Trust

  • Thread starter Thread starter cyberpi
  • Start date Start date
Re: Why do you believe in YOUR religion

Quahom1 said:
To be surprised is not a form of trust. It is to be caught un aware, and then suddenly brought into knowledge of something. Were is "trust" in that? Chris would have to expound upon his statement in order for it to make sense.
Click to expand...
I think a harder concept is that uncertainty is in the math of both information and surprise. If there is no uncertainty then there is no information... you might have to study Shannon information theory to realize that.

I also agree with Chris that trust is a willingness to be surprised... a willingness to accept an uncertainty. In the exchange of information that would not mean a willingness to accept new information as an infallable truth. Rather the opposite: a willingness to accept that you never have all the information... open to the discovery of something new.

Quahom1 said:
New information is just that, new information. Willingness to learn new information is not a matter of trust, but rather one has a desire to remain at their current level, or to move on to a higher level. That has nothing to do with trust.
Click to expand...
As one example out of many: I know someone who is recorded as a felon and a drug addict. He has an impossible time getting an apartment. It is easy to do a credit or background check and few people want to have a felon living on their premises. The apartment owner really has no information about the person except second hand information that they can purchase from somewhere. Out of their own greed the last thing they are going to do is to take the time to talk with the person and get a sense of where and why the accusations have been brought against them. The information written by others about the person is believed over the person. What will it take for the owner of that apartment complex to take the risk and potentially learn something new about the person. Trust? Or instead will their judgment be the judgment of others... thus learning nothing new.

Who thinks as those apartment owners think, Quahom1... that knowledge is the information that brought them better control over their little piece of the world at the expense of their neighbor? Trust is in where the control of pieces overlap.

Quahom1 said:
By attempting to use "trust" as a way to get others to feel guilty or confused about their refusal to accept your way of "living" or your insistance that your way is the only way things will work out right (call it Cyberpi's law), is ludicrous, and can be seen for what it is, for miles around; "do as I say, for I am right and the rest of you are wrong"...

In short that is as guilty a behavior or a thought pattern as the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Whatever guilt you feel by my words is not from me. By your words, you value the trust that Trinitarian churches around the world place in you as their door is open to you. So do you value trust, or do you merely value the trust of others? What information does the church collect from you as it lets you past their door so that they can decide whether or not to permit you? Don't bother calling 'Trust' my law... you've written your own law.
 
Re: Why do you believe in YOUR religion

If trust is a willingness to be surprised, then what is being comfortable with risk?

We trust something. A general attitude of comfort or willingness to assume risk, uncertainty, or imperfect information isn't trust, it's just our comfort level with risk. Some people are more gambling types than others. Doesn't mean they trust those on whom they take a gamble. We're able to assume risk without trust.

In an attempt to get this back to the OP and not off-topic, as it relates to religion, most peopsle trust the authorities or organizations of their religion. It isn't like they are just willing to take the risk of going to a church or the uncertainty that their religion might not be right. It's that they trust their religion or practice is right, at least for them. Two very different things.

I trust my path because I think it is right for me. I'm also willing to be surprised and resign myself to uncertainty, but that is another matter. If I was solely the latter, there would be no need for any religion at all.
 
Re: Why do you believe in YOUR religion

duhkha, misery, or misfortune... in sanskrit... this is it's translation... not suffering... although it is that, there is a better word for suffering...

the duhkha isn't anything other than your samsara... completely (sam) ones own (sa) desire (ra)...

and yet... in truth... duhkha and samsara as things, are products, and all products rely on causes...

the causes of duhkha and samsara are the causes of the "pratityasamutpada"... ( prati-before -ya- giving, funishing, sam- completely, utpada- fly, fall up ... basically, the rays you use before you fly up, or rather, the bonds of existence... these bonds are...

ignorance,
action,
consciousness,
name and form,
contacts,
sources,
feeling,
attachment,
grasping
existence,
birth,
ageing and death,

all these things make your karma, or rather, have an impact on your judgements, will influence your existence, and your perception of that existence...

then comes the four noble truths...

we all suffer, or have suffered, suffering doesn't last, there is a way to end suffering, and that's by following the noble eightfold path...

if you live right, etc, whatever your problem was, will go... it will cease... if you don't steal, you won't go to jail... if you don't get drunk you won't make a fool of yourself...if you don't bad-mouth ppl and try to be honest, generally, misery ends... they follow the noble eightfold path...

all this is based on the premise that... most people don't want religion for its own sake... they come to temple, to church, to their gods, because they suffer, and they want it to cease... because they are unhappy... generally, the duhkha is samsara... the miseries and misfortunes you're experiencing are generally of your own making, if they do these things (meditate, follow the noble eithfold path), and try and live well, you'll find the miseries and misfortunes will lessen...

then comes meditation... for you to escape the bonds and the snares and the fetters, for you to become a Buddha, one who knows insights about thinking you have to learn concentration meditation... you have to learn how to stop thinking, as, in truth, most of what you think is from somewhere else- you think in a certain groove because of upbringing, exposure and circumstance... and this is why you experience this duhkha, this misery or misfortune...

to give yourself the space to think independently of these fetters and bonds and one day become a Buddha, or knower of insights, you need to create some space, or distance, between the sense stimuli and the constant unconscious processes...so you practise meditation... not thinking meditation... samatha (sam-completely, a- negative participle- tha, thought, thinking) meditation...

giving yourself some time to think independently of all the assumed wisdoms and conditioned responses you have adopted due to your existence, via meditation, whilst behaving in a certain way; being ethical, and moral, etc, will usually guarantee that whatever duhkha and samsara you experience will be considerably diminished, and hence the third and fourth noble truths....

then maybe it ends for u... you don't need it anymore, you put it down, no big deal...

but if you don't, then it changes...

one day,practising your samatha, you reach samadhi... a state of complete insight... sunyata... emptiness, you realise what it's really all about...

or you will one day you decide to become a bodhisattva... a being who knows insights into the nature of the self ( bo- knowing dhi- insight sat-being tva-I)...

knowing the self, knowing the emptiness, knowing the natures and origins of duhkha, and knowing how to build rafts to get ppl over the ocean of samsara... how can you refuse to make a few rafts?

and so then you quest for enlightenment... you develop supramundane powers, you gather complete insights...

and then, one day after that, you become a Buddha. A conqueror of worlds
 
cyberpi said:
Is it the trust in your own experiences or the trust in the experiences of others that you believe your husband exists... or is it the trust of your husband in you and the trust of you in him? Is a person just an experience?
Click to expand...

no... a person has a form, exists, but, of course, has causes, origins, reasons for being... objects, subjects, concepts, exist... they do not remain indefinately, but they exist...
 
Vajradhara said:
Namaste all,

i suppose it depends on how a being understands the word trust. in my normal usage with regards to other sentient beings trust entails a pattern of observation, albeit brief in some cases, which allows me some insight into the character of the other being, which can be mistaken.

it seems to be a pattern recognition aspect in some manner.

metta,

~v
Click to expand...
Interesting, Vaj.

Do you think that trust might be a mechanism to overcome the madness and vexation brought on by attempting to conjecture about "the precise working out of the results of kamma" written about in the Acintita Sutta?

Is trust a form of conjecture, or a release from conjecture, in this respect? (Sounds like a koan...)
 
Re: Why do you believe in YOUR religion

path_of_one said:
If trust is a willingness to be surprised, then what is being comfortable with risk?
Click to expand...
Transitive or intransitive?

path_of_one said:
We trust something.
Click to expand...
Do you? A little reciprocity might suggest: Trust another something as you would like the other something to trust you, and be trustworthy to another something as you would like the other something to be trustworthy to you. I'm not certain We all do that.

path_of_one said:
A general attitude of comfort or willingness to assume risk, uncertainty, or imperfect information isn't trust, it's just our comfort level with risk. Some people are more gambling types than others. Doesn't mean they trust those on whom they take a gamble. We're able to assume risk without trust.
Click to expand...
I submit: Gambling is typically counter to the will of others. Trust is typically with the will of others. Both involve a risk.

path_of_one said:
In an attempt to get this back to the OP and not off-topic, as it relates to religion, most peopsle trust the authorities or organizations of their religion. It isn't like they are just willing to take the risk of going to a church or the uncertainty that their religion might not be right. It's that they trust their religion or practice is right, at least for them. Two very different things.
Click to expand...
I'd say the two very different things there are: 1) Trusting an authority or organization, and 2) Trusting a religion. Very different.

I submit there is greater trust in an outsider who goes to a church for the first time than for someone who is raised up going to one. Why is that?

path_of_one said:
I trust my path because I think it is right for me. I'm also willing to be surprised and resign myself to uncertainty, but that is another matter. If I was solely the latter, there would be no need for any religion at all.
Click to expand...
I guess every word like 'love', 'honesty', 'trust', 'faith', etc... would have to be intransitive in order for it to be merely towards a singular path. That is: trusting or loving a path is different than trusting or loving others. Like apples and... soul? Applesauce?
 
seattlegal said:
Interesting, Vaj.

Do you think that trust might be a mechanism to overcome the madness and vexation brought on by attempting to conjecture about "the precise working out of the results of kamma" written about in the Acintita Sutta?

Is trust a form of conjecture, or a release from conjecture, in this respect? (Sounds like a koan...)
Click to expand...
Oh, to clarify my point, I'm making an analogy to kamma being conditioned patterns, and a koan as a means to move your mind outside of patterned conditioning. Therefore, trust could be seen as being analogous to a koan, in this respect. :)
{Does that make any sense?}
 
Yet more editing here? It would be good if whoever is now deleting posts to have the minimal virtues to at least ask the person who originated the thread, let alone those wasting their time conversing. Have you no respect for others? Shame on you.

Shame on the moderators here. Just because you have judged the words of others to be either off topic or counter to your own beliefs and what you would like to hear, doesn't mean you are right or that others here think as you do. I had read the OP and was on topic the whole time... you simply don't see it yet.

sherry said:
I've spent the last 8 years hearing "their belief is wrong because..." and many bad, or stereo-typical things about other relgions that don't fall in line with "Southern Baptist".

I don't want to hear steroe-types.. they are judgmental and group things together as a whole instead of giving them to chance to prove themselves on an individual basis.

To me, there obviously is something there in those other religions to not only cause such devotion to them, but to (as my husband drilled it to me last night..) "take the chance with your soul that you are wrong.."
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine on the word 'chance'. I submit those are two very distinct and very difference cases of gambling... one is trust in another person and the other is trust in information.

Excellent demonstration here. Shame on you moderators.
 
Re: Why do you believe in YOUR religion

cyberpi said:
Yet more editing here? It would be good if whoever is now deleting posts to have the minimal virtues to at least ask the person who originated the thread, let alone those wasting their time conversing. Have you no respect for others? Shame on you.

Shame on the moderators here. Just because you have judged the words of others to be either off topic or counter to your own beliefs and what you would like to hear, doesn't mean you are right or that others here think as you do. I had read the OP and was on topic the whole time... you simply don't see it yet.

Emphasis mine on the word 'chance'. I submit those are two very distinct and very difference cases of gambling... one is trust in another person and the other is trust in information.

Excellent demonstration here. Shame on you moderators.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry if you disapprove of the way this board is moderated. However, it will continue to be moderated.

Take care.

v/r
Q
 
Re: Why do you believe in YOUR religion

cyberpi said:
Yet more editing here? It would be good if whoever is now deleting posts to have the minimal virtues to at least ask the person who originated the thread, let alone those wasting their time conversing. Have you no respect for others? Shame on you.
Click to expand...

The posts weren't deleted, they were moved to the Trust thread in the Philosophy forum so they could continue with the previous posts on the same topic. I don't at this time know who moved them, but I think it is best to keep all of them together so people have a context for the most recent posts.

I didn't think anyone is wasting time conversing, since the posts are still extant and that thread is picking up other interesting comments from others.

Personally, I refuse to discuss the off-topic matter further on this thread. It is detracting (in my opinion) from the original question, which was to ask individuals about their own beliefs and why they have them. It never asked why people in general trust a religion- it was about "why you believe in YOUR religion." Two very different things IMO, and this thread began to read like two separate conversations- one on general human cognition and trust and the other on people's reasons for believing in their own religion.

Shame on the moderators here. Just because you have judged the words of others to be either off topic or counter to your own beliefs and what you would like to hear, doesn't mean you are right or that others here think as you do. I had read the OP and was on topic the whole time... you simply don't see it yet.
Click to expand...

No, I don't. I felt the whole time that I was off-topic and hogging space, disrupting the conversation relevant to the OP. You may feel the long conversation we were having was relevant, but I don't and neither did others. When I look at the title and OP, it is clear that it meant for people to talk about their own beliefs about their own religions, not trust or religion in general.

This is why I refuse to continue to disrupt this thread with OT matters.

Beliefs counter to my own have nothing to do with it- they are all still there on the separate thread. I could care less if people have beliefs counter to my own- most people do on some topic.
 
Moderate the words of others as you would that others moderate yours. Perhaps that might be in a religion somewhere. Blessings to you otherwise.
 
I think that we come into the world with utter trust, and work our whole lives to remove as much of it as possible. There is no safety or security in trust. To have 100% trust means to be utterly at the mercy of a completely unpredictable world. A powerful driver of human evolution manifests as the effort to eliminate, or at least minimize surprise. OTOH, we have a modicum of personal trust that we can invest as we choose. So, in the sense of trust as a commodity it's a matter of risk versus potential benefit. Safety versus profit. I'm thinking that trust can be defined as a sort of field, or state of consciousness, or as a commodity of personal investment. Trust being a willingness to be surprised, or, put another way, the inability to prevent surprise would fall under the first part, while trust invested in people and processes would, in my mind, fit better under the second definition. Risk becomes synonymous with surprise.

Besides taking calculated risks on people or processes, a person can allow trust by consciously withdrawing from the control game. Anything we don't have to own or control can be reinvested with trust so that it's potential to surprise us reinvigorates.

Chris
 
cyberpi said:
Moderate the words of others as you would that others moderate yours. Perhaps that might be in a religion somewhere. Blessings to you otherwise.
Click to expand...
Posts were moved appropriately, not moderated.
Q
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
I think that we come into the world with utter trust, and work our whole lives to remove as much of it as possible. There is no safety or security in trust. To have 100% trust means to be utterly at the mercy of a completely unpredictable world. A powerful driver of human evolution manifests as the effort to eliminate, or at least minimize surprise. OTOH, we have a modicum of personal trust that we can invest as we choose. So, in the sense of trust as a commodity it's a matter of risk versus potential benefit. Safety versus profit. I'm thinking that trust can be defined as a sort of field, or state of consciousness, or as a commodity of personal investment. Trust being a willingness to be surprised, or, put another way, the inability to prevent surprise would fall under the first part, while trust invested in people and processes would, in my mind, fit better under the second definition. Risk becomes synonymous with surprise.

Besides taking calculated risks on people or processes, a person can allow trust by consciously withdrawing from the control game. Anything we don't have to own or control can be reinvested with trust so that it's potential to surprise us reinvigorates.

Chris
Click to expand...
Trust is a funny thing. We inherently give it to most we meet, and it develops as the relationship does, but once lost, it is very hard to get back. I'm not sure why, by I think it as to do with being vulnerable and then being hurt. Self defense mechanism I suppose.

Good post Chris.

Josh
 
i my experience, trust is a once only thing for eachperson. now, that may be harsh, but once lost it will never be teh same. it maybe a shadow of itself, but not as it once was. imo.
 
trust... trust in what, or whom?

a climber trusts his ropes...but each time, he checks them before he uses them...

a child trusts it's parents... but still tests the boundaries...

if you kick a cat once, he will shy away from your affections... kick him three times, and he'll ignore you for days... a dog will love you even if you kick him eighteen times a day...

we are often told by our religions to "trust": to accept things via blind faith alone... it smacks of gullability. It smacks of deceit.

to say something is true, when it is not, is a lie... to call something a truth when it is just a theory, is foolish.

the only person you can fully trust in life is yourelf. Some humans can't even do that.

trust as a release from conjecture? great. But what happens when we are released from conjecture and find this in itself is a trap?

for an army to cease thinking about an enemy does not mean the enemy simply goes away... instead, the army strategises, equips itself for battle...
 
Letting a stranger come within striking distance demonstrates a mutual level of trust. There can't be civilization, culture, or society without a constant modicum of trust. Paradoxically, it is the removal of trust that gives the trust which remains value. Science and religion are both trust removal tools. There is no less trusting mindset than the one which demands answers and predictability. Since belief is a process where metaphysical axioms are allowed to stand in for facts to compensate for the lack of a complete fact set, it is essentially part of the answer finding process, and is therefor antithetical to trust. Belief opposes trust.

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top