|
Post by tenka on Jan 20, 2024 14:56:32 GMT -5
I suppose it's like the Borg and the one mind scenario in your eyes which I wouldn't disagree with in some respects. I was more asking if you believed that there could be a unique belief in something based upon a unique experience had that wasn't tainted by other's. Perhaps the term original thought might help, I mean someone has to get the ball rolling at some point I dare say for something to be adopted by millions in their belief system. A bit like the meaning of non Duality. It came from somewhere and then millions integrated it within their noggins. I believe that "borg" describes probes connected and operated by a single mind. My view is about an endless number of minds, on endless number of levels, that are interconnected but have individual free will, and that associate dynamically according to their affinities and purposes. That's fine, I was trying to find something that fits the bill where there is interconnectivity.I don't know exactly what you're asking, because our different views. I don't think there is a unique experience that would be the basis of a unique belief, in the way I think you mean it. In the school analogy, every student that joins the school believes he is a student, but each one understands that differently, comes with a different background and different abilities. Okay, so let's take it from the point where there is individuality. Not all individuals have experienced the same thing right? So one would understand things differently, wouldn't that constitute a unique belief based upon that difference? Again just asking. I am not really implying anything here. When you say "get the ball rolling at some point" that implies a linear time. I subscribe to the hypothesis that the physical reality emerged all at once, in all its potentialities, and that it doesn't follow an evolution, but it can be accessed in any order as time, space, probability, identity. Well you were speaking about beliefs that stem from the past. That's a linear time reference. From the fetus to the child was another example you gave. A widely shared belief system was established in some probable realities and not in others according to the free will of the individuals and the groups that are currently part of those realities. Soz, not following, but it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 20, 2024 15:33:29 GMT -5
I believe that "borg" describes probes connected and operated by a single mind. My view is about an endless number of minds, on endless number of levels, that are interconnected but have individual free will, and that associate dynamically according to their affinities and purposes. That's fine, I was trying to find something that fits the bill where there is interconnectivity.I don't know exactly what you're asking, because our different views. I don't think there is a unique experience that would be the basis of a unique belief, in the way I think you mean it. In the school analogy, every student that joins the school believes he is a student, but each one understands that differently, comes with a different background and different abilities. Okay, so let's take it from the point where there is individuality. Not all individuals have experienced the same thing right? So one would understand things differently, wouldn't that constitute a unique belief based upon that difference? Again just asking. I am not really implying anything here. When you say "get the ball rolling at some point" that implies a linear time. I subscribe to the hypothesis that the physical reality emerged all at once, in all its potentialities, and that it doesn't follow an evolution, but it can be accessed in any order as time, space, probability, identity. Well you were speaking about beliefs that stem from the past. That's a linear time reference. From the fetus to the child was another example you gave. A widely shared belief system was established in some probable realities and not in others according to the free will of the individuals and the groups that are currently part of those realities. Soz, not following, but it doesn't matter. The time line we experience, past / present / future, is made up according to the present beliefs. This isn't the same with the experience we actually went through, or branched from (experience is more like a tree). Beliefs stem from processed experiences, not only from the linear time past. Beliefs can also be directly (as they are) adopted through the inner connections we all have, through our inner senses. Whatever we know, or feel that we experienced, or that we perceive even in this very moment, is read from some kind of memory, and we don't really know how it got there. It could be written by "I' when in another state of consciousness, by my inner guide, by some kind of subconscious routine I am not consciously aware of. If that memory I read is changed, I become something different with no awareness of that having happened (this isn't in terms of linear time). I see this physical reality as a hyperspace having as dimensions time, 3d-space, probabilities, identities. During one's life here, it traces a path through that hyperspace, from a point entered at birth. The past we remember now isn't exactly the path we followed to get here; it reflects our current beliefs, and also our current needs of evolvement, which are mostly beyond our conscious comprehension when awake (not sleeping); mostly for teaching purposes.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 20, 2024 16:16:43 GMT -5
There he is (heh heh)! We already covered this ground recently here (and here). And did you notice this? Of course it's "my house", but ultimately that's just a concession to common-mind. Sometimes the concession is quite relevant, but it has no existential meaning. Notice how in the examples there is a house (while ownership is cited as the belief)? Ah, perhaps you were following that dialog about assumptions. .. but thanks, yes, I didn't think to note that specifically.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 20, 2024 16:27:17 GMT -5
Not so much, really. If it was a belief it would be quite effable. Only if you believe conceptually in what existential beliefs refer to in the first place that matches your definition. A common mind response as you put it is suffice enough to use as a foundation here. Like said without these common mind responses that is integrated within our belief systems one wouldn't say anything about anything.And yet here we all are saying lots of things. Beliefs are effable that's why we can associate the stubbed toe with a self reference in toe (excuse the pun) Making sense of what effable refers to is a belief had that relates to how one can understand and experience life as we do. Well, here what you've done is reduce all words into "common-mind". The speaking/writing of words and other form of expression come in various flavors. One facet of those possible flavors is the distinction between purely mechanistic, conditioned stimuli/response from what is not that. There is what we can think of as a machine. The machine content is all automatic, input/output. This is one way of beginning to untangle the two contexts, the existential context, and the relative, temporal, material context. This is one way to plant the root of pointing to what is not common mind. At this root, the two "contexts" are, necessarily, "mixed".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 20, 2024 16:32:12 GMT -5
There he is (heh heh)! We already covered this ground recently here (and here). And did you notice this? Of course it's "my house", but ultimately that's just a concession to common-mind. Sometimes the concession is quite relevant, but it has no existential meaning. Well when I asked you about YOU stubbing your toe you answered 'The belief that the pain, is "mine"? Is that the "belief" you think I have'? So based upon what you said above regarding the house it would be safe enough to say in the same context which I haven't been changing around as a foundation that it is equally your toe as it is your house. So you have a belief that reflects what you are that can own and live in a house and bash your toe on the skirting board. You have a belief in a self reference that refers to what you are because you don't know 100% what is True regarding what it is that you are in the grand scheme of things. This is all that I have been saying to you for a while now. I don't know why we have gone to the moon and back several times just to get to this straightforward point. It seems that way to you, yes, but for me, it is not so. You can use all sorts of logic and reasoning to convince yourself otherwise, if you'd like, that's your business. The last word will be yours, as I started the dialog.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 21, 2024 6:20:27 GMT -5
Only if you believe conceptually in what existential beliefs refer to in the first place that matches your definition. A common mind response as you put it is suffice enough to use as a foundation here. Like said without these common mind responses that is integrated within our belief systems one wouldn't say anything about anything.And yet here we all are saying lots of things. Beliefs are effable that's why we can associate the stubbed toe with a self reference in toe (excuse the pun) Making sense of what effable refers to is a belief had that relates to how one can understand and experience life as we do. Well, here what you've done is reduce all words into "common-mind". The speaking/writing of words and other form of expression come in various flavors. One facet of those possible flavors is the distinction between purely mechanistic, conditioned stimuli/response from what is not that. There is what we can think of as a machine. The machine content is all automatic, input/output. This is one way of beginning to untangle the two contexts, the existential context, and the relative, temporal, material context. This is one way to plant the root of pointing to what is not common mind. At this root, the two "contexts" are, necessarily, "mixed". I understand that contexts are mixed at times, in some instances however you can get self denying self cos there has been a transcendence of sorts where self is no more. It then brings a whole lotta trouble to the table. I never brought existential beliefs to the table, I was talking about beliefs that relate to a self reference. I was referring to peeps that bash their toes etc. Not having an exact belief in what it is that you are fundamentally from beyond a conceptual understanding or knowing has never negated - dissolved - bypassed your belief in a self referential belief when you bash your toe. It doesn't matter if one can't put a finger on what we are because we carry on regardless. We address what happens accordingly, based upon a belief in our self reference.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 21, 2024 6:23:39 GMT -5
Well when I asked you about YOU stubbing your toe you answered 'The belief that the pain, is "mine"? Is that the "belief" you think I have'? So based upon what you said above regarding the house it would be safe enough to say in the same context which I haven't been changing around as a foundation that it is equally your toe as it is your house. So you have a belief that reflects what you are that can own and live in a house and bash your toe on the skirting board. You have a belief in a self reference that refers to what you are because you don't know 100% what is True regarding what it is that you are in the grand scheme of things. This is all that I have been saying to you for a while now. I don't know why we have gone to the moon and back several times just to get to this straightforward point. It seems that way to you, yes, but for me, it is not so. You can use all sorts of logic and reasoning to convince yourself otherwise, if you'd like, that's your business. The last word will be yours, as I started the dialog. It doesn't just seem that way to me because you have already stated that you had the flu, you acknowledge ownership of your house etc. These are self referential beliefs that reflect what you are that can own a house and bash your toe and get the flu. It doesn't matter like said above if you have an exact pin point belief that refers to what it is that you are exactly. It doesn't matter one bit. You still put a plaster in a gaping wound, you still drink water so you don't die of thirst etc. All reflecting a self referential belief in oneself.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 21, 2024 9:03:25 GMT -5
It seems that way to you, yes, but for me, it is not so. You can use all sorts of logic and reasoning to convince yourself otherwise, if you'd like, that's your business. The last word will be yours, as I started the dialog. It doesn't just seem that way to me because you have already stated that you had the flu, you acknowledge ownership of your house etc. These are self referential beliefs that reflect what you are that can own a house and bash your toe and get the flu. It doesn't matter like said above if you have an exact pin point belief that refers to what it is that you are exactly. It doesn't matter one bit. You still put a plaster in a gaping wound, you still drink water so you don't die of thirst etc. All reflecting a self referential belief in oneself. The horse is dead, so why keep beating it? Many of us don't agree with the way you define either "thoughts" or "beliefs." We understand what you think and how you define various words, and maybe what you think about reality or selfhood are beliefs from your POV, but they're not beliefs in the way that we use that word. I often tell people that I have no beliefs, but people who haven't had any existential insights don't believe me. When I stub my toe, I don't "believe" that I stubbed my toe; I know it because it's a direct experience. No conceptual reflection is necessary, and a belief is a conceptual reflection in the way that most people on this forum define, use, and understand that word. E used to define a belief as "a strong attachment to a thought," but if the mind is silent and there are no thoughts, or if there is no attachment to thoughts, then the idea of a belief never arises. As JLY pointed out, a baby has no beliefs, and an ND sage, whose mind is silent, also has no beliefs. A ND sage interacts with what we call "reality" directly, as reality, so reflective thinking may occur but it's not necessary. Let's agree to disagree about this issue and move on. FWIW, when the sense of "me" vanished in 1999, and this character, as THIS, realized that THIS is all there is, all kinds of subtle past self-referential thinking patterns fell away and never returned.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 21, 2024 13:16:49 GMT -5
belief /bĭ-lēf′/ noun 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another. "My belief in you is as strong as ever." 2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. "His explanation of what happened defies belief." 3.Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons. --- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 21, 2024 13:42:25 GMT -5
It doesn't just seem that way to me because you have already stated that you had the flu, you acknowledge ownership of your house etc. These are self referential beliefs that reflect what you are that can own a house and bash your toe and get the flu. It doesn't matter like said above if you have an exact pin point belief that refers to what it is that you are exactly. It doesn't matter one bit. You still put a plaster in a gaping wound, you still drink water so you don't die of thirst etc. All reflecting a self referential belief in oneself. The horse is dead, so why keep beating it? Many of us don't agree with the way you define either "thoughts" or "beliefs." We understand what you think and how you define various words, and maybe what you think about reality or selfhood are beliefs from your POV, but they're not beliefs in the way that we use that word. I often tell people that I have no beliefs, but people who haven't had any existential insights don't believe me. When I stub my toe, I don't "believe" that I stubbed my toe; I know it because it's a direct experience. No conceptual reflection is necessary, and a belief is a conceptual reflection in the way that most people on this forum define, use, and understand that word. E used to define a belief as "a strong attachment to a thought," but if the mind is silent and there are no thoughts, or if there is no attachment to thoughts, then the idea of a belief never arises. As JLY pointed out, a baby has no beliefs, and an ND sage, whose mind is silent, also has no beliefs. A ND sage interacts with what we call "reality" directly, as reality, so reflective thinking may occur but it's not necessary. Let's agree to disagree about this issue and move on. FWIW, when the sense of "me" vanished in 1999, and this character, as THIS, realized that THIS is all there is, all kinds of subtle past self-referential thinking patterns fell away and never returned. You can be made to believe that you stubbed your toe and feel the pain, or that you didn't and not feel it. That isn't a reliable experience, and there is no reliable experience, just a memory of it. There is no "direct" as you qualified it, except if you define it through a set of assumptions. It is okay to believe whatever you can, but it isn't okay to call it truth and sell it like it is, as many honestly do. That kind of ignorance brings suffering both to the truth peddler and to the peddlee.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 21, 2024 14:38:58 GMT -5
It doesn't just seem that way to me because you have already stated that you had the flu, you acknowledge ownership of your house etc. These are self referential beliefs that reflect what you are that can own a house and bash your toe and get the flu. It doesn't matter like said above if you have an exact pin point belief that refers to what it is that you are exactly. It doesn't matter one bit. You still put a plaster in a gaping wound, you still drink water so you don't die of thirst etc. All reflecting a self referential belief in oneself. The horse is dead, so why keep beating it? Many of us don't agree with the way you define either "thoughts" or "beliefs." We understand what you think and how you define various words, and maybe what you think about reality or selfhood are beliefs from your POV, but they're not beliefs in the way that we use that word. I often tell people that I have no beliefs, but people who haven't had any existential insights don't believe me. When I stub my toe, I don't "believe" that I stubbed my toe; I know it because it's a direct experience. No conceptual reflection is necessary, and a belief is a conceptual reflection in the way that most people on this forum define, use, and understand that word. E used to define a belief as "a strong attachment to a thought," but if the mind is silent and there are no thoughts, or if there is no attachment to thoughts, then the idea of a belief never arises. As JLY pointed out, a baby has no beliefs, and an ND sage, whose mind is silent, also has no beliefs. A ND sage interacts with what we call "reality" directly, as reality, so reflective thinking may occur but it's not necessary. Let's agree to disagree about this issue and move on. FWIW, when the sense of "me" vanished in 1999, and this character, as THIS, realized that THIS is all there is, all kinds of subtle past self-referential thinking patterns fell away and never returned. I don't care what a few non dualists think in regards to my definition of words. The thing is, is that we all believe what we believe things to mean. You have just illustrated this perfectly. You just resonate with a few other's in regards to what conceptual words mean. That's all. I keep flogging the dead horse cos it appears peeps don't actually understand what a belief system means and qualifies as.. Let me me flog the damn horse again, you don't know 100% what you actually are, so there is a belief in that. The belief system in effect reflects what you believe yourself to be that can stub your toe in the first place. It's no good stating you have a direct experience of it if for example you believe you are just an appearance of a person. You have to have a belief in place that encompasses an experience where what you are can stub their toe. Beyond the self and mind there is no experience of banging your toe. There is no reference to you or the toe. So we have to be mindful of our experience. You said you directly experience bashing your toe. So what is it that bangs their toe. You don't know do you. What you don't know 100% to be true is a belief. It's not that difficult to understand.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 21, 2024 15:12:41 GMT -5
The horse is dead, so why keep beating it? Many of us don't agree with the way you define either "thoughts" or "beliefs." We understand what you think and how you define various words, and maybe what you think about reality or selfhood are beliefs from your POV, but they're not beliefs in the way that we use that word. I often tell people that I have no beliefs, but people who haven't had any existential insights don't believe me. When I stub my toe, I don't "believe" that I stubbed my toe; I know it because it's a direct experience. No conceptual reflection is necessary, and a belief is a conceptual reflection in the way that most people on this forum define, use, and understand that word. E used to define a belief as "a strong attachment to a thought," but if the mind is silent and there are no thoughts, or if there is no attachment to thoughts, then the idea of a belief never arises. As JLY pointed out, a baby has no beliefs, and an ND sage, whose mind is silent, also has no beliefs. A ND sage interacts with what we call "reality" directly, as reality, so reflective thinking may occur but it's not necessary. Let's agree to disagree about this issue and move on. FWIW, when the sense of "me" vanished in 1999, and this character, as THIS, realized that THIS is all there is, all kinds of subtle past self-referential thinking patterns fell away and never returned. I don't care what a few non dualists think in regards to my definition of words. The thing is, is that we all believe what we believe things to mean. You have just illustrated this perfectly. You just resonate with a few other's in regards to what conceptual words mean. That's all. I keep flogging the dead horse cos it appears peeps don't actually understand what a belief system means and qualifies as.. Let me me flog the damn horse again, you don't know 100% what you actually are, so there is a belief in that. The belief system in effect reflects what you believe yourself to be that can stub your toe in the first place. It's no good stating you have a direct experience of it if for example you believe you are just an appearance of a person. You have to have a belief in place that encompasses an experience where what you are can stub their toe. Beyond the self and mind there is no experience of banging your toe. There is no reference to you or the toe. So we have to be mindful of our experience. You said you directly experience bashing your toe. So what is it that bangs their toe. You don't know do you. What you don't know 100% to be true is a belief. It's not that difficult to understand. I'm really okay with the idea that I have beliefs (or that there are beliefs being stored in my consciousness/brain etc). It makes sense to me. I believe that our beliefs create our reality, so the floor that I am apparently walking on, is ultimately a product of belief, and I believe the floor will support me, and I won't tumble through it, spinning into a vortex of eternal space lol. But, there's a difference between having beliefs, and experiencing beliefs. And I think that what the folks you are talking to here are saying is that they don't 'experience' belief. I don't really experience 'beliefs' much either. I think I might be right in saying that the experience of a belief comes with an experience of projecting ourselves into the future or past, and in contrast, when we are experiencing ourselves as present...or presence....in the moment, there's no experience of belief. When you are meditating, are you experiencing belief? (Again, I understand that there are beliefs there somewhere).
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 21, 2024 15:30:12 GMT -5
I don't care what a few non dualists think in regards to my definition of words. The thing is, is that we all believe what we believe things to mean. You have just illustrated this perfectly. You just resonate with a few other's in regards to what conceptual words mean. That's all. I keep flogging the dead horse cos it appears peeps don't actually understand what a belief system means and qualifies as.. Let me me flog the damn horse again, you don't know 100% what you actually are, so there is a belief in that. The belief system in effect reflects what you believe yourself to be that can stub your toe in the first place. It's no good stating you have a direct experience of it if for example you believe you are just an appearance of a person. You have to have a belief in place that encompasses an experience where what you are can stub their toe. Beyond the self and mind there is no experience of banging your toe. There is no reference to you or the toe. So we have to be mindful of our experience. You said you directly experience bashing your toe. So what is it that bangs their toe. You don't know do you. What you don't know 100% to be true is a belief. It's not that difficult to understand. I'm really okay with the idea that I have beliefs (or that there are beliefs being stored in my consciousness/brain etc). It makes sense to me. I believe that our beliefs create our reality, so the floor that I am apparently walking on, is ultimately a product of belief, and I believe the floor will support me, and I won't tumble through it, spinning into a vortex of eternal space lol. But, there's a difference between having beliefs, and experiencing beliefs. And I think that what the folks you are talking to here are saying is that they don't 'experience' belief. I don't really experience 'beliefs' much either. I think I might be right in saying that the experience of a belief comes with an experience of projecting ourselves into the future or past, and in contrast, when we are experiencing ourselves as present...or presence....in the moment, there's no experience of belief. When you are meditating, are you experiencing belief? (Again, I understand that there are beliefs there somewhere). But even when you think that "you are in the moment" you actually experience that as a belief, don't you? This is because you can't be in the moment for any amount of time: that moment instantly became past and you just recall it. Then when you get out of meditating, you recall an experience. There is no way to know that you really had it, or you made it up, or it was somehow implanted, dreamed, imagined, whatever word illustrates it better for you. Not experiencing beliefs is just an assessment, honest maybe, but it doesn't make it truth.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 21, 2024 15:44:52 GMT -5
I'm really okay with the idea that I have beliefs (or that there are beliefs being stored in my consciousness/brain etc). It makes sense to me. I believe that our beliefs create our reality, so the floor that I am apparently walking on, is ultimately a product of belief, and I believe the floor will support me, and I won't tumble through it, spinning into a vortex of eternal space lol. But, there's a difference between having beliefs, and experiencing beliefs. And I think that what the folks you are talking to here are saying is that they don't 'experience' belief. I don't really experience 'beliefs' much either. I think I might be right in saying that the experience of a belief comes with an experience of projecting ourselves into the future or past, and in contrast, when we are experiencing ourselves as present...or presence....in the moment, there's no experience of belief. When you are meditating, are you experiencing belief? (Again, I understand that there are beliefs there somewhere). But even when you think that "you are in the moment" you actually experience that as a belief, don't you? This is because you can't be in the moment for any amount of time: that moment instantly became past and you just recall it. Then when you get out of meditating, you recall an experience. There is no way to know that you really had it, or you made it up, or it was somehow implanted, dreamed, imagined, whatever word illustrates it better for you. Not experiencing beliefs is just an assessment, honest maybe, but it doesn't make it truth. well, I'd say the truth is that there are beliefs 'there somewhere'. But if I describe the quality (or qualia) of my experience, then it's also true to say that I'm not experiencing beliefs (though sometimes I am). I have sympathy for both sides. It genuinely seems to some folks here that they don't have beliefs, because there's no sense of 'belief'. There's no 'belief' qualia. There's no 'feeling' of believing something. If beliefs are stored in the brain, or in their consciousness somewhere, it's just not relevant to them. It's one of those things that boils down to spiritual interest/focus e.g a 'Zen' path will always direct people away from the experience of 'belief'.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 21, 2024 16:32:52 GMT -5
The horse is dead, so why keep beating it? Many of us don't agree with the way you define either "thoughts" or "beliefs." We understand what you think and how you define various words, and maybe what you think about reality or selfhood are beliefs from your POV, but they're not beliefs in the way that we use that word. I often tell people that I have no beliefs, but people who haven't had any existential insights don't believe me. When I stub my toe, I don't "believe" that I stubbed my toe; I know it because it's a direct experience. No conceptual reflection is necessary, and a belief is a conceptual reflection in the way that most people on this forum define, use, and understand that word. E used to define a belief as "a strong attachment to a thought," but if the mind is silent and there are no thoughts, or if there is no attachment to thoughts, then the idea of a belief never arises. As JLY pointed out, a baby has no beliefs, and an ND sage, whose mind is silent, also has no beliefs. A ND sage interacts with what we call "reality" directly, as reality, so reflective thinking may occur but it's not necessary. Let's agree to disagree about this issue and move on. FWIW, when the sense of "me" vanished in 1999, and this character, as THIS, realized that THIS is all there is, all kinds of subtle past self-referential thinking patterns fell away and never returned. I don't care what a few non dualists think in regards to my definition of words. The thing is, is that we all believe what we believe things to mean. You have just illustrated this perfectly. You just resonate with a few other's in regards to what conceptual words mean. That's all. I keep flogging the dead horse cos it appears peeps don't actually understand what a belief system means and qualifies as.. Let me me flog the damn horse again, you don't know 100% what you actually are, so there is a belief in that. The belief system in effect reflects what you believe yourself to be that can stub your toe in the first place. It's no good stating you have a direct experience of it if for example you believe you are just an appearance of a person. You have to have a belief in place that encompasses an experience where what you are can stub their toe. Beyond the self and mind there is no experience of banging your toe. There is no reference to you or the toe. So we have to be mindful of our experience. You said you directly experience bashing your toe. So what is it that bangs their toe. You don't know do you. What you don't know 100% to be true is a belief. It's not that difficult to understand. OK. Keep flogging away, but the horse is definitely dead.
|
|