>>86175397Forgot to answer your actual question, my mistake.
>Here's an example:A person, who may or may not believe in ghosts but has heard about them, seen stuff in movies etc. could be anywhere, but let's just say the office, they see a window slam shut and a mug fall off the side in a coffee room.
They scream and are convinced, it must have been a ghost! People run in. The first person asks what happened. Person 1 says it was a ghost that did x, y, z.
Person 2 says "come on, there're no such things as ghosts"
Person 3: "Of course there are, this is proof! You just heard what 1 said, that's what ghosts do!"
Person 2 goes back to work because they have work to do and doesn't have time to explain that it's just windy today, and stuff got blown about.
The elements to this story:
The movies/hearsay about ghosts represent the structures through which we percieve things. We go about our lives not really understanding things in an original way, but through structures, like language, given to us. That's why when people say "it's just my/your opinion" they're so often *wrong*. This is why person 1 assumes ths events were caused by a ghost, because the information went through the structures present in their mind and they didn't think about another possible meaning/reason. Person 3 further reinforces this, also having the same structures and not having thought this through.
Person 2, has gone a step beyond "it's a ghost", they've taken the time to realise ghosts are noncence, therefore needed another, logical, reason and noticed it's windy and that's most likely the cause. Person 3 is *external* to the situation persons 1 and 2 are in, giving person 3 an advantage and a broader perspective to put things in, a much larger picture is available. They're also not distracted by experiencing the things 1 & 2 are, the alarm, the panic, the adrenaline etc. They can be rational and unaffected.
Do you understand?
