tell me there are "x" amount of cups in that glass. If I'm using SI units, the measuring tool will tell me there are "x" amount of liters in the glass. So many cups = so many liters (sure), but which one is the "right" one? (<--that's a good analogy for why your perspective is just that...a perspective...a tool you use to measure your observable reality....and how those perspectives change based on what standard you are using)

Also, if the glass is sitting on a table and I am laying on the floor, how would that glass look to me then? If I'm standing on the table looking directly into the glass, how would that glass look to me then? If I'm sitting at one end of the room and viewing the glass from 40 feet away, how would I perceive it then?

In this way, you're going to perceive the glass differently based on which vantage point you are looking at it. And even IF you took it out and measured it, you're "objective" numbers are going to change based on which standard of measuring you use.

In this way, your "perceivable" reality will shift based on which vantage point and which standards you choose to adopt. The amount of water in the glass and the glass's position *are* objective, but you only have your perceptions and standards for describing that glass.

And, if you say a glass is "half full," that will *feel* very differently to you than if you say a glass is "half empty." A half full glass might mean that there is more water on the way into that glass (i.e. someone is pouring water into it). A half empty glass might mean that the water is slowly draining out of that glass (i.e. someone is drinking the water). Or it might mean something else entirely. All I know, from my perspective, is there is a glass and it has water in it. That's all I can know *objectively*. The rest is based on my vantage point, my perception, and my perspective.

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by James81

All I know, from my perspective, is there is a glass and it has water in it. That's all I can know *objectively*. The rest is based on my vantage point, my perception, and my perspective.

Technically, the glass might contain ethanol or some other clear liquid not perceptibly different from water, so you don't even know that much *objectively*.

Originally Posted by James81

And, if you say a glass is "half full," that will *feel* very differently to you than if you say a glass is "half empty."

I think you are mistaking physical perspective with psychological perspective. My knowledge of what is in the glass, and in what amounts, is based on my physical perspective; my tools of observation, and my tools of analysis. I won't deny that physical perspectives are limited; even with the most perfect tools, the act of measurement itself changes that which is being measured.

However, what the amount of water in the glass means, personally, is a matter of psychological perspective. That the glass being half full is positive, and the glass being half empty is negative, is a matter of programming, not a matter of reality. My preconceptions about the meaning of a partial glass of water are meaningless; whether it's positive or negative does not change the amount of liquid in the glass.

Your advice is to manipulate these preconceptions so that they serve a purpose, rather than reflecting the biases accumulated in childhood from parents and peers. Perhaps this is unavoidable; perhaps we are bound by preconceptions, our only choice being which preconceptions to be bound by. In fact, this is probably true.

The problem is that, if perspectives are all you know, then all the perspectives you choose are going to be based on perspectives previously held. This is inherently flawed, since flawed perspectives will generate only further flaws, and previously held perspectives are usually flawed. There has to be a decision making mechanism outside perspective; otherwise, we are infinitely bound by the flaws we learned in the beginning.