On Aug 17, 9:07Â pm, Cormagh
yahoo.com> wrote:> 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?
Knowledge consists of two distinct areas. Knowledge of others
knowledge (often confused with beliefs), and fits hand experiential
based knowledge, which is why the reference to the belief that your
name is Cormagh.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>> 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.
So we share a knowledge that is beyond belief.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nice catch from Socrates and Platonic analogy.
The only philosophical book I have read. It was enough to confirm
pevious experiences.
>
>
>> 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.
I have never been disappointed. Only ever discovered confirmation. Not
of detail, but you dont have to read music to appreciate it. Not
unlike my "Socrates Lasy Days" experience.
I alway suspected as a youth, that we each already contain all the
wisdom and knowledge there is to know. The rest was just a matter of
practical understanding.
> 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/Psychologyis 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.
And so you should.The first step to overcoming doubt, is to identify
what it is.We all have this capacity.The 21 st century 'group
consciousness' fascilitates greater links to 'timeless wisdom'.When I
first read of quantum mechanics (as a layman), I simply saw more
confirmation.
It was also exciting to recognise what was required to solve Fermat's
Last Theorem, even though high school math was as much as I was
interested in (since confirmed why), and to wonder if Hawking would be
able to communicate from "within the blackhole". He then started
refering to imaginary time. It was predictable how his peers would
react. The group consciousness, like a 'bunch of atoms' is always
predictable.
>
>>>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."
You must have missed the part that said I dont believe anything. When
Im ready to know, I will know.
>
>> 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.
>
Almost. More a case of knowing I was responsible, but had yet to learn
the dynamics between self and group. Always saw guilt as a
'gravitational pull' to the group consciousness. Started at an early
age as one of many since recongnised paradoxes. Feeling guilty about
not feeling guilty.
>
>
>
>>>>> 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.
I knew this befor I had heard of Freud. I always had an instinctive
'wall' around intellectual pursuit back then. I needed to find out
formyself. Then I could recognise the difference between information
and confirmation. It is great confirmation when some of my friends who
have studied philosophy, suggest "I learned that from Marcus Arelias,
Epictetus,and even dear old Bertram Russel.
Ill take their word for it, because I havnt read any of them.
Masters have always pointed to the source, never appearing to be the
source.
>
>> 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.
With a slight difference. Scientists point out what is observable,
speculate and theorse about the rest.They follow the laws of
epistemology, and some I know, actualy deny their intuition, because
it doesnt comply with such laws. Another difference between self and
group awareness.
>
>> I no longer look
>> for the support of epistemology, or ontology.
>
> What happened to the open mind?
I see the mind as the inside of a baloon. Ever expanding, but always
closed. Which doesnt stop me getting excited about the next level of
expansion. Cant wait for the holographic entertainment system.
>
>>>> 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 know that you know I know you know.
Know wha I mean.. (UK) or know what Im sayin (US)..:-)
>
>
>
>
>
>> 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.
They are needed to form the holograph.
Did you ever watch Skywalkers confrontation with Vadar under Yodas
tutalige.
Classic. Skywalker "Im not scared"...Yoda "You will be".
Of course its scary, that why one has to be brave and adventursome to
discover. There is a 'hell' of a lot to let go of. A huge amount of
deprograming to go through. In case you see that as reminicent of LRH
again, Im talking about a subjective experience, without the
inteference of another.
An example I referred to earlier. As a youth, I had what appeared to
be, in hindsight a 'phobia' to study. I felt back then, it was
cowardly. Now I know I was bravely resisting the "pull" of the group.
The sort of synchronicity that came about continually for many years ,
was along the lines of , a day after recognising such an insight, a
book called "Why resist the pull of the group" would fall off the
shelf.
Anyone who has had such experiences in sufficient amounts, will
understand clearly, how and why such events take place. Anyone who
hasnt, is correct to deny this is anything more than concidence. It is
still 'too' scary, so even if such events do happen, they are
consciously deflected.(but do penetrate and are stored for future
reference.)
This phenomena has recently been discovered with brain studies at
Harvard.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>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.
When you see the difference between "I think therefor I am" and "I am
therefor I think", you wil see beyond ontological as well as
epistemological laws.
You mentoned earlier that what I was describing was science, so in
that sense we are all 'doing science' but only as one small pat of our
existance.
>
>
>
>> Lots of internal resistance to those who have put such immence energy
>> into establishing themselves by association. Heroes need worship, and
>> the converse.
Most invigorating. Thanks :-)
BOfL
>
BOfL
