The Function Of Belief

[Paladin]

Wonderful Tao. But I suppose one would also note the subtle duality of even that position. Not that you personally are affected, but one could cultivate the "role" of observer which may entail a certain detatchment used to insulate one from actively engaging in life as it is. Again, I'm not thinking this is you but I suppose it could happen.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards!

Does belief have to be concrete? Or can it be fluid and flexible, adapting to change and circumstance.

Good question. I don't have a ready answer, other than to say that beliefs can morph over time. Of course, I'm suggesting "fluid like glass" where you seem to be suggesting "fluid like water."

This is quite different from a genuinely scientifically defined system. True science is always questioning itself. Religion does not. In practice the difference may be subtle, but it is profound.

I would respectfully disagree. Any person truly of their own volition seeking the things of the spirit continually question themselves. At least I do. Although I do agree the difference is subtle and profound.

I would far rather my worldview was an honest and genuine effort to understand the actual truth of what is.

Fair enough, I do not doubt your sincerity. My pursuit is no less an honest and genuine effort to understand the actual truth of what is. The difference I see between us is the lens or paradigms we each use to describe that truth.

But on the other side being sure you dont know anything is liberating. You do not have the headache of trying to wrestle the round objects of observation into the square hole of faith.

Agreed. I have no issues personally with the unknowing or uncertain mind, I lean in that direction myself.

If you know you can never be right then also you can never be wrong.

Tao! This is so uncharacteristically illogical of you! And this lends itself to illustrate the underlying foundational beliefs we cling to *in spite of* whether or not they make "logical" sense.

And as a neutral observer you can far more greatly appreciate the vast richness of all things.

Agreed.

Tao, I think you crystalized the thing quite neatly when you ask if we can remain fluid.

Crystalized fluid...I love the metaphor!

So, that being said, are we choosing and clinging on to beliefs so desperatley because they represent who we are? Is that why people become so entrenched in their beliefs that killing becomes an option rather than surrender their sense of self?

Whoooooooeee! OK, now I think I get a little better handle on what you're after. Lawdy!

OK, what *are* we? A bone bag collection of minerals and water, proteins and DNA? Are we the cumulative collection of our mothers and fathers going back for aeons? Are we stardust, are we golden, are we billion year old carbon? Are we born to be who we are, and predestined (or perhaps predesigned?) to a specific role? What amount of leeway and influence can we individually exert against the cumulative weight of cultural, social and genetic baggage we are born to carry?

By "so entrenched in their beliefs that killing becomes an option" may I presume an exploration as to why humans are so ready to war? I suspect this is but one facet as to why. An important facet perhaps, but not the only one. War is in our DNA.

Perhaps "concrete" beliefs are as good an excuse as any to war, for some. Some will war at the drop of a hat. Others need a genuine excuse, like self-defense. I think the implication with concrete belief is that of projection onto others. Whereas what Tao and I suggest, and I know Paladin is familiar with as a bit more flexible belief, a forcible projection onto others is not necessary. That I would think is born more of experience with futility.

Perhaps I may differ with the two of you on this one point, that if I were faced with being forced by another, then I have no objections to meeting war with war. Defensive, not offensive. It is still war.

What happens if the sense of self is let go of? I think most would say we would slip quickly into madness and despair. But I tend to think that if this was done with full awareness of the implications it could lead to transendance, or to put it another way, a completley genuine relationship to actuality.

Good question. I'm not quite brave enough to try to find out, probably because I do think it would lead to madness *if* it could actually be accomplished (short of brain damage). I still sense an underlying foundation that we can't let go of without really, really upsetting our applecart. We can play around with all of the spurious and superfluous (fun!) stuff all day long, and morph and change over time. But that deep down central core that makes us who we are I don't think can truly be surrendered and remain physically and / or mentally healthy.

But then, at root this is about the Buddhist position of "no self," yes? No ego projection, which could possibly also be said as meekness, modesty and separation from the things of the world; yeah, I can see that. But no self as in no personality, no thought process, no guiding memetic paradigm; no, I don't see it as truly possible without adverse repercussion.

 

[Paladin]

OK, what *are* we? A bone bag collection of minerals and water, proteins and DNA? Are we the cumulative collection of our mothers and fathers going back for aeons? Are we stardust, are we golden, are we billion year old carbon? Are we born to be who we are, and predestined (or perhaps predesigned?) to a specific role? What amount of leeway and influence can we individually exert against the cumulative weight of cultural, social and genetic baggage we are born to carry?

By "so entrenched in their beliefs that killing becomes an option" may I presume an exploration as to why humans are so ready to war? I suspect this is but one facet as to why. An important facet perhaps, but not the only one. War is in our DNA.

Perhaps "concrete" beliefs are as good an excuse as any to war, for some. Some will war at the drop of a hat. Others need a genuine excuse, like self-defense. I think the implication with concrete belief is that of projection onto others. Whereas what Tao and I suggest, and I know Paladin is familiar with as a bit more flexible belief, a forcible projection onto others is not necessary. That I would think is born more of experience with futility.

Perhaps I may differ with the two of you on this one point, that if I were faced with being forced by another, then I have no objections to meeting war with war. Defensive, not offensive. It is still war.


Good question. I'm not quite brave enough to try to find out, probably because I do think it would lead to madness *if* it could actually be accomplished (short of brain damage). I still sense an underlying foundation that we can't let go of without really, really upsetting our applecart. We can play around with all of the spurious and superfluous (fun!) stuff all day long, and morph and change over time. But that deep down central core that makes us who we are I don't think can truly be surrendered and remain physically and / or mentally healthy.

But then, at root this is about the Buddhist position of "no self," yes? No ego projection, which could possibly also be said as meekness, modesty and separation from the things of the world; yeah, I can see that. But no self as in no personality, no thought process, no guiding memetic paradigm; no, I don't see it as truly possible without adverse repercussion.

Hi Juan,

I think you have a good handle on what it is I'm driving at here. If we are fully engaged in the brine of life we know what it is we are about. Rather than fall asleep and act merely as automotons reacting to our programs, chosen because they represent our desired image.
Letting go of self wouldn't entail becoming vacant, I think I agree with your point on the inherent nature, but we would know that we are acting out of a belief, a mental construct.
Here there is still a self, looking out at "the world". Still a dualistic nature of subject and object, it seems it cannot be avoided.

Now I'm not driving at the old idea of "oneness";that doesn't quite get it either because of the zen idea of not one-not two nicht wahr?

the human process and function facinates me because of all this. Rather than leading to despair or madness, the willingness to be aware of our self-delusion can give us a very rich experience, knowing we are characters in a story we constructed.

So then, do you want the red pill or the blue pill?

 

[juantoo3]

If we are fully engaged in the brine of life we know what it is we are about. Rather than fall asleep and act merely as automotons reacting to our programs, chosen because they represent our desired image.
Letting go of self wouldn't entail becoming vacant, I think I agree with your point on the inherent nature, but we would know that we are acting out of a belief, a mental construct.
Here there is still a self, looking out at "the world". Still a dualistic nature of subject and object, it seems it cannot be avoided.

Now I'm not driving at the old idea of "oneness";that doesn't quite get it either because of the zen idea of not one-not two nicht wahr?

the human process and function facinates me because of all this. Rather than leading to despair or madness, the willingness to be aware of our self-delusion can give us a very rich experience, knowing we are characters in a story we constructed.

OK, somehow I have managed to lose myself in the semantics. This is why I find Buddhism frustratingly obtuse. I mean no disrespect, I simply don't get it, it just doesn't resonate.

Maybe I am too much of a black and white person (I really do try to compensate for this), but I am not understanding how "no self" can still be "self," but not really, but kinda sorta, depending on the situation. Only we don't call it "self," which doesn't really matter because we don't have one anyway, except when we do...

I promise, I am *not* trying to be difficult, but I have to ask what is meant by the terms "self," "identity," "ego" and "personal."

Can a person guide and direct their individual self to a minimalist level (I don't know if this is correct, but I think this is what was implied) in an effort to shed the burdens of the world? Yeah, sure, absolutely no problemo. To me that is a lifestyle choice and a little self discipline, stir it up and say the magic word and *poof*: Thoreau. I don't see that as shedding self. Shedding ego perhaps, self no.

I am open to correction.

So then, do you want the red pill or the blue pill?

Which one makes me larger? Which one makes me small? And would someone please point the way to the hooka smoking caterpiller?

 

[Paladin]

I take it you haven't seen the Matrix

Seriously Juan, no correction is needed, for there isn't any error. I really think deep down all of us understand actuality, we are just afraid to go there.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Wonderful Tao. But I suppose one would also note the subtle duality of even that position. Not that you personally are affected, but one could cultivate the "role" of observer which may entail a certain detatchment used to insulate one from actively engaging in life as it is. Again, I'm not thinking this is you but I suppose it could happen.

I think that this boils down to the degree of compartmentalisation we have in our interaction with reality. For me its no duality, its a multiplicity. Reality is a kaleidoscope, twist that tube a fraction and its a whole different set of hues. The battle to remain consistent is a challenge in itself - which may be a deep reason why many seek refuge in the certitude of a rigid belief system. But for thinkers/observers, with or without any theological leanings, it is not so much a deliberate act of cultivation as a primary need, like eating. Its in the hard wiring we are born with. Being an observer however one always brings some degree of preconception, no matter how careful you are to remain neutral. But nothing is perfect. "You can only piss with the c**k you've got", as my grandaddy used to say.

Tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

Kindest Regards!

Good question. I don't have a ready answer, other than to say that beliefs can morph over time. Of course, I'm suggesting "fluid like glass" where you seem to be suggesting "fluid like water."

Water or glass. Each of us changes at a different pace according to their journeys twists and turns. No two of us will ever travel the same route.

I would respectfully disagree. Any person truly of their own volition seeking the things of the spirit continually question themselves. At least I do. Although I do agree the difference is subtle and profound.

My apologies. I keep doing that here and it is really not my intention. I hope you understand that the statement was directed at those kind of people who do not question, or worse, who are afraid to question.

Tao! This is so uncharacteristically illogical of you! And this lends itself to illustrate the underlying foundational beliefs we cling to *in spite of* whether or not they make "logical" sense.

I see your point, but tonight i am too tired to keep my eyes open let alone try to make sense. next time....


Tao

 

[Paladin]

I think that this boils down to the degree of compartmentalisation we have in our interaction with reality. For me its no duality, its a multiplicity. Reality is a kaleidoscope, twist that tube a fraction and its a whole different set of hues. The battle to remain consistent is a challenge in itself - which may be a deep reason why many seek refuge in the certitude of a rigid belief system. But for thinkers/observers, with or without any theological leanings, it is not so much a deliberate act of cultivation as a primary need, like eating. Its in the hard wiring we are born with. Being an observer however one always brings some degree of preconception, no matter how careful you are to remain neutral. But nothing is perfect. "You can only piss with the c**k you've got", as my grandaddy used to say.

Tao

Brilliant Tao, your grandaddy must have been quite a pistol!
Still, I often get to thinking about my own neutrality. How is it that I can ever truly be apart from actuality enough to be neutral? If I am an integral part of actuality then how can I observe anything? Am I making any kind of sense here?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I've been mulling over whether I have any use for a personal self identity. For my own solitary purposes I don't see that I do. To myself I don't need a name. I don't think of myself as Chris. I'm aware that I have a body which resides in a specific location, but I don't much identify with my body except that I'm aware of it's physical parameters. Other people may identify me by my name and my body. I use my identity as a marker to hold my place in the grand pecking order, but that identity is rather a mystery to me, having been assigned by others. I can't get outside of myself and turn to observe me like they do, so I'm not really sure what kind of identity they've made for me. It all seems rather fictional and silly to me, but I try to leverage what I imagine to be my identity to get along and push my interests in the world of other people.

Chris

 

[Tao_Equus]

Brilliant Tao, your grandaddy must have been quite a pistol!
Still, I often get to thinking about my own neutrality. How is it that I can ever truly be apart from actuality enough to be neutral? If I am an integral part of actuality then how can I observe anything? Am I making any kind of sense here?

Of course you are. You can remain aware of your limitations and take them into account. Striving for absolute perfection is futile, you can only take so many facets of actuality into account at any given time. The human mind is an amazing machine, but even the most astute of them rarely if ever has a truly original thought or perception. We each do our best with what we have. The individual is not a tree deep within a vast forest, we are free to explore down any avenue of our choosing. So choices we make will define the actuality we observe. It will never be complete. If we are lucky any study will answer a question, but if it was a worthy question the answer will give birth to many more. I think knowing our limitations is key to remaining neutral. It will never be perfect neutrality, but being aware of the tendency to bias one can go a long way to mitigating the effects.

tao

Chris,

YouTube - You must conform!

 

[juantoo3]

Of course you are. You can remain aware of your limitations and take them into account. Striving for absolute perfection is futile, you can only take so many facets of actuality into account at any given time.

See, this is why I like you so much Tao! This makes so much sense I couldn't agree more!

 

[juantoo3]

I've been mulling over whether I have any use for a personal self identity. For my own solitary purposes I don't see that I do. To myself I don't need a name. I don't think of myself as Chris. I'm aware that I have a body which resides in a specific location, but I don't much identify with my body except that I'm aware of it's physical parameters. Other people may identify me by my name and my body. I use my identity as a marker to hold my place in the grand pecking order, but that identity is rather a mystery to me, having been assigned by others. I can't get outside of myself and turn to observe me like they do, so I'm not really sure what kind of identity they've made for me. It all seems rather fictional and silly to me, but I try to leverage what I imagine to be my identity to get along and push my interests in the world of other people.

You raise some interesting thoughts, China Cat. I'm not sure where to go with them...

I don't call myself by my name, I don't think "Now Juan, today we're gonna do such-n-such." I guess I relate to myself as an invisible given taken for granted. I am, therefore I think - so to speak. Most times I weigh whether or not, what choice to make, shut off the alarm and get up or hit the snooze and catch a few more zzzzzs. OK, Sunshine, get your butt outta bed. Do I really have to? Yeah, you got obligations....and the rest of the day continues in a similar vein.

On those rare occasions when I can set aside all that crap and be in the moment (I guess that's what they call it), casting a line into the water or strolling along a wooded path, that internal conversation kinda melts away into a non-verbal communication.

I think one difference is that I actually enjoy the internal dialogue most times, at least when I am free of or ignoring those "responsibility" must-do-nows. Sometimes it starts with a seemingly random thought, and off I go to explore where it leads. Some people paint, some people play golf, some people go surfing, I like to think.

I don't know if this adds to what you said, or if I was even near the ballpark. I'm not even sure why I'm writing this. For a change I don't even have a point.

 

[Azure24]

Hello all,

May I just say it's not good to think too much. Thinking too much makes me depressed. In fact thinking too much is caused by doubt and also relates to fear (IMO).

It's not good to always think of "self", it's what makes us insecure. To be honest I always tell myself to think from the inside (to) out, instead of the outside (to) in. Though this is impossible to a certain extent, it is possible when it comes to thoughts of what you do (or youorself). Does anyone know why they do what they do? Sure, you can give reasons, but I'm not so sure...

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hello all,

May I just say it's not good to think too much. Thinking too much makes me depressed. In fact thinking too much is caused by doubt and also relates to fear (IMO).

It's not good to always think of "self", it's what makes us insecure. To be honest I always tell myself to think from the inside (to) out, instead of the outside (to) in. Though this is impossible to a certain extent, it is possible when it comes to thoughts of what you do (or youorself). Does anyone know why they do what they do? Sure, you can give reasons, but I'm not so sure...

I'll have to agreeably disagree, though I do understand what you're saying Azure. I love to think. Thinking is one of my favorite things. You can schedule your unpleasant thinking chores, knock them out, and have lots of time for pleasant thinking enjoyment! As long as you're not an indolent procrastinator this works great. I agree that bummer thoughts are instigated by emotional insecurity and fears

Sometimes I say to myself "I'll remember to be angry about this later." Procrastinator that I am, I forget to get back to it. That's an example of how being a slacker can be good, LOL! It's hard to say no to emotion driven urge-thoughts, even when acting on them in the moment is counterproductive.

I do think that self worth and identity politics are tightly coiled. I spent an enormous amount of time and energy on trying to be some kind of legend, at least in my own mind, when I was a younger man. Identity seemed so important, and I was looking for some kind of style or affectation, some kind of cool identity to become. But I found out that that leads to a lot of butt licking, of which I'm not fond.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

You raise some interesting thoughts, China Cat. I'm not sure where to go with them...

I don't call myself by my name, I don't think "Now Juan, today we're gonna do such-n-such." I guess I relate to myself as an invisible given taken for granted. I am, therefore I think - so to speak. Most times I weigh whether or not, what choice to make, shut off the alarm and get up or hit the snooze and catch a few more zzzzzs. OK, Sunshine, get your butt outta bed. Do I really have to? Yeah, you got obligations....and the rest of the day continues in a similar vein.

On those rare occasions when I can set aside all that crap and be in the moment (I guess that's what they call it), casting a line into the water or strolling along a wooded path, that internal conversation kinda melts away into a non-verbal communication.

I think one difference is that I actually enjoy the internal dialogue most times, at least when I am free of or ignoring those "responsibility" must-do-nows. Sometimes it starts with a seemingly random thought, and off I go to explore where it leads. Some people paint, some people play golf, some people go surfing, I like to think.

I don't know if this adds to what you said, or if I was even near the ballpark. I'm not even sure why I'm writing this. For a change I don't even have a point.

Far out!

Chris

 

[Tao_Equus]

When my first marriage was disintegrating I went to that marriage counselling nonsense. Here i/we were encouraged by the counsellor to spend meditative time on trying to put ourselves in each others heads, to truly try to think as though we were our partner. Aside from immediately asking myself for a divorce this was an incredibly difficult experience. Both in terms of achieving it to any real degree and the resulting emotional confusion it caused.
We all to often in the most superficial sense like to give ourselves a wee pat on the back by thinking we are truly appreciating another's points of view, needs, desires etc. These token gestures are usually sufficient for both parties but they are not putting oneself in another's shoes. I am unsure if it is just me, perhaps I lack empathy but I find truly trying to think the thoughts of someone else exhausting and traumatic.
Why do I write this? (This question is to me). Because it seems to me thinking about what you raised Chris that it is almost equally as difficult to know oneself. In some sense I am a stranger even to myself. Sure my behaviour is quite predictable, my desires, likes and dislikes all well established. But the root, that core essence of me I never chose could almost belong to another I know it so poorly. It really is like we have 2 selves. The core one and the one we by choice build around it. I have no idea where I am going with this, like Juantoo i seem to have reached a dead end with it. But it does rather make a mockery of the counselling if one cannot even know oneself and be expected to know another.

Tao

 

[Paladin]

Hmmm is it a coincidence that today is James Joyce's birthday?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

We all to often in the most superficial sense like to give ourselves a wee pat on the back by thinking we are truly appreciating another's points of view, needs, desires etc. These token gestures are usually sufficient for both parties but they are not putting oneself in another's shoes. I am unsure if it is just me, perhaps I lack empathy but I find truly trying to think the thoughts of someone else exhausting and traumatic.

My perceptions of others mostly come from my own casting department and property room. I do take direct impressions from people, and the longer I know them the more dimensional and unique they become to me, but it's always me who casts the character of them in my mind. I'm pretty sure, now, that I made up my own character the same way. On one level I'm the story teller and master of puppets, but on another level I'm just one of the puppets, and on still another level the play is real, such is my immersion in it.

But the root, that core essence of me I never chose could almost belong to another I know it so poorly. It really is like we have 2 selves. The core one and the one we by choice build around it.

Tao

I don't know if there even is a core. Perhaps this knotted up ball of paradoxical string is all there is.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hmmm is it a coincidence that today is James Joyce's birthday?

Do we have to drink green beer?

Chris

 

[Paladin]

Naw, I think we just keep posting stream of consciousness thoughts without an apparent point, but which lead up to an overall theme describing our own experience with the human condition possibly adding some veracity to the ideas of objectivism.

Or failing that, what goes good with green beer?