On Aug 17, 7:27Â pm, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
wrote:> 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.
My experience was different. I always need to test my knowledge
against others. Of course, my interests, if not my education, doesn't
span psychology as neatly as yours does, so I am usually dealing in
matters of philosophy or politics. I seldom find out I was completely
wrong, but the effort is always fruitful, because I end up with
literally a myriad of insights that I couldn't have had if I had not
done the research. I may not learn a lot in terms of facts, but I
learn what are the facts that cause others to reason differently from
the way in which I reason - this in turn confirms one of my
foundational beliefs, that the human brain is a mighty slippery organ.
>> 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/Psychologyisonly 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.
Doubt is the summoner of reason. Pardon my subtle rhetoric, try
substituting ridiculous for doubtful. I like your phrase, "21st
century group consciousness facilitates greater links to timeless
wisdom"
> 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.
But that is only what you assert; to the rest of us you either sound
like a sage with his bag of insights, or a jumbler of beliefs, just
like any common religionist.
However, from the standpoint of attitude, we should take you at your
word, and investigate what you say according to how it reflects what
you have stated here. You seem to have arrived at a condition where
you would will doubt never to exist and always summon reason on queue.
I imagine that you are more like the rest of us than you wish to let
on, and the beliefs to not disappear ephemerally when and as your
lordship utters, "Begone!", but do stay around, rent an apartment for
a few weeks or months, till one day, you say, "Aha!", and they are
dismissed (emotions up to and including, disillusionment) or else
given the keys to their new house (knowledge).
>>> 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.
This is one of the greatest contributions of Social Psychology: Sense
of self varies from the completely individualist to the completely
social - members of certain societies uniformly answer questions only
in terms of their social group. Call this "original sin", if you want;
we cant get off the hook for what our group needs and wants.
>>>>>> 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.
That's true, but being erudite doesn't hurt; and conversely not being
erudite can interfere with your credibility.
>>> 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 don't think most scientists see what they do the way you do. If a
scientist speculates, it would be to point out some ideas that are not
their beliefs and not provable to other scientists, to stimulate
further discovery. It is merely published communication. When a
scientist puts forward a theory, it is usually a theory which is
supported on facts, and which can be supported by independent data by
independent scientists. How do any of these three activities deny a
scientist's human intuition?
>>> 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.
What if I told you that the only problem with your mind being inside
that balloon is your epistemology and your ontology? After this I feel
like I could write a Science Fiction story about your balloon.
>>>>> 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) Â 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.
I think deprogramming is almost a completely useless and baseless
analogy to the process of growth. I think you're just going off the
deep end again here with the scary stuff, "A huge amount of
deprogramming to go through." - Yes, that is a direct quote from
Hubbard; self-help doesn't excuse one from plagiarizing.
> 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.
Yes, you're a brave person.
> 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.)
And how. Ref. Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World
> This phenomena has recently been discovered with brain studies at
> Harvard.
You mean that Harvard has agreed to study your brain?
>>>>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.
Well, your paradox is based on your epistemology. Thinking creates
being, vs. Being creates Thinking. Anyone can see the difference. In
my opinion, the difference is will. If being were to ever create
thinking there would have to be a will to do it. Probably Thinking
creating Being is even more difficult, because it's hard to imagine a
brain that powerful - which is why I never liked Descartes, and why
you are an even bigger fraud, because you said you never read a
philosophy book except for the excerpt from Plato's Apology, but here
you are quoting Meditations. I know the answer - you read it on a
cereal box, right?
Now please educate us on what lies beyond the epistemological and
ontological laws, which you, Decartes, and your holographic monkey
have drummed up for us.
> 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
