|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 1, 2014 13:38:15 GMT -5
yeah tzu... we all know already that the earth is flat, and that its supposed roundness is due to the belief of some evil nitwits that probably never should have been born, for they dared to look further than their noses were long...why would they have done that? because they believed tzu, kiddo, belief is indispensible. there is a REAL world out there even if you dont believe it take air The difference between 'belief' and understanding, is that belief is an attachment to an understanding, and.. attachments are held onto even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.. beliefs are irrational attachments to the understandings preferred over actuality.. not only are beliefs dispensable, they are harmful, they are the signature of a closed mind.. Do you believe your understanding of this to be true?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 1, 2014 17:20:52 GMT -5
A belief is very simply an idea taken to be true and to complicate the definition with the notion of attachment is a way of rationalizing away ones beliefs. First, let's abandon the charade for a moment.. we both know who your post is directed at.. I am stating my understanding of 'belief', it includes 'attachment'.. like a belief in 'God', where the believer rationalizes justifications for the belief.. an understanding implies the experiencer is interested in actually 'understanding', where a belief implies the experiencer has chosen an understanding to be true, and contrary information to be false.. an understanding is not 'held to be true', it is acknowledged for its consistency with what is happening, and with the realization that the experiencer doesn't know all that is...
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 1, 2014 17:24:33 GMT -5
The difference between 'belief' and understanding, is that belief is an attachment to an understanding, and.. attachments are held onto even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.. beliefs are irrational attachments to the understandings preferred over actuality.. not only are beliefs dispensable, they are harmful, they are the signature of a closed mind.. Do you believe your understanding of this to be true? No, i understand that it is consistent with what is actually happening, and that 'understanding' is subject to revision with new information..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 1, 2014 20:03:59 GMT -5
A belief is very simply an idea taken to be true and to complicate the definition with the notion of attachment is a way of rationalizing away ones beliefs. First, let's abandon the charade for a moment.. we both know who your post is directed at.. I am stating my understanding of 'belief', it includes 'attachment'.. like a belief in 'God', where the believer rationalizes justifications for the belief.. an understanding implies the experiencer is interested in actually 'understanding', where a belief implies the experiencer has chosen an understanding to be true, and contrary information to be false.. an understanding is not 'held to be true', it is acknowledged for its consistency with what is happening, and with the realization that the experiencer doesn't know all that is... TMT
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Sept 2, 2014 4:57:43 GMT -5
A belief is very simply an idea taken to be true and to complicate the definition with the notion of attachment is a way of rationalizing away ones beliefs. First, let's abandon the charade for a moment.. we both know who your post is directed at.. I am stating my understanding of 'belief', it includes 'attachment'.. like a belief in 'God', where the believer rationalizes justifications for the belief.. an understanding implies the experiencer is interested in actually 'understanding', where a belief implies the experiencer has chosen an understanding to be true, and contrary information to be false.. an understanding is not 'held to be true', it is acknowledged for its consistency with what is happening, and with the realization that the experiencer doesn't know all that is... there are 100.000 ways of believing in GOD,and you throw them all in the bin due to a belief that all these beliefs are not ´´understandings´´. but i have a hard time seeing your evidence of cosmic memory, even though i may agree with the principle you use the label for.I may even call it ´´god´´ does that suddenly make it wrong? surely not. i have a lot of understandings, which may seem beliefs to you, simply because you havent had the experience i have had.You had perhaps different experience,leading to a different understanding. maybe you should explain what your GOD (the one you throw into the bin) looks like?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 2, 2014 5:24:11 GMT -5
First, let's abandon the charade for a moment.. we both know who your post is directed at.. I am stating my understanding of 'belief', it includes 'attachment'.. like a belief in 'God', where the believer rationalizes justifications for the belief.. an understanding implies the experiencer is interested in actually 'understanding', where a belief implies the experiencer has chosen an understanding to be true, and contrary information to be false.. an understanding is not 'held to be true', it is acknowledged for its consistency with what is happening, and with the realization that the experiencer doesn't know all that is... there are 100.000 ways of believing in GOD,and you throw them all in the bin due to a belief that all these beliefs are not ´´understandings´´. but i have a hard time seeing your evidence of cosmic memory, even though i may agree with the principle you use the label for.I may even call it ´´god´´ does that suddenly make it wrong? surely not. i have a lot of understandings, which may seem beliefs to you, simply because you havent had the experience i have had.You had perhaps different experience,leading to a different understanding. maybe you should explain what your GOD (the one you throw into the bin) looks like? IF i were to put a meaning to the word 'God' it would look something like this: 'God is Life, Life is 'God'.. and Life is not confined to this physical experience of it.. but, 'God' and its many interpretations have spawned some of humanity's greatest horrors.. 'God' is an idea about what 'is', i don't get attached to the 'idea'..
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Sept 2, 2014 5:30:04 GMT -5
there are 100.000 ways of believing in GOD,and you throw them all in the bin due to a belief that all these beliefs are not ´´understandings´´. but i have a hard time seeing your evidence of cosmic memory, even though i may agree with the principle you use the label for.I may even call it ´´god´´ does that suddenly make it wrong? surely not. i have a lot of understandings, which may seem beliefs to you, simply because you havent had the experience i have had.You had perhaps different experience,leading to a different understanding. maybe you should explain what your GOD (the one you throw into the bin) looks like? IF i were to put a meaning to the word 'God' it would look something like this: 'God is Life, Life is 'God'.. and Life is not confined to this physical experience of it.. but, 'God' and its many interpretations have spawned some of humanity's greatest horrors.. 'God' is an idea about what 'is', i don't get attached to the 'idea'.. define life, please? does it include matter?rocks, gas, galaxies? and --so you have a belief that these ´´horrors´´ are bad? not a necessesary part of some grandiose, majestic unfolding? An orange is an orange..does it make the skin ´´bad´´? it would not exist without that inedible part. ?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 2, 2014 5:56:26 GMT -5
IF i were to put a meaning to the word 'God' it would look something like this: 'God is Life, Life is 'God'.. and Life is not confined to this physical experience of it.. but, 'God' and its many interpretations have spawned some of humanity's greatest horrors.. 'God' is an idea about what 'is', i don't get attached to the 'idea'.. define life, please? does it include matter?rocks, gas, galaxies? and --so you have a belief that these ´´horrors´´ are bad? not a necessesary part of some grandiose, majestic unfolding? An orange is an orange..does it make the skin ´´bad´´? it would not exist without that inedible part. ? I understand the Cosmos to be a living organism.. i do not understand "a necessesary part of some grandiose, majestic unfolding", but i am willing to try that perspective again.. maybe this time it will reveal itself differently..
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Sept 2, 2014 10:58:19 GMT -5
define life, please? does it include matter?rocks, gas, galaxies? and --so you have a belief that these ´´horrors´´ are bad? not a necessesary part of some grandiose, majestic unfolding? An orange is an orange..does it make the skin ´´bad´´? it would not exist without that inedible part. ? I understand the Cosmos to be a living organism.. i do not understand "a necessesary part of some grandiose, majestic unfolding", but i am willing to try that perspective again.. maybe this time it will reveal itself differently.. but i am willing to try that perspective again.. maybe this time it will reveal itself differently..coool !! I understand the Cosmos to be a living organism.. same here evolution uses opposition --balance--opposition etc. as its method (yin yang?), but as it is an evolving thing, never the same, destruction is necessary to prepare way for greater harmony the thinking here, is that the worst evil prepares the way for the greatest good...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 2, 2014 17:44:47 GMT -5
I understand the Cosmos to be a living organism.. i do not understand "a necessesary part of some grandiose, majestic unfolding", but i am willing to try that perspective again.. maybe this time it will reveal itself differently.. but i am willing to try that perspective again.. maybe this time it will reveal itself differently..coool !! I understand the Cosmos to be a living organism.. same here evolution uses opposition --balance--opposition etc. as its method (yin yang?), but as it is an evolving thing, never the same, destruction is necessary to prepare way for greater harmony the thinking here, is that the worst evil prepares the way for the greatest good... I agree , though I'd take it further and suggest that the greatest good is entirely dependent upon the worst evil.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 2, 2014 18:10:20 GMT -5
but i am willing to try that perspective again.. maybe this time it will reveal itself differently..coool !! I understand the Cosmos to be a living organism.. same here evolution uses opposition --balance--opposition etc. as its method (yin yang?), but as it is an evolving thing, never the same, destruction is necessary to prepare way for greater harmony the thinking here, is that the worst evil prepares the way for the greatest good... I agree , though I'd take it further and suggest that the greatest good is entirely dependent upon the worst evil.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 2, 2014 19:03:11 GMT -5
I agree , though I'd take it further and suggest that the greatest good is entirely dependent upon the worst evil. Bite sized duality.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 2, 2014 20:44:23 GMT -5
I understand the Cosmos to be a living organism.. i do not understand "a necessesary part of some grandiose, majestic unfolding", but i am willing to try that perspective again.. maybe this time it will reveal itself differently.. but i am willing to try that perspective again.. maybe this time it will reveal itself differently..coool !! I understand the Cosmos to be a living organism.. same here evolution uses opposition --balance--opposition etc. as its method (yin yang?), but as it is an evolving thing, never the same, destruction is necessary to prepare way for greater harmony the thinking here, is that the worst evil prepares the way for the greatest good... Cool.. As for evolution, there is sufficient evidence for its effect on the process(es) happening to warrant paying attention to that effect.. yin/yang, destruction/harmony, parts of that effect worthy of noticing, relationships of contrasting principles.. evil/good are more like labels of desirability we assign to what we experience..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2014 4:12:06 GMT -5
"Living" can be a cool pointer, especially, as sunny has implied in this dialog and as ZD often points to, when one considers the dichotomy of life/non-life, and relates that dichotomy to the pointer that the observer and the observed are not actually separate.
"Organism", OTOH, implicates the anthropic principle. It's a description of the objectification of "Cosmos", and implies purpose, birth and death. None of those attributes apply to totality.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 3, 2014 5:25:19 GMT -5
Organism implies a living entity, it is a description of our experience.. birth/death are attributes we assign to the experience due to limiting our awareness of what 'is' to our physical experiences.. birth/death are physical limitations, and i acknowledge experience beyond the physically manifested version of the whole..
|
|