On Aug 15, 8:54Â pm, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
wrote:> On Aug 15, 5:20Â pm, Cormagh
yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 14, 9:16Â pm, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
>> wrote:> SNIP
>
>> I know it's normal to act. But I assert there is such a thing as
>> reasoning your way out of a belief. One of the functions of mind is to
>> collate different experiences together, together these may equal some
>> hypothetical new experience which we really didn't have to experience.
>> (i.e. We may not have to commit murder or suffer a murder to realize
>> that murder is wrong.)
>
> My experience is that level of undrstanding 'mutates' to an overall
> understanding. General , not specific, empathy.
>
>
>
>>>> As soon as I
>>>> think, I have to start believing stuff. As I think, I can also try to
>>>> invent tests to verify these beliefs and perhaps elevate them to what
>>>> we generally consider to be "knowledge".
>
>>> This is not about 'we'. Beliefs can only exist in the 'we' mentality.
>
>> I understand that is your belief.
>
> Then you dont get my point. Similar to my saying  "I understand that
> it is your belief that your name is Cormagh" .
I believe I do. I don't think you did a very good job of buttressing
what it is you say you believe, or what is is that 'we' mentality
consists of, or why it is that you seem to be suggesting that only
"we" are capable of considering what is "knowledge". Do you mean that
your point is a fantasy, a proposition?
>>>> It is true that in lieu of
>>>> that, we may simply try to "reinforce beliefs", but I say these cases
>>>> occur because of the high stakes involved in the belief - such as
>>>> attempting to maintain a life-long relationship, or perhaps, keeping
>>>> face in front of your family.
>
>>> It is not easy, but it is inevitable. The longer you hold on, the
>>> worse the experience. The "knowing" that not being true to yourself
>>> perpetuates the problems keep increasing.
>>> I feel that is one of the greatest causes of psychosematic illness.
>>> When you dont feel right about yourself, the body validates that
>>> imbalance.
>
>>> Most that are curious about this, will have had numerous experiences
>>> where 'letting go" of such beliefs have been extremely liberating.
>
>> Exactly my point.
>
> Do you believe that, or do you know it?
I would call that knowledge.
>>>> But to say that to invent an idea (We are so good at that, after all.)
>>>> can only be to invent an illusion is to stifle the mind entirely.
>
>>> Im indicating how the mind works. It works on a priority system. Just
>>> read here, those that wish to invalidate or deny certain suggestions,
>>> when they bring the 'unicorn' style illustration of their views. Even
>>> physiologically, when  our body is 'invaded' (cuts , broken ones etc)
>>> the area is reinforced. Beliefs act in the same way.
>
>> Your beliefs and style are consistent with Scientology.
>
> Im not a believer of any 'ology or 'ism I also know that what is
> knowable, starts out as believable.I could also see that LRH's road
> was predictable.
>
> The only stuff I have read that confirmed my 'a priori' was "Socrates
> Last Days" by Plato. I knew exactly what Soc was trying to get across,
> and could see that Plato didnt 'get it'> Didnt stop Soc from
> continuing with the dialouge. Soc was the gardiner, and Plato was the
> field
Nice catch from Socrates and Platonic analogy.
>>I believe the
>> physiological metaphor has merit. However your belief that you know
>> how the mind works is pure poppycock. You can make suggestions, but
>> these have to stand on their own, especially if they are not
>> scientifically validated.
>
> I only express what I have discovered after exhaustive research. Of
> course, science does not have a clue what the mind is, so the only
> response would be something in the line with your reaction.
It's good that you put out your thoughts on this for review and
exposure. I think you would be pleasantly surprised what science does
know if you read some books on this by scientists. Psychology, the
broad umbrella for all studies related to mental processes and
behavior. The areas we have been discussing seem to fall under
Perception, Cognition, individual and collective unconcious,
psychiatry, etc. "Incorporating the underlying physiological and
neurological processes into ... conceptions of mental functioning"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology is only one part of
Psychology, but it is well covered in modern literature going back to
the 19th century. Perhaps you feel that William James was a fool, and
because you understood Socrates so well, you may have worked out
something a lot better? Surely your intuitions have benefitted from
living in the 21st century, but so do many other individuals working
on these same problems. That you somehow have trumped all of them,
somehow, I find extremely doubtful.
>>We are in a philosophy forum, and my basis
>> for stating my ideas or beliefs here is that my system works
>> consistently, is rigorous, logical, and yields results that may be
>> helpful to other readers (the "we" you are so afraid of).
>
> We both agree, , but for some reason you see fear.
Well, you seem to have been concerned about "we", when you wrote,
"Beliefs can only exist in the 'we' mentality."
> One of the greatest
> discoveries is that of 'self'. One cannot help others to discover
> 'self'. However one can point out common 'blocking' factors used in
> arenas such as the semantics of self dialouge, such as 'we will never
> know'. That is akin to hitting the accellerator and the brake
> simultaniously. I remember hearing that many years ago, and it
> explained the smell of 'burning' that I was already experiencing.
You mean not being responsibile for your own feelings and statements,
and not being able to feel the impact of your self-realizations,
because they were blocked by the impulse to share guilt.
>>>> What
>>>> would be better is that we acknowledge the tremendous complexity that
>>>> is involved in thinking, or reason, as some prefer to call it.
>
>>> The mechanism is complex, band can only be observed. The mind cannot
>>> work out the mind.
>>> The way to opening such understanding, is to start to 'look for
>>> yourself'.
>
>> You seem to be a recalcitrant individualist. You are obsessed with
>> psychology, yet know nothing of it. Instead you dwell on your own ego.
>
> No more than I am with physical fitness.Just another area to establish
> and then maintain balance.
>
> An indication of internal inbalance is to suggest you know what
> another person knows or doesnt know.I just point ot my discoveries,
> what I have discovered is knowable.
Admirable put sentiments, I wonder if you aware of how much of what
you know is recycled from Freud, that you learned from the newspapers
or secondhand.
> Ill leave scientific discovery for
> the sceintists or scientologists for that mattter.
When you say you point out your discoveries and what you have
discovered is knowable, you are acting as a scientist.
> I no longer look
> for the support of epistemology, or ontology.
What happened to the open mind?
>>> Just your last sentence takes on a whole new meaning if you say "What
>>> would be better if 'I' acknowledge.
>
>> No, because I wrote "we", you abandoned your call to eliminate
>> cognition entirely, and acknowledged it. If you had had it your way,
>> you wouldn't have had to modify your opinion at all.
>
> Opinions are needed only to establish group discussion. I have very
> few, if any, opinions. Of course, you may have an opinion of that
> statement.
Good statement. I know that, by the way.
> I have spent some time in the court system and have discovered that
> opinion, no mater how well educated, is still opinion. A good
> practical arena to establish where "one" fits into the 'group
> consciousness'.
>
> Reminiscient of Socrates. Just realized that !!!
>
>
>
>>>> Becoming disillusioned just comes with the territory.
>
>>> Correct. Theres a lot of illusions to see through.It is worth every
>>> ounce of effort and discomfort, because I am talking here about
>>> indiviualisation,knowing thyself, where, like a black hole "beliefs"
>>> cannot escape. :-)
>
>>> BOfL
>
>> It seems some of them haven't, yet. (I said the physiological model,
>> had some merit - your cosmological metaphor - sucks.)
>
> It that analogous of "I dont see it the way you do"
Yeah, OK. I just meant that making it final is making it scary - and
making it wrong; I'm not sure that there aren't reasons why beliefs
should not be prohibited from escape sometimes.
>>I don't want to
>> give you the impression that we don't agree on anything;
>
> I can see the differences clearly and appreciate the comment.
>
>> disillusionment may well be an uncomfortable process. But your idea
>> that the individual has to "know himself" to become an individual, and
>> that this would somehow unveil his illusions, is an good example of
>> looking for an "easy answer".
>
> It only appears easy, after all of the 'dross' we have to swim
> through. To quote my favorit LOfB movie "you are all individualls".
> Thats true. Now we each have to discover that individualy, and that
> means the 'painful' aspect of discovering first, what we are not, that
> being a creation of others projections, consisting of cultural,
> religious, social, romantic or artistic. Those are things we 'do', not
> who we are.
I disagree with your ontology. I don't think there is another level of
existence separate from doing. We think, that's doing, we know, that's
what we think about what we remember, it's still doing.
> Lots of internal resistance to those who have put such immence energy
> into establishing themselves by association. Heroes need worship, and
> the converse.
>
> To coin the words of the great character Chauncey Gardener from the
> movie Being There..."I like to watch"... (as well as to participate).
>
> BOfL
>
>
>
>> Solving individualization issues with a dictum and "erasure" of
>> beliefs, and would be simply a trivialization and misdirection of the
>> psychological concept of growth, based on experience, in which our
>> "hero", the individual, must find a way to reconcile his purely
>> subjective self with the need to be impartially objective. The belief
>> that in this process, or any process, an individual can somehow become
>> perfect and eliminate all beliefs could be a very destructive illusion
>> and neurosis in itself. Consider for once how your beliefs may be
>> instead, a way of socializing and integrating yourself with others.
>
> The process of 'unfolding' is perfect, as it the 'self'. Difficult to
> grasp for those unmeshed in the psychological world of relativity.
You haven't defined 'unfolding', so I'll deal with 'self'. Self is a
standard psychological or psychoanylitical concept, more or less, but
in practice it is difficult to distinguish from narcissism. If you
think your self is perfect, than you might be narcissistic. One would
have to be "meshed" in the psychological world of relativity to grasp
this? How about slowing down just a tad for those of us meshed in the
psycological world of reality?
> Regarding socializing and integrating with others. One aspect of self
> realization is one no longer tries to intigrate with anyone, but in
> fact,becomes a catalyst for change. I now recognise those who
> consciously played that role in my life.
How can you say that playing the role of "catalyst" is not
integrating? How do you know that these "catalysts for change" didn't
have normal lives away from the office, with their own families,
friends, etc?
> Communication and interaction become a great joy. One of the
> psychological tenets is to integrate as you state. Impossible when you
> are already in-tegrated. The feedom from the need and expectation (two
> interactive aspects) has to be experienced to be recognised.
Once again, your talking about a perfect psychology or perfect
existence ("perfect self"), which are unhealthy ideal models, known as
narcissistic. Even if it were possible for one were perfectly
integrated, he would still be in the Act of integration, and would not
have achieved any qualitative difference in his being from anyone else
who was in the act of integrating. Sure he would be a "gold-medal
winner", but he would still be a "swimmer".
> No wonder "they" kicked LRH out, The vested interest was (and is
> always) threatened by those whos understanding has been
> politicised,religisised or dare I say, professionalised.
Tada!
Cormagh
