knowledge vs. belief

[Thomas]

Hi DIKL -

Just jumping in here -

knowledge is a belief that the majority of people deem true.
But do they believe because they know it to be the case? In which case they believe because they know, they don't know because they believe.

Or are you saying people accept knowledge 'in good faith', without proving it for themselves, because they are told as much?

Are there such things as 'facts', are there such things as 'laws'? We must surely assume they are, else life becomes untenable.

For example: Archimedes' 'Eureka' moment came when he realised that a given volume of anything will displace an equal volume of something else - in the first instance his body displaced water from the bath, and he used this process to determine the purity of gold in a crown that had been given to the king.

Is that not a fact? I believe so, because I have tested it for myself, and it works every time, without fail.

It is almost axiomatic that many scientific 'breakthroughs' have happened when those involved least expect it - their own eureka moment - they then say 'I know the answer' or 'I think I know the answer' and set out to test the theory. If the theory stands, its becomes 'knowledge of the real' (as it were).

Knowledge, however, is not a closed system, and can always be improved/perfected ... the Greeks had atomic theory, they knew the world was round, without particle accelerators or satelite imaging ... we know the same now in principle as they did then, we just know in more detail with a greater degree of accuracy.

On the whole I agree with parts, disagree with parts, but I am left wondering if this is not about 'belief' or 'faith' or 'knowledge', but rather that we're tying ourselves up in linguistics? Or is the argument too broad-ranging to be discusssed effectively?

Thomas

 

[DIKL]

Erased a perfectly good post. Now I had to do it all over again. (Hmm. Do I know that or do I just believe it? )

Would you accept a tweaking of your thesis, to "knowledge is a piece of information that the majority of people deem true." ?

Yes, I can accept that. Provided you accept that information = intepretation of data. And that data = observation of the world through the five senses.
So,
knowledge = interpretation (of an observation) that most people deem true.

Also, are we limiting the conversation to the physcial, material, observable by our five senses universe?

For me, that universe is the starting point of my argumentation. Since humans have the same senses, we can try to use that as platform for further understanding. That's a bit of absolutism in my general relativist way of thinking. Two problems thereby. The first and minor is that our senses work in similar but not identical ways. (It is improbable that your eyes and mine 'read' the exact same wave length on incoming light.)
The second and main problem is that when we start trying to explain or make sense of what we are observing, we use our minds as tools. And our minds are functions of genes and social interaction (and thus culture). Theist might say there are yet other factors influencing our minds.
My interpretation of this is that there is no way two minds will be alike. Therefore they cannot construct 'absolute knowledge (=explanation of an observation), universally acceptable for all humans'.

As I told taij above, I have not had courses in epistemology, so I am paddling fast here to keep up.

The furios splashing sounds behind you in the river, that's me causing them. I didn't have any such course, either, Damn, had to even look up the word just now! But then again, English is just one of several foreign languages to me, so I'd better cut me some slack.

 

[lunamoth]

OK, deciding on tortellini from the freezer instead of homemade quiche for dinner so I can continue a bit more here.

Erased a perfectly good post. Now I had to do it all over again. (Hmm. Do I know that or do I just believe it? )

Hate it when that happens.

Yes, I can accept that. Provided you accept that information = intepretation of data. And that data = observation of the world through the five senses.
So,
knowledge = interpretation (of an observation) that most people deem true.

I agree to that too. I bet from here on out there will be little we disagree on, but we'll see...

For me, that universe is the starting point of my argumentation. Since humans have the same senses, we can try to use that as platform for further understanding. That's a bit of absolutism in my general relativist way of thinking. Two problems thereby. The first and minor is that our senses work in similar but not identical ways. (It is improbable that your eyes and mine 'read' the exact same wave length on incoming light.)

Yup, with you so far.

The second and main problem is that when we start trying to explain or make sense of what we are observing, we use our minds as tools. And our minds are functions of genes and social interaction (and thus culture).

OK, still with you.

Theist might say there are yet other factors influencing our minds.
My interpretation of this is that there is no way two minds will be alike. Therefore they cannot construct 'absolute knowledge (=explanation of an observation), universally acceptable for all humans'.

No way two minds will be exactly alike, but we typically share a whole lot more than we differ in. I would suggest that it is this shared framework where we can reach a consensus agreement on what we 'know.' And unless such a consensus is reached, the chances of our knowledge going forward, understanding more, is reduced drastically. Perhaps we can not know 'absolute truth' because it is always veiled to some extent (we will never know it all) but there is a 'good enough to be dependable and useful truth.' Even if that good enough truth changes as our base of information changes. As we advance in this good enough collective knowledge we see the absolute truth as through dispersing veils.

As I said to taij, knowledge is information we trust.

The furios splashing sounds behind you in the river, that's me causing them. I didn't have any such course, either, Damn, had to even look up the word just now! But then again, English is just one of several foreign languages to me, so I'd better cut me some slack.

Glad for the company then.

lunamoth

 

[lunamoth]

Hi DIKL -

Just jumping in here -

knowledge is a belief that the majority of people deem true.
But do they believe because they know it to be the case? In which case they believe because they know, they don't know because they believe.

I think this is what was bothering me about the original formulation of DIKL's thesis. No one 'believes' something that they don't also think is true.

I know something is true=I have objective evidence, or I trust someone else's objective evidence. When it's freezing outside I will get frostbite if I don't dress warmly enough.

I believe something is true=I think it's true and make choices based upon it, but I do not have objective evidence, or I have not or am unable to rule out all other possibilities. I believe that there are intelligent alien life forms in the universe besides here on earth.

<snip>

On the whole I agree with parts, disagree with parts, but I am left wondering if this is not about 'belief' or 'faith' or 'knowledge', but rather that we're tying ourselves up in linguistics? Or is the argument too broad-ranging to be discusssed effectively?

Thomas

Now that I understand, or think I understand DIKL's thesis, I'm wondering if there is a larger point on the horizon. Are we going to next compare scientific knowledge with mystical knowledge? Otherwise perhaps we are just getting bogged down in semanitcs.

lunamoth

 

[lunamoth]

A further thought about the thesis "knowledge is a piece of information that the majority deem true."

You also need to refine majority. Is the theory of evolution knowledge? I would say that it is because it is information that has been organized in a way that gives us greater insight into our material world. But does the majority deem it to be true? If you consider the number of people who discard it because of religious beliefs and the number of people in the world who have never learned about it, then it is not deemed true by the majority.

Does it cease to be knowledge because it is regarded as true by only a certain fraction of people?

lunamoth

 

[taijasi]

Actually, it really has started to come to me that what we call knowledge has a lot to do with information we can trust in one way or another.

I have thought about this most of my life, and I will always look back fondly to some of my own epiphanies ... wherein I discovered beyond a shadow of a doubt - some of the information I could trust. Since then, I have reached a point wherein modern science is not my yardstick, exoteric religion is also not my yardstick ... and neither are society's standards or simple group consensus (in the sense of mob rules). Nor am I the "ultimate authority," yet I AM the decision-maker, and if my BS-meter is up there in the red-zone, I tend to be wary as hell.

So then, just what is (or are) - the standard(s) for trust?

Let me recapitulate to see if I understand your point. The type of knowledge you propose is Spiritual Intuition (or straight knowledge) that is a mystical or divine revelation directly to an individual that only has consequences for that individual? Or does it also include messages to an individual that are to be shared with everyone else?

(The latter.)

You know, this could really be much simpler. Let me just state, that I believe that we can know. There. See? That's purely tautological, but I think I'm much better off not trying to explain everything. Hell, I bet I go wrong there 95% of the time. Some things, I just know - and I know I know ... this I know. Yes, it does just become some kind of linguistic pretzel to me, and the language of Western philosophy is extremely distasteful to me - so I just babble instead, or resort to Eastern terminology.

Wanna help me out here (at this point)? You can do so by telling me - you, or anyone, one thing you KNOW. Nevermind absolutely - let's just say, "for certain."

But I would say that there is objective knowledge that is not dependent upon the character, emotions or intelligence of the knower.

Yes, but our awareness of this knowledge cannot be anything except belief (or theory, hypothesis) ... at any of these levels. Sounds stupid, or again - a mere tautology - but only the knower, knows. Some philosophers tried to deal with this, by inventing a homunculus. Interestingly, George Lucas even hatched up midichlorians in the newer Star Wars trilogy. It would quickly derail this thread if we were to take up this dicussion, since it overlaps very much so with metaphysical issues ... but I was delighted when I heard Lucas's dialogue in Phantom Menace suggesting a symbiotic "collective consciousness and intelligence, forming links between everything living and the Force" (from Wiki).

How does this relate to epistemology and Knowledge vs. belief? Simple. I would say that humans can only believe, cogitate, ponder & reflect. As you yourself say later, "We are still, the last time I checked, still fallible, physical humans, not perfect spiritual entities. We build ladders to take us higher." Ladders to what - or Whom? To the Knower, to the Spark of the Divine within. Toward that perfection which will enable us to know, rather than to believe. Reminds me of my state seal (NC): Esse quam videri - To Be, rather than to seem.

Well, you're starting to lose me because once again, to get anywhere we need to define what kind of knowledge we are talking about, external/objective or internal/subjective. I am saying that I accept the assumption there is objective truth and there is subjective truth and if another does not accept this same premise we will always keep talking past each other. The question which is more real seems like a different topic to me.

My view is kind of a ... double funnel. At one extreme, the funnel widens out, and there is the outward, apparently-objective, external "reality." We all think we see & experience this the same way, and without question there are similiarities, but I would be mistaken to say - this is objective, end of story. We learned a long time ago, in quantum physics, that the very act of observation, literally changes reality. So much for the objectivity at this end of the "funnel."

But the funnel does indeed narrow down, and in this interior dimension, since we have yet (as a race, in large enough numbers) to have fully explored it, things do seem subjective. But I can meet you in a dream, and hand you something - and you know ... it's as real as if we met in person. Mmmm, actually, far more so. And in this way, knowledge itself (speaking of the scientific kind) has often reached the minds, then brains, of some of the world's greatest thinkers. Was it a subjective experience? Yes. Was it not also objective? I dare say, since it could come to any of us. And perhaps you've had experiences which you'd call telepathic. Maybe?

I've had enough to know ... that whatever the medium and precise nature of the rapport - thoughts are things. But, we are still in the narrows of the funnel at this point. At best, we can see that it widens - if we follow it a bit further.

Alice's rabbit-hole leads to the opposite side of the funnel, which is the realm of the Intuition. In such a state of awareness, there is every bit as much objectivity as in the keyboard you're typing on, the screen you're reading from, the brain receiving the photons & converting all this into data, and the thought that materializes as evidence of Understanding.

Let me quote from an old Shaker song to help illustrate:

'Tis the gift to have friends and a true friend to be,
'Tis the gift to think of others not to only think of "me",
And when we hear what others really think and really feel,
Then we'll all live together with a love that is real.

When true simplicity is gained,
To bow and to bend we shan't be ashamed.
To turn, turn will be our delight,
'Til by turning, turning we come round right
​

Seems like you are talking about a kind of holistic knowing that takes us past the dualistic thinking in which we are mired. I agree, and I think that meditation, prayer, contempation, all these ways of achieving transcendence, show us glimpses and glimmers of that one True Knowledge that I call God and that one True Intelligence with which I can have relationship of perfect love.

Aha. What does it matter if I would say it using other words. Here, we are on exactly the same page.

I've sometimes wondered if the Return of Christ will actually be a global experience of this type of change in consciousness. When we get to the point where subjective and objective knowledge merge, we will also be past all knowing.

"There is a peace which passeth understanding ..." - yet, even to truly understand each other (see the Shaker song) is more than just, "yeah, I get ya, so what." I would submit that true understanding leads (eventually & inevitably) to perfect accord. To help us reach this, I do believe (ahh, that word) that Christ has very much so returned, is returning ... ReAppearing. Semantics yes, but one Who has never truly gone away, cannot "return."

My little girl wants some attention now. That's real to me.

What is the nature of the "attention" she wants? Spiritual Intuition/Straight Knowledge/true Understanding - is the same as what you will answer. At least, that's what I believe.

andrew

 

[lunamoth]

taij, why do I get the feeling that a glass (or two) of red wine would really help me with your posts. However, as I no longer drink alcohol, this bracing cup of earl grey tea will have to do. I'm not going to hit all your points.

I have thought about this most of my life, and I will always look back fondly to some of my own epiphanies ... wherein I discovered beyond a shadow of a doubt - some of the information I could trust. Since then, I have reached a point wherein modern science is not my yardstick, exoteric religion is also not my yardstick ... and neither are society's standards or simple group consensus (in the sense of mob rules). Nor am I the "ultimate authority," yet I AM the decision-maker, and if my BS-meter is up there in the red-zone, I tend to be wary as hell.

So if none of these are your yardsticks, how can you tell when your BS meter is in the red? For that matter, how can you tell what you know from fantasy and imagination?

(The latter.)--meaning that the personal inspiration is meant to be shared with the world, for the edification of the world

So, we are talking about the knowledge of the prophets. I think that even the prophets operated in a framework understandable to the people receiving the message. A prophet may shake up the cultural wisdom, but she still speaks the sacred truth. Love God and each other.

You know, this could really be much simpler. Let me just state, that I believe that we can know. There. See? That's purely tautological, but I think I'm much better off not trying to explain everything. Hell, I bet I go wrong there 95% of the time. Some things, I just know - and I know I know ... this I know. Yes, it does just become some kind of linguistic pretzel to me, and the language of Western philosophy is extremely distasteful to me - so I just babble instead, or resort to Eastern terminology.

It can be a challenge to read your posts.

Wanna help me out here (at this point)? You can do so by telling me - you, or anyone, one thing you KNOW. Nevermind absolutely - let's just say, "for certain."

My name is Laurie. People here also know me as lunamoth.

Yes, but our awareness of this knowledge cannot be anything except belief (or theory, hypothesis) ... at any of these levels.

So your position is that there is no such thing as knowledge, there are only subjective truths. I'd say this is just playing with language, or talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Sounds stupid, or again - a mere tautology - but only the knower, knows. Some philosophers tried to deal with this, by inventing a homunculus. Interestingly, George Lucas even hatched up midichlorians in the newer Star Wars trilogy. It would quickly derail this thread if we were to take up this dicussion, since it overlaps very much so with metaphysical issues ... but I was delighted when I heard Lucas's dialogue in Phantom Menace suggesting a symbiotic "collective consciousness and intelligence, forming links between everything living and the Force" (from Wiki).

Yes, philosophers have always tried to answer the question of what IS. I have never heard a better answer to that than 'God.'

How does this relate to epistemology and Knowledge vs. belief? Simple. I would say that humans can only believe, cogitate, ponder & reflect. As you yourself say later, "We are still, the last time I checked, still fallible, physical humans, not perfect spiritual entities. We build ladders to take us higher." Ladders to what - or Whom? To the Knower, to the Spark of the Divine within. Toward that perfection which will enable us to know, rather than to believe. Reminds me of my state seal (NC): Esse quam videri - To Be, rather than to seem.

So you define knowledge as that perfect and absolute knowledge found only in the divine. I guess I'd say there are useful definitions of the word knowledge for we mere mortals here on earth.

My view is kind of a ... double funnel. At one extreme, the funnel widens out, and there is the outward, apparently-objective, external "reality." We all think we see & experience this the same way, and without question there are similiarities, but I would be mistaken to say - this is objective, end of story. We learned a long time ago, in quantum physics, that the very act of observation, literally changes reality. So much for the objectivity at this end of the "funnel."

Neither absolutist nor relativist positions are useful in extending our knowledge. On the one hand no new information can come in and on the other hand all the information in the world is not useful for understanding relationships between things, people, ideas.

But the funnel does indeed narrow down, and in this interior dimension, since we have yet (as a race, in large enough numbers) to have fully explored it, things do seem subjective. But I can meet you in a dream, and hand you something - and you know ... it's as real as if we met in person. Mmmm, actually, far more so. And in this way, knowledge itself (speaking of the scientific kind) has often reached the minds, then brains, of some of the world's greatest thinkers. Was it a subjective experience? Yes. Was it not also objective? I dare say, since it could come to any of us. And perhaps you've had experiences which you'd call telepathic. Maybe?

If I were to recieve information in a dream or vision I'd want to check it against all the other information I have, cultural, sacred, and scientific. I may end up rejecting some of the previously held information, but I would not just accept the gift blindly.

"There is a peace which passeth understanding ..." - yet, even to truly understand each other (see the Shaker song) is more than just, "yeah, I get ya, so what." I would submit that true understanding leads (eventually & inevitably) to perfect accord. To help us reach this, I do believe (ahh, that word) that Christ has very much so returned, is returning ... ReAppearing. Semantics yes, but one Who has never truly gone away, cannot "return."

In one sense I can agree with what you are saying here, but I would also say that I believe (I accept in my heart) that there will be a time when the full glory of Christ will be made manifest once again in the world. He's in the face of every needy person, He's in the broken and contrite heart, He's in the Eucharist and He speaks through the Bible. But these are glimmers of what is to come.

What is the nature of the "attention" she wants? Spiritual Intuition/Straight Knowledge/true Understanding - is the same as what you will answer. At least, that's what I believe.

She wants love.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[DIKL]

Hi DIKL -

Just jumping in here -

Hi Thomas,
please do, I like to hear your comments.

Or are you saying people accept knowledge 'in good faith', without proving it for themselves

Yes. How many people can prove E=mc2 ? Sure, many can say "I know for a fact that scientists have taken up an atomic clock on an airplane, flew it around high up in the sky for hours, and when it came back it showed a few nanoseconds difference with an identical atomic clock that had stayed on the ground. That proved that time is relative, because it is influenced by the distance to earth."
But is that proving it yourself?

, because they are told as much?

No, I don't think so. It's only natural that we all believe in science. We don't have to be ordered to believe in it. Its part of the modern thinking and culture in which we grew up in. We don't exactly get handed many books in primary school that question the value of science.

Are there such things as 'facts', are there such things as 'laws'? We must surely assume they are, else life becomes untenable.

For me, the closest thing we come to universally valid 'facts' is observations we make with our own senses. (see previous posts)

If you mean "life becomes unbearable" if there are no universally valid facts, then you're into one of my other theories: That human beings are meaning-seeking creatures. We don't like not knowing. We don't like explanations that include chance and randomness. (Remember Einstein on quantum physics - "God doesn't play dice with the universe").

For example: Archimedes' 'Eureka' moment came when he realised that a given volume of anything will displace an equal volume of something else - in the first instance his body displaced water from the bath, and he used this process to determine the purity of gold in a crown that had been given to the king.

Is that not a fact? I believe so, because I have tested it for myself, and it works every time, without fail.

The water rises when you get in the tub = observation
"a given volume of anything will displace an equal volume of something else" = an interpretation of the observation, a theory
knowledge = the above theory, deemed true by all people that believe in the scientific set of explanations

Knowledge, however, is not a closed system, and can always be improved/perfected ... the Greeks had atomic theory, they knew the world was round, without particle accelerators or satelite imaging ... we know the same now in principle as they did then, we just know in more detail with a greater degree of accuracy.

I believe the scientific history wasn't all that linear. Also, the atomic theory said that there is a smallest particle that can't be divided (where all other larger particles can be divided). At one point in time, much later in history, we thought atoms actually were these indivisable particles. Today, not only have we discovered several categories of yet smaller particles (electrons, neutrons, quarks, superstrings. We are also quite insecure as to whether they really are particles. Depending on what experiment setup we use can 'prove' that they are particles or waves, respectively. So I wouldn't say the theory developed linearly, as you suggest. But then again, that's just my belief.

On the whole I agree with parts, disagree with parts, but I am left wondering if this is not about 'belief' or 'faith' or 'knowledge', but rather that we're tying ourselves up in linguistics? Or is the argument too broad-ranging to be discusssed effectively?

I found it useful when you explained what 'your issue' was a few posts back. So I'll do it too. (even though it doesn't answer your questions directly. Sorry.)
My issue is with people that have a black-and-white, this-is-the-one-and-only-truth-carved-in-stone view on things. I have actually been in the scientific community, developing information systems, doing peer-review of white papers, participating in conferences, the works. So I know the scientific procedure inside and out, and I do have faith in science. Nevertheless, even there, pretty much everything is up for discussion, believe it or not. Hence my claim:
I believe it = I claim X, but I have doubts about it
I know it = I claim X, and I have no doubts whatsoever about it

(Ok, the last thing wasn't a good example. The 'common agreement' aspect is lacking. I could just add to both equations "for some reasons" (e.g. scientific proof), and for the latter one "for some reasons, one being that everyone else thinks it's true".)

What my whole thesis boils down to is that I don't see a black-and-white division between 'knowledge' and 'belief'. They are just terms that show how confident the speaker is in what he is claiming.

And I don't want to get into a discussion on what an 'effective' discussion is or should look like. I think we're doing all right here, actually. I'm learning a lot as we go along, both about myself and about your viewpoints.

-----
Oh, just remembered something from my days as scientist, quite funny actually, and it has bearing on our discussions. One of my colleagues and personal friends was Moslem and PhD in IT. She believed firmly in all scientific branches except in the one studying whether homosexuality was controlled by genetic or social factors (don't know that that branch is called?). She believed (or I should say 'knew' to follow my own definition, since she didn't have any doubts) homosexuality was exclusively controlled by social factors. Homosexuality was a disease of the character that a person chose to have. If the will was strong, the person could chose to heal himself from this disease. I did some research and showed here a white paper that came to the conclusion both genes and social factors play a role (as with alcoholism). But she questioned the credibility of the authors without even reading the paper.

When I asked here about this apparent paradoxal situation - a scientist rebutting scientific results without even examining them - she laughed and answered: That's the freedom that we religious people have. We can live with these paradoxes.

 

[taijasi]

taij, why do I get the feeling that a glass (or two) of red wine would really help me with your posts. However, as I no longer drink alcohol, this bracing cup of earl grey tea will have to do.

If it's not a lager or eight, I might have a glass of white (wine). Once I finally put my $ where my mouth is, all that will probably go out the window, again. I was once a teetotaler, but never a tea-totaler! Too fond of hearing, "tea, earl grey, hot" again & again.

So if none of these [science, religion, status quo] are your yardsticks, how can you tell when your BS meter is in the red? For that matter, how can you tell what you know from fantasy and imagination?

Well, I do believe in the synthesis of these, but besides that - I trust our innate recognition of what's right & wrong (both morally, as well as factually). That said, it is quite safe to say that I live in a world of my own. And a very, very strange one at times. It's challenging enough just keeping track of my own BS half the time - so the meter works overtime, I'm afraid. I say this, and yet - I truly believe - that all people have within them the exact same potential to feel and to know, to discover and to attain. We can all know truth when we hear it, but we must carefully train ourselves and cultivate this ability.

A prophet may shake up the cultural wisdom, but she still speaks the sacred truth. Love God and each other.

Yes, but sometimes, as the Christ, she must bring a sword. That's when I feel the dire & urgent need to get out of the way. Sophia knows what She's doing, but she is mighty, as the Juggernaut. Look:

Sophia—the Wisdom of the Almighty. 1932 (Nicholas Roerich, 1932)
​

She is beautiful, but in the portrayed aspect, would singe me to a crisp!

So your position is that there is no such thing as knowledge, there are only subjective truths. I'd say this is just playing with language, or talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Ummm, woops! I didn't mean to convey that. No, I think there is knowledge. I just think we re-cognize it differently, in different worlds. In the physical, it comes via the senses. In the astral/emotional, it comes via feelings. In the world of mind, we think (and often think we know). But greater than the Thinker, is the Knower. In the world of Intuition, we know things. But this knowing is not limited to the Intuitive world, any more than thought is limited to concepts. We think about sensory data as well, discarding some, forming theories about other data.

Yes, philosophers have always tried to answer the question of what IS. I have never heard a better answer to that than 'God.'

Yes, the Buddha held up a single flower one time for a sermon. Perhaps that is not the type of homily with which most of us are famliiar. Perhaps his own bhikkus did not expect it either!

So you define knowledge as that perfect and absolute knowledge found only in the divine. I guess I'd say there are useful definitions of the word knowledge for we mere mortals here on earth.

No need to patronize me. We mortals can walk on water, if we have the faith. Or was Peter a god?

Neither absolutist nor relativist positions are useful in extending our knowledge. On the one hand no new information can come in and on the other hand all the information in the world is not useful for understanding relationships between things, people, ideas.

Again, this is not what I was hoping to convey with my funnel vision. Ha! Errr, I only believe in One Absolute. Everything else - is relative. Given those parameters, new information is coming in every second of every day, even while we sleep. How many thousand - or million - different pieces of information is it that the human brain processes every single second? I don't know, but I will look it up if that sounds inaccurate. It's a huge number of individual pieces of data. On the one hand, sure - there's nothing new under the sun. On the other, the only thing I know for sure - is that I know very little, at all. But each day, brings another lesson (or, opportunity) ...

If I were to recieve information in a dream or vision I'd want to check it against all the other information I have, cultural, sacred, and scientific. I may end up rejecting some of the previously held information, but I would not just accept the gift blindly.

Why, gee, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Umm, yeah. Good idea. I do that too. At what point does the skeptic filter come down ... when does the bs-meter go from red, back down to orange, yellow, and green again? Is the Homeland safe yet? (ok, non sequitur)

Perhaps you would like some concrete examples of some rather significant scientific theories and breakthroughs (not to mention poetry, literary inspiration, prophetic writing - such as the Book of Revelation, etc.) which have come to us through the symbolic language of dreams. Freud wrote a lot about that you know. So did Carl Jung, who in fact, spoke a good deal about archetypes. Plato also had archetypes. What kind of knowledge was that? Or was it belief(s)?

In one sense I can agree with what you are saying here, but I would also say that I believe (I accept in my heart) that there will be a time when the full glory of Christ will be made manifest once again in the world.

I'd wager 100 to 1 this will occur within 20 years, if not sooner. Hardly the type of thing for wagering ... but at any rate, this world needs more training in how to arrive, on our own, at some of the spiritual truths which all the world's religions (as well as some wo/men of science, and great artists, poets, etc.) keep pointing to. I think it wiould be great - to "get it from the horse's mouth." But then, we can already do that.

Namaskar,

andrew

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for your reply.

I just wanted to say that I was not trying to be patronizing to you in any way and sorry if it came off that way. I do appreciate things like insight, visions and personal inspiration, even in science. I think at least some of this is attributed to the subtle, complex, and amazingly rapid workings of the brain, which processes information even without our conscious attention. I also believe in inspiration from the Spirit. When such a gift is rec'd, however, it is important to put it into context. Frankly, whether you believe the enemy is an entity (Satan) or the workings of our lower, selfish nature, either way the danger of being mislead is very real.

Enjoyed the exchange of views,
peace,
lunamoth

 

[taijasi]

Laurie,

Okay, I think I misread you. Sorry ... brain tired, perhaps it needs sleep?

I've enjoyed it too. Looking forward to what others have to say, and to other threads that unfold.

andrew

 

[RubySera_Martin]

people only experience emotion based upon new knowledge, nothing else.

This was written a few years ago but I feel a need to comment. Is this person saying humans cannot experience emotion except when learning something new?

Maybe that is true for the writer but it certainly is not true of all humanity.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Re: what is spirit ?

Post 14:

From Louis ....
I'm sure you mean well, but your comments are no help
to me at all because I have never had any conscious
awareness of anything I could call a "soul" or "spirit".
It's like trying to describe COLOUR to a blind man - using
words "red" or "blue" won't work . The only approach
that might work would be to explain the electro-magnetic
spectrum and how the rod and cone cells in our eyes
respond to the different wavelengths. Technical stuff
like that is easier for me to comprehend.
A rather NEGATIVE way to explain "soul" would be to
call it a projection of our survival instinct - one thing we
all know for certain is the fact that our bodies WILL DIE - and the next instinct is scramble around for some
OTHER form of survival .
I expect you will disagee with that - try to spell out WHY
you disagree in words as technical as you can manage.

I take this message as evidence that some people do not experience things like souls or spirits. This, however, does not rule out the fact that many people do.

I am one of those people who experience spirit quite frequently. Therefore, I am obligated to take it on faith that some people don't. I find it hard to imagine such a life but I am convinced it exists. Else we would not have so many people saying so.

Is it too much to ask of these people to take it on faith that some people do experience spirit?

Let me take this one step further. Why would anyone be so adamant to refute the existence of spirit when it so obviously (to me) exists?

Might it have something to do with the fact that many Christians have imposed their beliefs on their children or others without respect for their personal experience of life?

I suspect it has a great deal to do with this. And also with the fact that in many cases rejection of those beliefs is/has been met with severe hostility of parents and churches.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Louis asked to have spirit explained. Like Louis says, it is like explaining colour to a colour-blind person. It is not possible to reproduce the experience, to explain it in a way that causes them to have the experience and to identify with it, and derive meaning from it. Therefore I won't try.

I think the closest one can come is by saying it is--not a figment of the imagination but--a very real experience that involves the mind and the physical body. Perhaps also the emotions; I am not sure about that.

I have never read any technical description of spirit or the experience of spirit. Perhaps it can be classified as an emotion but I would say it falls outside the realm of the emotions just as surely as it falls outside the realm of the physical and the intellectual.

I have read so many poems and other so-called spiritual literature, and I have had personal experiences for which the English language has no other word, that I am convinced spirit is real.

I don't know if it exists outside the reach of one's psyche. Many very spiritual people say it does and they can feel the spiritual energy of all the people who have been in a certain holy place before them.

These claims are so consistent with a certain personality type (regardless of culture or religion) that I think it would be ridiculous to believe that all these people are just making this stuff up.


If these things are outside my experience, I think the most respectful way for me to deal with them is to tell myself, "Okay, Ruby, this has not been your personal experience of life but that does not rule out the possibility of it being that person's experience." In other words, just because I did not have a certain experience does not say it is non-existent.


For example,I have never been in, or witnessed, a car accident. Do car accidents not occur? Stupid question, right? Right.

I know it is very wise for me to be in a place before I plan to work there--to go visit the place during the work day if at all possible, just to see what it's like being there. If I don't, I may enter the place only to feel serious irritation on a level I cannot explain.

It can be so severe that I have to quit the job. Is this spiritual incongruity? I don't know. I just know it's real and that I have to take it into consideration as part of the decision-making process. I think many people are like this.

If we find ourselves with an overly-zealous person, I think it is quite in line to tell them, "I respect that this has been your experience and that it is very real to you but we have been on this topic for a while. Could we change to another topic now?"