~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by ken »

sthitapragya wrote: Let us assume I am wrong. You can exist without beliefs.
sth can assume that sth is wrong, or assume anything else for that matter. But I do not want to assume anything, I will not assume sth is wrong, or right, or anything else for that matter. I will just remain open to any and all things, so that the facts can then speak for themselves.

So, is sth assuming sth is wrong now, or not really? Is sth just saying this so that we will move on and not look at what the outcome is that is actually appearing now?
sthitapragya wrote: But you say that the mind and brain are independent of each other. Can you prove it? If you can, great, if you cannot, will you accept it is a belief?
I may have written that 'the Mind and the brain are independent of each other' and i may not have had also added the actual words to describe that this is only what i think is right, or that this is only how i see it now, or from my perspective this is only the view i have now, or any other of the words needed to specifically point out that what I am saying is neither believed or disbelieved but just the way i see things now, which is based solely on past experiences and not on any fact of being an actual absolute truth or. I had hoped by now that I had already made it quite clear that by never neither believing or disbelieving anything then that would mean that absolutely EVERYTHING that I write is absolutely open for discussion, so that we could then together discover what is actually seen by others, which may then shine some light on Truth. If I have to use words to point this out each and every time i write anything, then that only adds more unnecessary to words to the discussion. I am wanting to and trying to make my words far less in amount and far more in clarity and write this far more succinctly.

Also, if I do not believe that the Mind and the brain are independent of each other, then obviously I will not accept it is a belief. It is just a view I have. I do NOT believe the that Mind and the brain are independent of each other, this is just a view I have, therefore and obviously this is NOT a belief.

By the way I THINK I can prove the Mind and the brain are independent of each other with, and through, words, when I find the right words and language to use, but remember my definition might be completely different to your definition. Because some people will at times not accept words on face value and need to see proof for themselves. Again I must reiterate I THINK science will verify what I say once and for all, later on. For example, "The stove is hot" is told to some people but they still need to experience this for themselves to fully understand that that statement WAS actually true, right, and correct, in the beginning. Some just words alone will not suffice. This why I say I think later on science will verify what I say now.
sthitapragya
Posts: 1105
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:55 pm

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by sthitapragya »

ken wrote:
sthitapragya wrote: But you say that the mind and brain are independent of each other. Can you prove it? If you can, great, if you cannot, will you accept it is a belief?
I may have written that 'the Mind and the brain are independent of each other' and i may not have had also added the actual words to describe that this is only what i think is right, or that this is only how i see it now, or from my perspective this is only the view i have now, or any other of the words needed to specifically point out that what I am saying is neither believed or disbelieved but just the way i see things now, which is based solely on past experiences and not on any fact of being an actual absolute truth or. I had hoped by now that I had already made it quite clear that by never neither believing or disbelieving anything then that would mean that absolutely EVERYTHING that I write is absolutely open for discussion, so that we could then together discover what is actually seen by others, which may then shine some light on Truth. If I have to use words to point this out each and every time i write anything, then that only adds more unnecessary to words to the discussion. I am wanting to and trying to make my words far less in amount and far more in clarity and write this far more succinctly.

Also, if I do not believe that the Mind and the brain are independent of each other, then obviously I will not accept it is a belief. It is just a view I have. I do NOT believe the that Mind and the brain are independent of each other, this is just a view I have, therefore and obviously this is NOT a belief.

By the way I THINK I can prove the Mind and the brain are independent of each other with, and through, words, when I find the right words and language to use, but remember my definition might be completely different to your definition. Because some people will at times not accept words on face value and need to see proof for themselves. Again I must reiterate I THINK science will verify what I say once and for all, later on. For example, "The stove is hot" is told to some people but they still need to experience this for themselves to fully understand that that statement WAS actually true, right, and correct, in the beginning. Some just words alone will not suffice. This why I say I think later on science will verify what I say now.
I think you are basically confusing belief with dogma. A belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. While you accept it is true, you are prepared for the possibility that you might be proved wrong.

A dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted. I cannot find any word which applies to a belief of a single individual that he or she accepts without being questioned or doubted therefore I am going with dogma.

Do you see the difference? You have to start by assuming something to be true and then try to prove it. Unfortunately assumption and belief are synonyms. So you have to start with some belief and try to prove it true. If it turns out false, you change your belief. That is an open minded belief.

If however you start with a belief and do not even try to prove it to be true that is a close-minded belief which equates with a dogma.

All your beliefs are open minded. You think that the mind and brain are independent of each other and consider it to be true. That is a belief as it has not been proved but it is an open minded belief because you are prepared for the possibility that you might be wrong.

Just for your information, I too used to make the statement that I have no beliefs, till I looked at the definition of belief. I thought that belief and assumption were different. But it turns out that they are not. They are the same thing.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

sthitapragya wrote: I think you are basically confusing belief with dogma. A belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. While you accept it is true, you are prepared for the possibility that you might be proved wrong.

A dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.
Very good. I haven't seen it put that clearly before, although the religious use the term 'belief', and don't accept any possibility that they are wrong. i.e They don't really 'believe'; they are just dogmatic arseholes.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by ken »

Lacewing wrote:Ken, I very much appreciate the heartfelt energy you have put into our discussion. I think some interesting things have come up. I do find it difficult sometimes to keep straight your language. I am resistant to learning a new set of definitions... as I already find it challenging enough to express some concepts using the language I do know! :D
The "language" we all individually believe, or think, we know I find is part of the trouble in being able to express clearly and correctly to others and even ourselves.

I think it will be found that I am not putting a new set of definitions to words that are generally already fully accepted and understood. But rather I am putting a new set of definitions, which may not be necessarily accepted and agreed upon, but which will still fit in with an already given definition in a generally accepted dictionary, to words that are not already fully accepted and understood, e.g., 'intelligence', 'intellect', 'love', 'Mind', 'thoughts', 'consciousness', 'awareness', etc., etc.

If a new way of looking is needed to see not just what is "behind the curtain" but to also be able to look back in front of the curtain, and thus see always from "behind the curtain", then I think a relatively "new', but not really a new, set of definitions for our present language is needed. The way we look at any and everything and then 'see', understand, mostly comes from language itself. Without words and language how would human beings be able to differentiate, and thus be able to understand (all) things.

Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:changing "this" way by creating a pollution-free way would be a better way to go, which would naturally "fix" what we human beings have already created, could that be agreed?
Of course, yes. A person would have to be crazy not to think so. To clarify -- and perhaps I didn't do a good enough job the first time -- I was not talking about the "fixes" WITHIN the system... WITHIN the world we know and operate in... WITHIN the dream... etc. For our discussion, I have really been focused on the idea of "all that is", "the one", "the collective", etc. being perfect ABOVE AND BEYOND what our little system/experience (here) looks like.
This is now confusing for me. When "all that is", "the one", "the collective", etc. is being mentioned I thought that would include absolutely EVERYTHING, operating as One. Would this not include the "system", i.e., this world, (we human beings think), we know and operate in, also?

Lacewing wrote:And from that larger view... the tapestry is perfection... even with all the supposed "flaws" that we might think we see. And still looking from THAT view, I fail to see why the collective could be disappointed or surprised or striving or needing in any way... so when I think that someone might be saying that, I want to question it.
I do not recall every saying that the one collective Mind was or could be disappointed or surprised or striving or needing in any way. What i have been undecided about was how much if any the one collective Mind was wanting to be heard and understood. I asked a couple of questions last reply and am waiting your responses to them to see how much, if any, the collective Mind "wants" or "needs" to be heard.
Lacewing wrote:Sometimes you seem to switch between the views, within the same description, and I get confused because they seem like different channels to me... with very different characteristics and implications.
Fully understand and agree, this is the main reason why being here in this forum. This is just another learning experience. I try to separate two different views:
The view coming from the collective of everything, which comes from the truly open Mind, is expressed from the capital I.
The view coming from the individual person, which comes from the organic functioning brain, is expressed from the little i.

If what is written, which is confusing, was repeated back and explained why it is confusing, then I could help to make it better understood or less confusing.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:I do not recall every saying I do not know this, thus surprised.
I was talking about the collective (not you) as I described above.
Examples would help me here a lot more.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:I, the One, KNOW the communication is distorted because just like if ken communicated to his wife...
I have a hard time with these examples which compare "all that is", "the one", "the collective" with these examples you use from our lives within the dream and within the system.
I am not sure why the word "dream" is used?

What is happening in the environment around the body that i am in appears to be real to me. To me 'dream' happens when the body is usually just laying still in bed and eye lids closed, generally known as sleep state. What happens in what is generally known as waking state appears real, or near enough to real, to me.

What do you mean by 'dream' and 'within the system'?

Lacewing wrote: My goal is to draw a distinction between that which we are intoxicated by (here)... and that which transcends that intoxication. Beyond our intoxication, there is -- I'm guessing -- no judgment, need, agenda, "meaning"... none of it. It is just pure being or is-ness or what might seem like "nothing" to us because we are so used to all of our noise and density.
But the two, and absolutely everything, happens within the One, generally or sometimes known as, Life or Existence.

The only distinction i found is in the way an observer looks at 'Life', everything. I found absolutely everything is relative to the observer. Therefore, if one is looking from the individual brain, as one individual, OR, if One is looking from the collective Mind, as Thee One, then this will show or give two distinct different views.

To Me:
That which people are intoxicated by (here on earth) is 'themselves', i.e., the thoughts, feelings, beliefs, assumptions, preconceptions, etc, which are held only within one individual brain.
That which transcends that intoxication is Thee Mind.

How to draw that distinction i found was in being to 'look at', see, thoughts objectively and decide where that actual thought came from and if it was only coming from the individual or if could be agreed upon by and with everything, for the better of everything and not just some. Learning how to do that showed me how to accurately make the distinction between the two.

What i also found in the process was that 'meaning' came naturally to and for those meaningful questions like, what is the meaning of life, what is 'our', human beings, purpose for being here, why are 'we', human beings, here for, etc., etc.


Lacewing wrote:To apply our models to that which is beyond our limited world is similar to what many theists do... and it doesn't seem realistic to me at all. So I have a hard time with it. Maybe it makes sense to other people.
But remember to every generation of peoples for thousands upon thousands of years there was always a 'beyond our limited world' view, with the 'world' always obviously getting bigger and bigger or more known about.

If a person or persons assume or believe that there is a 'beyond', which is further then 'our limited world' or there is an 'unknown' perspective 'beyond what could be known', then this will affect this person or persons. Whatever is assumed or believed to be impossible and/or seen and understood to be impossible, will by its very nature, also be absolutely impossible. Everything is relative to the observer.

By the way what I want to express is a different model of looking or observing.

Generally speaking (and this is not aimed at you)...

I'm not trying to define or claim to know what "all that is", "the one", "the collective" IS... I'm trying to point to what it is SURELY NOT... because for some reason, when people try to superimpose our tiny ideas/rules/agendas on it... and even possibly personify it... that feels like a hideous distortion and delusion. I guess I shouldn't care (as I don't believe any of this is serious anyway)... and I should have more compassion for people NOT KNOWING WHAT THEY DO! :D
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:I do KNOW how much My communication is being distorted.
Surely it goes the other way too, Ken -- where you might be misunderstanding what someone else is trying to communicate. I think you and I have done reasonably well... but we've both put that effort into it.
Yes totally agree, it is just more proof, to me anyway, how much more can be learned and understood by just being and remaining open to what another is saying. And, through just asking for clarification by questioning what it is the other is actually saying/meaning, then even more is learned and it is learned and understood far quicker, simpler and easier, also.

I should have added to; 'I do KNOW how much My communication is being distorted' by the way I express through the words and language that I use. I was not trying to infer that the distortion is solely because of others. To be better understood by more people more quickly then i need to learn to express/inspire better.

But in saying that I have noticed there is still far more we need to understand from each other to gain a much better perspective of where the "other" is truly "coming from" exactly.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:I say 'unfortunately' just like when ken sees their son miss the bus...
Again, for me, this example does not translate to my intended point regarding the "all that is", "the one", "the collective" -- as there surely is nothing "unfortunate" from that view.
The actual view I, Collective Mind or God or whatever else It is called, is certainly not unfortunate.

But what is unfortunate is when I, the Collective Mind or God, inspire people, for example, moses, jesus, mohammed, and absolutely every person in fact, and the actual inspiration gets taken out of context, distorted, misconstrued, misinterpreted, and then passed on through this wrong way.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:Just say, for example, Thee collective One...
No, no, Ken... no more new language (for me) -- this almost made my brain short-circuit. I can't help but notice that you say you want to LEARN how to communicate... and yet you are doing so much to RE-DEFINE common communication... with all the upper and lower-case letters, and quotes, etc. Most people are not going to be willing to look for the gem within the communication, if they have to struggle so much getting there. You know?I do KNOW how much.
Yes I understand.

What i want to LEARN is how to express a brand new idea. If I am not allowed to re-arrange words and/or re-define words, then the amount of "new knowledge" gained by others will not be that much at all really from what is in common communication now. The gem within the communication is not held within common communication. For example you use the word 'the one' to 'all that is' does not necessarily make a distinction between one person or one thing or one everything, whereas, i am learning new ways to express the distinction between the different things. You telling me that you do not want "more new language" is teaching me. These are the specific things I want to hear. What thoughts that are actually appearing within an individual brain, which would not necessarily be past on into words in this forum, are what I am really seeking. Those thoughts that express what is being understand AND what is not and WHY not I want to draw out.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:Sorry, I do not think that 'you' was directed at 'you', lancewing.
Minor point... but do you see that my name is Lacewing... not Lancewing? I haven't said anything 'til now because it's kind of cute, and I do like medieval stuff.
AND, that shows HOW MUCH the brain can actually prevent and stop something that is so blatantly obvious to others, that it is even written there before these eyes, that 'i', the thoughts within this brain could not even see it. I have even purposefully gone back a few times already to check I have read your name correctly before i have written it down.

Have you noticed by the way if i have been writing it wrongly all along or just started doing at some point?
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:
Lacewing wrote: ALL, is part of this experience -- which (I'm guessing) is temporary, perfect, and not serious.
Why think it is temporary?
I'm saying this physical, worldly experience is temporary... for each of us. And (I'm guessing) that "all that is", "the one", "the collective" experiences through each individual's physical experience, yet is in no way defined by or limited by that.
Maybe this is where "a" confusion might be slipping in between us. I see 'ALL that is', 'the One', 'the Collective' is absolutely EVERYTHING as ONE. This includes everything physical, worldly experience from beginning to end or from always eternal and how that has been in all its ways, AND, everything non-physical from beginning till end or from eternity. The reason I use capital letters is to distinguish the ALL, as One, between an individual, of the One, a little letter is used. ken is just an individual so when i am writing from ken a little i is used. When I am writing from ALL a big I is used.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:I describe it as My self. Capital M referring to the Oneness of I as the little s referring to one of the many players
Okay, I'm quite sure smoke started coming out of my ears when I read this. Seriously, Ken, how can you expect/ask people to learn this language you are making up? It's too much. These concepts are hard and confusing enough to share between people of such different experiences... to then also start using a new language that no one except you resonates with.
Obviously I would, and WILL, have to explain ALL of this language before I start writing the actual story. Learning here how much this language causes confusion, or smoke to appear from ears, is great to hear, because what I could take for granted is not known until actually shown to Me.
Lacewing wrote:Here's a thought that just popped into my head... and I hope you won't be offended for me to share it with you: Could it be that you're so familiar with being misunderstood throughout your life, that you are actually perpetuating it unnecessarily even now? You know, people crave and recreate what they're used to, even when they say they suffer from it. Familiarity is more desirable for most of us than freedom. Else, why would you be creating such a convoluted set of rules and meanings that no one understands? It seems harder than it needs to be.
That is a great observation and exactly right that i could actually be perpetuating this because it feels so much more comfortable and familiar because it is actually, in one sense, all that i know. I could NEVER be offended with the truth from what others see. I thank you very very much for sharing that with us. That experience of familiarity, and lose, is also one thing I want to express and also show how and why it happens, which obviously you already are partly aware of. I think you have just pointed out another thing that I wanted to, subconsciously, prove in these writings. Actually you pointing this out, which I did not even notice here until you pointed it out, will be further and far better evidence and proof for future generations to see and understand. What I want to and WILL write and express about, which i think will be able to be proven scientifically, WILL be more and better understood through these very writings here.

One reason I not just want to, but think is necessary to, to create such a seemingly convoluted set of rules and meanings now that no one, yet, understands is so that I can learn how to write much better, without giving the story away yet. If I can draw out of others here a way that they then very quickly can learn and fully understood what it is that I want to express, then that will be just one more way I can use in My theory/hypothesis/story or whatever else we want to name It.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:I would just like to question for clarity what is the reason for coming and writing here? And, what is the drive to put things into words?
For me, I think it is to have more clarity.
More clarity about what exactly? By the way all questions I ask are totally open-ended questions with absolutely no preconceived ideas or expectations at all. I am just extremely curious, by Nature.
Lacewing wrote: That's something I ask for in life every day.
What exactly are you asking for, in life every day?
Lacewing wrote:The interactions here reveal a lot about people and myself
Yes very, very true. Hopefully exactly who/what people are, and, who/what the 'my' and who/what the 'self' is in 'my/self' is also revealed and fully understood here also.
Lacewing wrote:-- and thereby inspire contemplation about how it's all connected and working.
Any idea/s of what the 'it' actually could be?
Lacewing wrote: It helps reveal "stuck ways" of thinking, it reveals self-defeating ego, I can see myself in others -- and them in me, and it is exhilarating to try to put "far-out ideas" into simple words, and to discover more about it while I do it!

This appears, to me anyway, that you are looking/searching for something, and/or, trying to express something new. Is this close at all?
Lacewing wrote: For me it is a creative unfolding of limitless potential... rather than getting too fixated on anything.
Could that 'limitless potential' be something other than the individual person on here, generally known as lacewing, and sometimes mistakenly known as lancewing? hehe :)?

Could there be a limitless potential, which is unfolding creatively, from within and through lacewing and others?
sthitapragya
Posts: 1105
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:55 pm

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by sthitapragya »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
sthitapragya wrote: I think you are basically confusing belief with dogma. A belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. While you accept it is true, you are prepared for the possibility that you might be proved wrong.

A dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.
Very good. I haven't seen it put that clearly before, although the religious use the term 'belief', and don't accept any possibility that they are wrong. i.e They don't really 'believe'; they are just dogmatic arseholes.
Honestly, I just copied and pasted. But I still think that assumption and belief should have separate meanings. Assumption to me always meant something which you start with knowing it could very well be wrong. Belief is to me something which you accept as truth without proof and are unwilling to dispute or question. But unfortunately assumption and belief are the same thing. So dogma is actually what we mean when we say belief. So confusing.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by Lacewing »

ken wrote:If a new way of looking is needed to see not just what is "behind the curtain" but to also be able to look back in front of the curtain, and thus see always from "behind the curtain", then I think a relatively "new', but not really a new, set of definitions for our present language is needed.
I can see your logic. Language does evolve with understanding. But not all at once, via one source, on a Philosophy forum. :D
Lacewing wrote:I was not talking about the "fixes" WITHIN the system... WITHIN the world we know and operate in... WITHIN the dream... etc. For our discussion, I have really been focused on the idea of "all that is", "the one", "the collective", etc. being perfect ABOVE AND BEYOND what our little system/experience (here) looks like.
ken wrote:This is now confusing for me. When "all that is", "the one", "the collective", etc. is being mentioned I thought that would include absolutely EVERYTHING, operating as One. Would this not include the "system", i.e., this world, (we human beings think), we know and operate in, also?
Yes... the One includes everything. But I don't think I'm doing anything different than you are when you discuss the individual view vs. the collective view to make your points. So it seems odd that you're getting confused by me doing it. I'm saying, from the collective view, nothing needs to be fixed. From the individual view, most people think things need to be fixed. When I talk to you about the perfection from the collective view, and you come back with talking about needing to fix things from the individual view, then I feel compelled to point out that you've switched channels.
ken wrote:What do you mean by 'dream' and 'within the system'?
Just trying to communicate the limited awareness of our earthly reality... which many people refer to as a dream to wake up from.
ken wrote:The actual view I, Collective Mind or God or whatever else It is called, is certainly not unfortunate.

But what is unfortunate is when I, the Collective Mind or God, inspire people, for example, moses, jesus, mohammed, and absolutely every person in fact, and the actual inspiration gets taken out of context, distorted, misconstrued, misinterpreted, and then passed on through this wrong way.
These two statements sound contradictory to me. How can one thing NOT be unfortunate for the Collective Mind, while another thing IS unfortunate for the Collective Mind? I do not see anything unfortunate for the Collective Mind. Logic tells me that the Collective Mind has access to all... and ALL IS IN ORDER.
ken wrote:If I am not allowed to re-arrange words and/or re-define words, then the amount of "new knowledge" gained by others will not be that much at all really from what is in common communication now.
I think there are ways to exchange a lot without requiring people to learn a new language. People don't come here for that; they're not "signing-up" up for that, you know? And when you consider that SO MANY people come here expecting others to share enthusiasm for one particular idea or another -- all of it requiring attention and energy -- well, there's only so much that people are going to invest in ANY of it.
ken wrote:Have you noticed by the way if i have been writing it [Lacewing] wrongly all along or just started doing at some point?
All along, I think?
ken wrote:Maybe this is where "a" confusion might be slipping in between us. I see 'ALL that is', 'the One', 'the Collective' is absolutely EVERYTHING as ONE.
I do too.
ken wrote:The reason I use capital letters is to distinguish the ALL, as One, between an individual, of the One, a little letter is used. ken is just an individual so when i am writing from ken a little i is used. When I am writing from ALL a big I is used.
I realize that. Again, I don't know why you seem confused when I talk about the ALL rather than the individual, because you do the same thing. If there's no "difference" to be spoken of, or no distinction to make, you wouldn't need your special language. Even though the human world is part of the ALL, I don't think it makes sense to apply human traits/models to the ALL. Otherwise, it would be like applying the characteristics of a grain of sand to the whole ocean. The ocean contains and produces the grain of sand, but the ocean is not defined by the characteristics of that grain of sand. Such is the same with individual humans and the all-that-is. This is the distinction I keep trying to express.
ken wrote:Learning here how much this language causes confusion, or smoke to appear from ears, is great to hear, because what I could take for granted is not known until actually shown to Me.
If people know they're signing up for that, they'll probably be a whole lot more willing to invest the time/energy.
ken wrote:
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:I would just like to question for clarity what is the reason for coming and writing here? And, what is the drive to put things into words?
For me, I think it is to have more clarity.
More clarity about what exactly?
About everything. What "clarity" means to me is to keep my thoughts clear. To listen and see beyond my own chatter.
ken wrote:
Lacewing wrote: That's something I ask for in life every day.
What exactly are you asking for, in life every day?
The awareness/clarity to stay "out of the way" of the universal flow, and not clog up the channels with my own stuff.
ken wrote:
Lacewing wrote:-- and thereby inspire contemplation about how it's all connected and working.
Any idea/s of what the 'it' actually could be?
Nothing more solid/defined than the concept of all-that-is/the collective/the flow/perfection and love.
ken wrote:
Lacewing wrote: It helps reveal "stuck ways" of thinking, it reveals self-defeating ego, I can see myself in others -- and them in me, and it is exhilarating to try to put "far-out ideas" into simple words, and to discover more about it while I do it!

This appears, to me anyway, that you are looking/searching for something, and/or, trying to express something new. Is this close at all?
I don't think so. I have no expectation. I simply enjoy the experience and could move along at any moment. Like walking through an art gallery... revealing some of my own art too perhaps (not only to others but to myself)... yet I'm not looking for anything, and I don't have an agenda.
ken wrote:
Lacewing wrote: For me it is a creative unfolding of limitless potential... rather than getting too fixated on anything.
Could that 'limitless potential' be something other than the individual person on here, generally known as lacewing, and sometimes mistakenly known as lancewing? hehe :)? Could there be a limitless potential, which is unfolding creatively, from within and through lacewing and others?
Yes, that is what I think it is! Individuals are just wisps of temporary energy in the magnificent cosmic stream of limitless unfolding and expanding potential. :D
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by Lacewing »

sthitapragya wrote:So dogma is actually what we mean when we say belief. So confusing.
I can see the truth in that! Which would help explain why I am resistant to believing in anything. :D
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by Dalek Prime »

Lacewing wrote:
sthitapragya wrote:So dogma is actually what we mean when we say belief. So confusing.
I can see the truth in that! Which would help explain why I am resistant to believing in anything. :D
I'm not resistant to belief. Just belief that mankind can conquer it's problems, and create a life-system worth bringing another into.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by surreptitious57 »

sthitapragya wrote:
I still think assumption and belief should have separate meanings. Assumption to me always meant something which you start with knowing
it could very well be wrong. Belief is to me something which you accept as truth without proof and are unwilling to dispute or question
But unfortunately assumption and belief are the same thing. So dogma is actually what we mean when we say belief. So confusing
Assumption can be based on logic while belief is an article of faith that can be devoid of any logic and could even be non IogicaI
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by ken »

sthitapragya wrote:
ken wrote:
sthitapragya wrote: But you say that the mind and brain are independent of each other. Can you prove it? If you can, great, if you cannot, will you accept it is a belief?
I may have written that 'the Mind and the brain are independent of each other' and i may not have had also added the actual words to describe that this is only what i think is right, or that this is only how i see it now, or from my perspective this is only the view i have now, or any other of the words needed to specifically point out that what I am saying is neither believed or disbelieved but just the way i see things now, which is based solely on past experiences and not on any fact of being an actual absolute truth or. I had hoped by now that I had already made it quite clear that by never neither believing or disbelieving anything then that would mean that absolutely EVERYTHING that I write is absolutely open for discussion, so that we could then together discover what is actually seen by others, which may then shine some light on Truth. If I have to use words to point this out each and every time i write anything, then that only adds more unnecessary to words to the discussion. I am wanting to and trying to make my words far less in amount and far more in clarity and write this far more succinctly.

Also, if I do not believe that the Mind and the brain are independent of each other, then obviously I will not accept it is a belief. It is just a view I have. I do NOT believe the that Mind and the brain are independent of each other, this is just a view I have, therefore and obviously this is NOT a belief.

By the way I THINK I can prove the Mind and the brain are independent of each other with, and through, words, when I find the right words and language to use, but remember my definition might be completely different to your definition. Because some people will at times not accept words on face value and need to see proof for themselves. Again I must reiterate I THINK science will verify what I say once and for all, later on. For example, "The stove is hot" is told to some people but they still need to experience this for themselves to fully understand that that statement WAS actually true, right, and correct, in the beginning. Some just words alone will not suffice. This why I say I think later on science will verify what I say now.
I think you are basically confusing belief with dogma.
If that is what sth thinks, then so be it. But I think it will be found some one else here is more confused than what I am.
sthitapragya wrote:A belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
Thus, the reason I do not have beliefs. Why would i or any person have a belief in something, if its truth is not yet proved?

I can not think of any reason why to do so. Maybe others can, which they will then explain to us on here?
sthitapragya wrote:While you accept it is true, you are prepared for the possibility that you might be proved wrong.
So, AGAIN, why belief in something, especially if you might be proved wrong?
sthitapragya wrote:A dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted. I cannot find any word which applies to a belief of a single individual that he or she accepts without being questioned or doubted therefore I am going with dogma.
Somewhat confusing. But 'dogma' is a belief held by any person or group of people without being questioned or doubted, have I got sth's definition given right?
sthitapragya wrote:Do you see the difference?
I see the difference sth has given, but because sth has given it here does that make it an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed?

'Dogma', is a belief held without being questioned or doubted, and the difference between that and 'belief' is accepted as true, especially without proof.

So, how in hell does one person separate what is dogma from what is belief from another person when what is generally stated is, "I believe (in)..." because I wonder how many times people have actually stated, "I have dogma (in)..."?

Also, if a person states, "I believe (in)..." is that a belief or dogma? And, how long before that belief or dogma remains without being questioned or doubted? If another person questions or doubts them does that dogma instantly then become a belief? Or is this solely depended upon the person holding and maintaining the dogma? But then this brings us to the fact that a person who has and maintains a belief would do so without questioning or doubting it because it is already accepted as being true, especially without even needing any proof, so would then this instantly become dogma?

Wow so many things to question and think about when one really wants to delve into this hey?

I much prefer My far, far simpler and much more easily to understand definitions and language, which by the way fit in with everything else, very simply, easily, and quickly to learn, comprehend, and understand.
sthitapragya wrote:You have to start by assuming something to be true and then try to prove it.
NO, I DO NOT HAVE TO DO THAT AT ALL.

I can start by thinking something may be true, and then just keep thinking that for ever more.

I could also start to have view that something may be true, and then just keep having that view for ever more.

I could even also start seeing that something may be true, and then just keep seeing that for ever more.

I NEVER have to try to prove anything, at all.

Why do you believe that I have to do that?
sthitapragya wrote:Unfortunately assumption and belief are synonyms.
They were not on your last attempt to define them. Last time you said something similar to: Beliefs are, what is assumed to be true.

What has changed now? In fact why has it taken so long to even get to this point? What is it that sth is actually struggling with here?

By the way why is it unfortunate that assumption and belief are now supposedly synonyms?
sthitapragya wrote: So you have to start with some belief and try to prove it true.
Again, sth may HAVE TO DO this, but I certainly Do NOT.

And also again, at what age does this HAVE TO start believing supposedly start kicking in?
sthitapragya wrote: If it turns out false, you change your belief. That is an open minded belief.
LOL That is nonsensical and ridiculous BUT that may be to Me only.

I have asked previously WHY NOT just think or have a view or see something is true, then you DO NOT HAVE TO change a belief? That is just looking from the open Mind. Or, what is generally known as just being open, which the Mind is always anyway.

I have already, I think, asked you if what you believed were not true, then would you want to hear it?

Answer Me that. Also answer, Would you believe in something if it were not true?

Your answers will help to bring more light out onto and into this subject.
sthitapragya wrote:If however you start with a belief and do not even try to prove it to be true that is a close-minded belief which equates with a dogma.
LOL
LOL
LOL

So is that a ridiculous thing to do, or not? sth logic is hard to follow sometimes, but it is amusing and funny also.
sthitapragya wrote:All your beliefs are open minded. You think that the mind and brain are independent of each other and consider it to be true. That is a belief as it has not been proved but it is an open minded belief because you are prepared for the possibility that you might be wrong.
There is a lot to delve into in sth's logic here, but let us begin:

1. Although I continually say I do not have beliefs sth will reject this wholeheartedly and persist in saying otherwise and thus is telling Me what I do. Rather than listening to Me I am told what I actually do.
2. How in any world can a belief be open minded? What is the mind to sth?
3. YES I THINK THE MIND AND THE BRAIN ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. Loud and clear enough for sth?
4. By the use of the word 'think', YES I consider it to be true.
5. That is NOT a belief as it is not what I believe to be true. I think this could get any simpler than that.
6. Where, exactly, did you get the idea that what has been proved or not follows on from a belief?
7. The contradiction in believing open minded and belief are related is obvious, is it not?
8. Of course I am prepared for the possibility that what I say might be wrong. The very reason I do not have any beliefs is so that what may be wrong can be very easily pointed out to Me. I do not have to be prepared for this piece of enlightenment and wisdom.

sth logic is YOU HAVE TO believe (in) something otherwise you will die. And, YOU HAVE TO start believing (in) something that may in fact be absolutely and totally actually false, wrong, and incorrect because if you believe (in) something without any doubt that is in fact dogma and not a belief.

NOW that all that is cleared up for every person reading this what was the actual point of clearing all of this up for us?
sthitapragya wrote: Just for your information, I too used to make the statement that I have no beliefs, till I looked at the definition of belief.
LOL I did the exact opposite. I used to say things like, "I believe...", and, "I don't believe...". That was until one day I was saying something about what happened and another person was laughing. I said, "Are you assuming something else?" They said, "Yes". I said, "What about I got another person in here to say what happened", they said, "I wouldn't believe it". I wondered what would make a person say that and what is stopping them from seeing the truth. I went and looked in a dictionary and it said something similar to, 'belief', something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion, so from then on I realized if having a belief can stop a person from actually seeing the Truth, then it would be best to not have any belief at all. That happened about 15 years ago for Me.

How long ago did you look in a dictionary and then started believing? And, more so why so?

Also, how long was sth making the statement, "I have no beliefs" for?

And, by the way, how in hell did sth keep existing and living whilst sth was not having any beliefs at that time?

Any, but preferably ALL, questions answered would be very much appreciated.

By the way you seem to change and swap around and think or believe differently all depending on what it is that sth wants to argue for or against.

sthitapragya wrote: I thought that belief and assumption were different. But it turns out that they are not. They are the same thing.
[/quote]

The exact same thing? If so, then we can make one word completely redundant hey?

By the way just imagine if sth believed that belief and assumption were different. I imagine it would have taken a bit longer to become wiser to fact that actually belief and assumption are now not different at all and are actually the exact same thing.

So what happens now, does sth believe that belief and assumption are the same thing and that this is now accepted as true, or, is this only what sth thinks is true? If this belief changes, once again, is sth also going to propose it like it was done last time, after the fact, that that was what was thought to be true. Why was it not stated as, "I believed that belief and assumption were different...."
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by ken »

sthitapragya wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
sthitapragya wrote: I think you are basically confusing belief with dogma. A belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. While you accept it is true, you are prepared for the possibility that you might be proved wrong.

A dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.
Very good. I haven't seen it put that clearly before, although the religious use the term 'belief', and don't accept any possibility that they are wrong. i.e They don't really 'believe'; they are just dogmatic arseholes.
Honestly, I just copied and pasted. But I still think that assumption and belief should have separate meanings. Assumption to me always meant something which you start with knowing it could very well be wrong. Belief is to me something which you accept as truth without proof and are unwilling to dispute or question. But unfortunately assumption and belief are the same thing. So dogma is actually what we mean when we say belief. So confusing.
But the definition that was given for 'belief' before was different than the one being given here now, which is also different from what is now being seen as 'belief'. Yes, confusing is right.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by thedoc »

surreptitious57 wrote:
sthitapragya wrote:
I still think assumption and belief should have separate meanings. Assumption to me always meant something which you start with knowing
it could very well be wrong. Belief is to me something which you accept as truth without proof and are unwilling to dispute or question
But unfortunately assumption and belief are the same thing. So dogma is actually what we mean when we say belief. So confusing
Assumption can be based on logic while belief is an article of faith that can be devoid of any logic and could even be non IogicaI
This is what they are supposed to mean, but too often I have seen people make assumptions that have no basis in anything. Much of what I accept as a Lutheran, I rationalize into something that is more acceptable and reasonable, rather then the misinterpretation that most people ascribe to the Bible.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by ken »

Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:If a new way of looking is needed to see not just what is "behind the curtain" but to also be able to look back in front of the curtain, and thus see always from "behind the curtain", then I think a relatively "new', but not really a new, set of definitions for our present language is needed.
I can see your logic. Language does evolve with understanding. But not all at once, via one source, on a Philosophy forum. :D
And the reason why I am here is to only learn how to express better, and give some evidence and provide proof to somethings, which will be later explained somewhere and not here in this forum. I am not here to explain what I want to say but rather just learn how to say it.
Lacewing wrote:I was not talking about the "fixes" WITHIN the system... WITHIN the world we know and operate in... WITHIN the dream... etc. For our discussion, I have really been focused on the idea of "all that is", "the one", "the collective", etc. being perfect ABOVE AND BEYOND what our little system/experience (here) looks like.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:This is now confusing for me. When "all that is", "the one", "the collective", etc. is being mentioned I thought that would include absolutely EVERYTHING, operating as One. Would this not include the "system", i.e., this world, (we human beings think), we know and operate in, also?
Yes... the One includes everything. But I don't think I'm doing anything different than you are when you discuss the individual view vs. the collective view to make your points. So it seems odd that you're getting confused by me doing it. I'm saying, from the collective view, nothing needs to be fixed.
But from the collective view do you really think the wrong that every individual human being does does not need to be fixed?

Human beings are a part of the collective One, so why would the collective One just sit back and not try to inspire people to stop doing the wrong they are doing? Or, do you see that the collective One can not see right from wrong, or just does not care, or something else?

I see that any host would do all it could to stop the species that was, by its own doing, destroying the host. Or another way to put it and look at is if a part of Me that I could see was doing not what I wanted and what I had set out to achieve, then I would do all I could to stop, prevent, and/or change that part.
Lacewing wrote:From the individual view, most people think things need to be fixed.
Do they really? I have not noticed this. What I notice mostly is people just doing what they have continually done, right and wrong, without ever knowing why they do it nor every really questioning why they do it, for that matter.
Lacewing wrote: When I talk to you about the perfection from the collective view,
But that in of itself would just be your individual personal view would it not?

Unless of course you are sitting at the vantage point of the collective view point, and thus would be able to answer any clarifying question and be challenged without any doubt at all that you could and would be able to answer everything thoroughly.
Lacewing wrote:and you come back with talking about needing to fix things from the individual view, then I feel compelled to point out that you've switched channels.
Well if you point out the exact moment of channel switching, then I could point out exactly why.

What is needed to be fixed from the individual view? I was talking about fixing the wrong that every adult human being does, which was coming from the individual and the collective vantage point. Both CAN work together as One.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:What do you mean by 'dream' and 'within the system'?
Just trying to communicate the limited awareness of our earthly reality... which many people refer to as a dream to wake up from.
OK, thanks.

But I am not sure why it is perceived as limited awareness?

Surely thoughts and thinking from the brain is obviously limited by only what information has been put into the brain, but the open Mind, by definition, is openly unlimited. There is where limitless Awareness is seen and known from. This open Mind is also very, very easily able to be grasped on this earth.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:The actual view I, Collective Mind or God or whatever else It is called, is certainly not unfortunate.

But what is unfortunate is when I, the Collective Mind or God, inspire people, for example, moses, jesus, mohammed, and absolutely every person in fact, and the actual inspiration gets taken out of context, distorted, misconstrued, misinterpreted, and then passed on through this wrong way.
These two statements sound contradictory to me. How can one thing NOT be unfortunate for the Collective Mind, while another thing IS unfortunate for the Collective Mind? I do not see anything unfortunate for the Collective Mind. Logic tells me that the Collective Mind has access to all... and ALL IS IN ORDER.
Yes and exactly what I said, The actual view from the Collective Mind is certainly NOT unfortunate. But what is unfortunate how human beings take this view and misconstrue It. Just like what has been evidenced here and now.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:If I am not allowed to re-arrange words and/or re-define words, then the amount of "new knowledge" gained by others will not be that much at all really from what is in common communication now.
I think there are ways to exchange a lot without requiring people to learn a new language. People don't come here for that; they're not "signing-up" up for that, you know? And when you consider that SO MANY people come here expecting others to share enthusiasm for one particular idea or another -- all of it requiring attention and energy -- well, there's only so much that people are going to invest in ANY of it.
It was never intended to use all the new language and definitions here. This forum is just a learning ground.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:Have you noticed by the way if i have been writing it [Lacewing] wrongly all along or just started doing at some point?
All along, I think?
Wow that really amazes me because even after going back and looking at the name to check that I have it right before I write it down i still get it wrong. People really only do see what they want to see sometimes even though it can be so obviously wrong.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:Maybe this is where "a" confusion might be slipping in between us. I see 'ALL that is', 'the One', 'the Collective' is absolutely EVERYTHING as ONE.
I do too.
Cool.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:The reason I use capital letters is to distinguish the ALL, as One, between an individual, of the One, a little letter is used. ken is just an individual so when i am writing from ken a little i is used. When I am writing from ALL a big I is used.
I realize that. Again, I don't know why you seem confused when I talk about the ALL rather than the individual, because you do the same thing. If there's no "difference" to be spoken of, or no distinction to make, you wouldn't need your special language.
How is another meant to distinguish what is just a person individual view or a collective view if some sort of capital against little letters is not used? What other way could it be done?

Even though the human world is part of the ALL, I don't think it makes sense to apply human traits/models to the ALL.

I do not think it makes sense also, but how do I distinguish from what view you are referring to or from when you write?

For example when you write, "I don't think it makes sense to apply human traits/models to the ALL." If you do not have any language to distinguish between the two, then how does another know where is that view coming from?
Lacewing wrote: Otherwise, it would be like applying the characteristics of a grain of sand to the whole ocean. The ocean contains and produces the grain of sand, but the ocean is not defined by the characteristics of that grain of sand. Such is the same with individual humans and the all-that-is. This is the distinction I keep trying to express.
Yes I understand that distinction, but how would i know if what is being said is coming from the grain of sand or from the ocean It Self? How would i know what is being said and expressed is the from an individual person or from the ALL-that-is, if the letters, words or language is going to be the same?

How to find the language and use that language to make the distinction between the Collective One and an individual part of that One is what I am trying to find here.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:Learning here how much this language causes confusion, or smoke to appear from ears, is great to hear, because what I could take for granted is not known until actually shown to Me.
If people know they're signing up for that, they'll probably be a whole lot more willing to invest the time/energy.
All people have to do is say something like, "I have absolutely no idea what crap you are going on about", or, "I understand a bit but not all of it", and then explain the parts they do not know, or, "I am not sure what you mean here, what do you actually mean by ....", or, "What you are saying is partly and completely wrong", and then just point out which part exactly and then just explain why it is wrong. Not to much effort I thought is needed.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:
Lacewing wrote: For me, I think it is to have more clarity.
More clarity about what exactly?
About everything. What "clarity" means to me is to keep my thoughts clear. To listen and see beyond my own chatter.
Ah ok, that is very easy to do once you know how to distinguish between what is just is coming from an individual human gained thought, and what comes from the Collective open Mind. one is just a thought. the other a knowing.

To listen and see beyond one's own chatter is done, in dontaskme language so not instantly understood, by listening to the world around the body with the eyes and by seeing from within with the hears. Hearing what the Collective One from within is saying brings with it a seeing, which is an understanding, which is then proven by seeing the physical world around and listening to all those signals from what is being said by others.

But a much easier way to understand this is just look at everything from a truly open perspective, just like a new born baby would, but then use your past experiences to see if it is actually right or not. But what most people do is look at any and everything from what information is previously stored from past experiences to then see if it is actually right or not. This will only distort the truth and not bring it to light instead.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:
Lacewing wrote: That's something I ask for in life every day.
What exactly are you asking for, in life every day?
The awareness/clarity to stay "out of the way" of the universal flow, and not clog up the channels with my own stuff.
Again just look from the truly open Mind instead of from any previously gained thought.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:
Lacewing wrote:-- and thereby inspire contemplation about how it's all connected and working.
Any idea/s of what the 'it' actually could be?
Nothing more solid/defined than the concept of all-that-is/the collective/the flow/perfection and love.
The Mind.

Being able to look at and see from that, instead of looking and seeing from previously thoughts, ideas, preconceptions, etc. etc., etc. is where Oneness flows from. Actually looking from that open Mind's perspective ONLY, then an individual is unable to not learn. Learning and discovering just flows naturally and smoothly.
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:
Lacewing wrote: It helps reveal "stuck ways" of thinking, it reveals self-defeating ego, I can see myself in others -- and them in me, and it is exhilarating to try to put "far-out ideas" into simple words, and to discover more about it while I do it!

This appears, to me anyway, that you are looking/searching for something, and/or, trying to express something new. Is this close at all?
I don't think so. I have no expectation. I simply enjoy the experience and could move along at any moment. Like walking through an art gallery... revealing some of my own art too perhaps (not only to others but to myself)... yet I'm not looking for anything, and I don't have an agenda.
OK cool, not looking/searching for but still wanting to share some of what you have to reveal?
Lacewing wrote:
ken wrote:
Lacewing wrote: For me it is a creative unfolding of limitless potential... rather than getting too fixated on anything.
Could that 'limitless potential' be something other than the individual person on here, generally known as lacewing, and sometimes mistakenly known as lancewing? hehe :)? Could there be a limitless potential, which is unfolding creatively, from within and through lacewing and others?
Yes, that is what I think it is! Individuals are just wisps of temporary energy in the magnificent cosmic stream of limitless unfolding and expanding potential. :D
Which just maybe the case is the limitless potential needs physical things and being to be able to creatively unfold into or from.

Imagine a truly open Mind, although full of creative potential and power, is actually a nothing, in the sense of, without any physical then how could It unleash any of this potential?

The creative power of a truly open Mind can actually be seen in what human beings have created and continually create for and by themselves. But the potential of limitless also does not stop It from realizing It's Self, through the amazing ability of a information storage unit as powerful as a human brain. A truly open non-physical, completely invisible Mind could be being unleashed and witnessed through the physicality of everything and actualized through the human being.
sthitapragya
Posts: 1105
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:55 pm

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by sthitapragya »

ken wrote:
sthitapragya wrote:
ken wrote:

I may have written that 'the Mind and the brain are independent of each other' and i may not have had also added the actual words to describe that this is only what i think is right, or that this is only how i see it now, or from my perspective this is only the view i have now, or any other of the words needed to specifically point out that what I am saying is neither believed or disbelieved but just the way i see things now, which is based solely on past experiences and not on any fact of being an actual absolute truth or. I had hoped by now that I had already made it quite clear that by never neither believing or disbelieving anything then that would mean that absolutely EVERYTHING that I write is absolutely open for discussion, so that we could then together discover what is actually seen by others, which may then shine some light on Truth. If I have to use words to point this out each and every time i write anything, then that only adds more unnecessary to words to the discussion. I am wanting to and trying to make my words far less in amount and far more in clarity and write this far more succinctly.

Also, if I do not believe that the Mind and the brain are independent of each other, then obviously I will not accept it is a belief. It is just a view I have. I do NOT believe the that Mind and the brain are independent of each other, this is just a view I have, therefore and obviously this is NOT a belief.

By the way I THINK I can prove the Mind and the brain are independent of each other with, and through, words, when I find the right words and language to use, but remember my definition might be completely different to your definition. Because some people will at times not accept words on face value and need to see proof for themselves. Again I must reiterate I THINK science will verify what I say once and for all, later on. For example, "The stove is hot" is told to some people but they still need to experience this for themselves to fully understand that that statement WAS actually true, right, and correct, in the beginning. Some just words alone will not suffice. This why I say I think later on science will verify what I say now.
I think you are basically confusing belief with dogma.
If that is what sth thinks, then so be it. But I think it will be found some one else here is more confused than what I am.
sthitapragya wrote:A belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
Thus, the reason I do not have beliefs. Why would i or any person have a belief in something, if its truth is not yet proved?

I can not think of any reason why to do so. Maybe others can, which they will then explain to us on here?
sthitapragya wrote:While you accept it is true, you are prepared for the possibility that you might be proved wrong.
So, AGAIN, why belief in something, especially if you might be proved wrong?
sthitapragya wrote:A dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted. I cannot find any word which applies to a belief of a single individual that he or she accepts without being questioned or doubted therefore I am going with dogma.
Somewhat confusing. But 'dogma' is a belief held by any person or group of people without being questioned or doubted, have I got sth's definition given right?
sthitapragya wrote:Do you see the difference?
I see the difference sth has given, but because sth has given it here does that make it an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed?

'Dogma', is a belief held without being questioned or doubted, and the difference between that and 'belief' is accepted as true, especially without proof.

So, how in hell does one person separate what is dogma from what is belief from another person when what is generally stated is, "I believe (in)..." because I wonder how many times people have actually stated, "I have dogma (in)..."?

Also, if a person states, "I believe (in)..." is that a belief or dogma? And, how long before that belief or dogma remains without being questioned or doubted? If another person questions or doubts them does that dogma instantly then become a belief? Or is this solely depended upon the person holding and maintaining the dogma? But then this brings us to the fact that a person who has and maintains a belief would do so without questioning or doubting it because it is already accepted as being true, especially without even needing any proof, so would then this instantly become dogma?

Wow so many things to question and think about when one really wants to delve into this hey?

I much prefer My far, far simpler and much more easily to understand definitions and language, which by the way fit in with everything else, very simply, easily, and quickly to learn, comprehend, and understand.
sthitapragya wrote:You have to start by assuming something to be true and then try to prove it.
NO, I DO NOT HAVE TO DO THAT AT ALL.

I can start by thinking something may be true, and then just keep thinking that for ever more.

I could also start to have view that something may be true, and then just keep having that view for ever more.

I could even also start seeing that something may be true, and then just keep seeing that for ever more.

I NEVER have to try to prove anything, at all.

Why do you believe that I have to do that?
sthitapragya wrote:Unfortunately assumption and belief are synonyms.
They were not on your last attempt to define them. Last time you said something similar to: Beliefs are, what is assumed to be true.

What has changed now? In fact why has it taken so long to even get to this point? What is it that sth is actually struggling with here?

By the way why is it unfortunate that assumption and belief are now supposedly synonyms?
sthitapragya wrote: So you have to start with some belief and try to prove it true.
Again, sth may HAVE TO DO this, but I certainly Do NOT.

And also again, at what age does this HAVE TO start believing supposedly start kicking in?
sthitapragya wrote: If it turns out false, you change your belief. That is an open minded belief.
LOL That is nonsensical and ridiculous BUT that may be to Me only.

I have asked previously WHY NOT just think or have a view or see something is true, then you DO NOT HAVE TO change a belief? That is just looking from the open Mind. Or, what is generally known as just being open, which the Mind is always anyway.

I have already, I think, asked you if what you believed were not true, then would you want to hear it?

Answer Me that. Also answer, Would you believe in something if it were not true?

Your answers will help to bring more light out onto and into this subject.
sthitapragya wrote:If however you start with a belief and do not even try to prove it to be true that is a close-minded belief which equates with a dogma.
LOL
LOL
LOL

So is that a ridiculous thing to do, or not? sth logic is hard to follow sometimes, but it is amusing and funny also.
sthitapragya wrote:All your beliefs are open minded. You think that the mind and brain are independent of each other and consider it to be true. That is a belief as it has not been proved but it is an open minded belief because you are prepared for the possibility that you might be wrong.
There is a lot to delve into in sth's logic here, but let us begin:

1. Although I continually say I do not have beliefs sth will reject this wholeheartedly and persist in saying otherwise and thus is telling Me what I do. Rather than listening to Me I am told what I actually do.
2. How in any world can a belief be open minded? What is the mind to sth?
3. YES I THINK THE MIND AND THE BRAIN ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. Loud and clear enough for sth?
4. By the use of the word 'think', YES I consider it to be true.
5. That is NOT a belief as it is not what I believe to be true. I think this could get any simpler than that.
6. Where, exactly, did you get the idea that what has been proved or not follows on from a belief?
7. The contradiction in believing open minded and belief are related is obvious, is it not?
8. Of course I am prepared for the possibility that what I say might be wrong. The very reason I do not have any beliefs is so that what may be wrong can be very easily pointed out to Me. I do not have to be prepared for this piece of enlightenment and wisdom.

sth logic is YOU HAVE TO believe (in) something otherwise you will die. And, YOU HAVE TO start believing (in) something that may in fact be absolutely and totally actually false, wrong, and incorrect because if you believe (in) something without any doubt that is in fact dogma and not a belief.

NOW that all that is cleared up for every person reading this what was the actual point of clearing all of this up for us?
sthitapragya wrote: Just for your information, I too used to make the statement that I have no beliefs, till I looked at the definition of belief.
LOL I did the exact opposite. I used to say things like, "I believe...", and, "I don't believe...". That was until one day I was saying something about what happened and another person was laughing. I said, "Are you assuming something else?" They said, "Yes". I said, "What about I got another person in here to say what happened", they said, "I wouldn't believe it". I wondered what would make a person say that and what is stopping them from seeing the truth. I went and looked in a dictionary and it said something similar to, 'belief', something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion, so from then on I realized if having a belief can stop a person from actually seeing the Truth, then it would be best to not have any belief at all. That happened about 15 years ago for Me.

How long ago did you look in a dictionary and then started believing? And, more so why so?

Also, how long was sth making the statement, "I have no beliefs" for?

And, by the way, how in hell did sth keep existing and living whilst sth was not having any beliefs at that time?

Any, but preferably ALL, questions answered would be very much appreciated.

By the way you seem to change and swap around and think or believe differently all depending on what it is that sth wants to argue for or against.

sthitapragya wrote: I thought that belief and assumption were different. But it turns out that they are not. They are the same thing.
ken wrote:The exact same thing? If so, then we can make one word completely redundant hey?

By the way just imagine if sth believed that belief and assumption were different. I imagine it would have taken a bit longer to become wiser to fact that actually belief and assumption are now not different at all and are actually the exact same thing.

So what happens now, does sth believe that belief and assumption are the same thing and that this is now accepted as true, or, is this only what sth thinks is true? If this belief changes, once again, is sth also going to propose it like it was done last time, after the fact, that that was what was thought to be true. Why was it not stated as, "I believed that belief and assumption were different...."
There is really no point to this. You just replaced "Believe" with "think". Without proof, everything you think is a belief. You just don't seem to get that. That is not me talking. That is the dictionary talking. You are so dogmatic that you refuse to even accept the dictionary. You believe that you don't believe.

And yes, assumption and belief mean the same thing. I cannot do anything about it. If you want to make one redundant, you can stop using one. The only difference I can see is that a belief might be associated with a claim made by somebody else and an assumption might be a claim made by self.

For example, You create a theory without proof. You have made assumptions. You accept the theory to be true without proof. You believe. I accept the same theory without proof. I believe.

So you have created a theory in which you accept the existence of Oneness to be true without proof. That is a belief.

Again, I could be wrong in my interpretation of assumption and it could very well mean that assumption and belief are the same irrespective of who creates it. In which case, every theory you create without proof is a belief and every theory you accept without proof is a belief.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: ~ Things I Can't Accept ~

Post by ken »

sthitapragya wrote:
ken wrote:
sthitapragya wrote: I think you are basically confusing belief with dogma.
If that is what sth thinks, then so be it. But I think it will be found some one else here is more confused than what I am.
sthitapragya wrote:A belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
Thus, the reason I do not have beliefs. Why would i or any person have a belief in something, if its truth is not yet proved?

I can not think of any reason why to do so. Maybe others can, which they will then explain to us on here?
sthitapragya wrote:While you accept it is true, you are prepared for the possibility that you might be proved wrong.
So, AGAIN, why belief in something, especially if you might be proved wrong?
sthitapragya wrote:A dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted. I cannot find any word which applies to a belief of a single individual that he or she accepts without being questioned or doubted therefore I am going with dogma.
Somewhat confusing. But 'dogma' is a belief held by any person or group of people without being questioned or doubted, have I got sth's definition given right?
sthitapragya wrote:Do you see the difference?
I see the difference sth has given, but because sth has given it here does that make it an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed?

'Dogma', is a belief held without being questioned or doubted, and the difference between that and 'belief' is accepted as true, especially without proof.

So, how in hell does one person separate what is dogma from what is belief from another person when what is generally stated is, "I believe (in)..." because I wonder how many times people have actually stated, "I have dogma (in)..."?

Also, if a person states, "I believe (in)..." is that a belief or dogma? And, how long before that belief or dogma remains without being questioned or doubted? If another person questions or doubts them does that dogma instantly then become a belief? Or is this solely depended upon the person holding and maintaining the dogma? But then this brings us to the fact that a person who has and maintains a belief would do so without questioning or doubting it because it is already accepted as being true, especially without even needing any proof, so would then this instantly become dogma?

Wow so many things to question and think about when one really wants to delve into this hey?

I much prefer My far, far simpler and much more easily to understand definitions and language, which by the way fit in with everything else, very simply, easily, and quickly to learn, comprehend, and understand.
sthitapragya wrote:You have to start by assuming something to be true and then try to prove it.
NO, I DO NOT HAVE TO DO THAT AT ALL.

I can start by thinking something may be true, and then just keep thinking that for ever more.

I could also start to have view that something may be true, and then just keep having that view for ever more.

I could even also start seeing that something may be true, and then just keep seeing that for ever more.

I NEVER have to try to prove anything, at all.

Why do you believe that I have to do that?
sthitapragya wrote:Unfortunately assumption and belief are synonyms.
They were not on your last attempt to define them. Last time you said something similar to: Beliefs are, what is assumed to be true.

What has changed now? In fact why has it taken so long to even get to this point? What is it that sth is actually struggling with here?

By the way why is it unfortunate that assumption and belief are now supposedly synonyms?
sthitapragya wrote: So you have to start with some belief and try to prove it true.
Again, sth may HAVE TO DO this, but I certainly Do NOT.

And also again, at what age does this HAVE TO start believing supposedly start kicking in?
sthitapragya wrote: If it turns out false, you change your belief. That is an open minded belief.
LOL That is nonsensical and ridiculous BUT that may be to Me only.

I have asked previously WHY NOT just think or have a view or see something is true, then you DO NOT HAVE TO change a belief? That is just looking from the open Mind. Or, what is generally known as just being open, which the Mind is always anyway.

I have already, I think, asked you if what you believed were not true, then would you want to hear it?

Answer Me that. Also answer, Would you believe in something if it were not true?

Your answers will help to bring more light out onto and into this subject.
sthitapragya wrote:If however you start with a belief and do not even try to prove it to be true that is a close-minded belief which equates with a dogma.
LOL
LOL
LOL

So is that a ridiculous thing to do, or not? sth logic is hard to follow sometimes, but it is amusing and funny also.
sthitapragya wrote:All your beliefs are open minded. You think that the mind and brain are independent of each other and consider it to be true. That is a belief as it has not been proved but it is an open minded belief because you are prepared for the possibility that you might be wrong.
There is a lot to delve into in sth's logic here, but let us begin:

1. Although I continually say I do not have beliefs sth will reject this wholeheartedly and persist in saying otherwise and thus is telling Me what I do. Rather than listening to Me I am told what I actually do.
2. How in any world can a belief be open minded? What is the mind to sth?
3. YES I THINK THE MIND AND THE BRAIN ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. Loud and clear enough for sth?
4. By the use of the word 'think', YES I consider it to be true.
5. That is NOT a belief as it is not what I believe to be true. I think this could get any simpler than that.
6. Where, exactly, did you get the idea that what has been proved or not follows on from a belief?
7. The contradiction in believing open minded and belief are related is obvious, is it not?
8. Of course I am prepared for the possibility that what I say might be wrong. The very reason I do not have any beliefs is so that what may be wrong can be very easily pointed out to Me. I do not have to be prepared for this piece of enlightenment and wisdom.

sth logic is YOU HAVE TO believe (in) something otherwise you will die. And, YOU HAVE TO start believing (in) something that may in fact be absolutely and totally actually false, wrong, and incorrect because if you believe (in) something without any doubt that is in fact dogma and not a belief.

NOW that all that is cleared up for every person reading this what was the actual point of clearing all of this up for us?
sthitapragya wrote: Just for your information, I too used to make the statement that I have no beliefs, till I looked at the definition of belief.
LOL I did the exact opposite. I used to say things like, "I believe...", and, "I don't believe...". That was until one day I was saying something about what happened and another person was laughing. I said, "Are you assuming something else?" They said, "Yes". I said, "What about I got another person in here to say what happened", they said, "I wouldn't believe it". I wondered what would make a person say that and what is stopping them from seeing the truth. I went and looked in a dictionary and it said something similar to, 'belief', something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion, so from then on I realized if having a belief can stop a person from actually seeing the Truth, then it would be best to not have any belief at all. That happened about 15 years ago for Me.

How long ago did you look in a dictionary and then started believing? And, more so why so?

Also, how long was sth making the statement, "I have no beliefs" for?

And, by the way, how in hell did sth keep existing and living whilst sth was not having any beliefs at that time?

Any, but preferably ALL, questions answered would be very much appreciated.

By the way you seem to change and swap around and think or believe differently all depending on what it is that sth wants to argue for or against.

sthitapragya wrote: I thought that belief and assumption were different. But it turns out that they are not. They are the same thing.
ken wrote:The exact same thing? If so, then we can make one word completely redundant hey?

By the way just imagine if sth believed that belief and assumption were different. I imagine it would have taken a bit longer to become wiser to fact that actually belief and assumption are now not different at all and are actually the exact same thing.

So what happens now, does sth believe that belief and assumption are the same thing and that this is now accepted as true, or, is this only what sth thinks is true? If this belief changes, once again, is sth also going to propose it like it was done last time, after the fact, that that was what was thought to be true. Why was it not stated as, "I believed that belief and assumption were different...."

There is really no point to this. You just replaced "Believe" with "think".
I did NOT just do it now. This is what I have been doing and saying from the beginning of this discussion. Please do not tell me you have only just noticed now.
sthitapragya wrote:Without proof, everything you think is a belief. You just don't seem to get that.
Okay just for humorous sake, on this logic, if, without proof, everything you think is a belief, then what is it if we have something with proof, then what is everything you think then? What are you know going to call that?

i just realized i do not know why i continue to ask sth questions because only on the very, very rare occasions they are answered.

And, sth does not seem to get that I do NOT HAVE TO have a belief, if I choose not to.

It is possible, i hope sth realizes, that something can be thought of as being right instead of believing it is right.

Could I make this any simpler?
sthitapragya wrote:That is not me talking. That is the dictionary talking.
Does sth yet realize or know we use the exact same dictionary and definition for 'belief'?

I surely hope so because I have written that down previously.
sthitapragya wrote:You are so dogmatic that you refuse to even accept the dictionary.
It appears that the belief system is really placing a very hard time on sth now to be able to see and notice what has really being going on here.

What is happening now will actually be further evidence and proof of how the belief system can take over and control the brains ability to logically reason.

I KNEW there was a reason to keep continuing to discuss with sth.

It never ceases to amaze me how the Mind can set out and plan for the future, by providing evidence and proof here now in these writings from within not just this brain but also from within other brains also.

ALL the evidence and proof of exactly HOW the Mind and the brain work, and HOW they work independently of each other, is being produced and shown here in this forum for all future generations to see. This, along with the evidence and proof for scientific inquiry also to study will not just verify this but also verify how the belief system works within a brain, and there was also something else proven with evidence the other day, which this brain forgets right now, which also can and will be verified by science, "one day".

By the way sth I did not use the words 'think' or 'view' this time because I KNOW science can and WILL use the evidence and proof within this forum to verify what I WILL say.

sthitapragya wrote:You believe that you don't believe.
If that is what sth believes, so be it.

By the was sth there is a subliminal message in there that sth will probably not even notice, but I KNOW future generations will see it and understand it.

If 'what is' is believed, then that is what you are.

I really do not care what is believed. By sth's own definition it may or may not be right, anyway. What I care about is 'what is' already KNOWN.

sthitapragya wrote:And yes, assumption and belief mean the same thing. I cannot do anything about it. If you want to make one redundant, you can stop using one. The only difference I can see is that a belief might be associated with a claim made by somebody else and an assumption might be a claim made by self.

For example, You create a theory without proof. You have made assumptions. You accept the theory to be true without proof. You believe. I accept the same theory without proof. I believe.
If that is what sth does, then that is fine by Me. sth can do whatever sth wants to do.

I do NOT choose to work in that type of way.

I may, however, choose to just write A Story, which contains absolutely no beliefs nor assumptions, BUT, what is found in the Story may actually be verified scientifically and proven to be true, right, and correct, "one day".

Is this even a possibility in sth's MUST HAVE beliefs world?
sthitapragya wrote:So you have created a theory in which you accept the existence of Oneness to be true without proof. That is a belief.
Have I really created a theory?

Where is it, what does it look like, what is it about?
sthitapragya wrote:Again, I could be wrong in my interpretation of assumption and it could very well mean that assumption and belief are the same irrespective of who creates it. In which case, every theory you create without proof is a belief and every theory you accept without proof is a belief.
[/quote]

Is this 'you' directed at Me or is that 'you' directed at every person?

I am unsure how 'you' is being used here.

If this belief, which is trying to be held onto and maintained so strongly by sth, is wrong does sth know what that means to sth?

Does sth realize how much time and effort sth has actually spent trying to tell Me that I must believe? Even coming up with ridiculous suggestions like if I do not believe, then I will die?

The reason sth is "fighting" so strongly that is the power of beliefs. Beliefs work on a system of fooling the brain into not being able to distinguish between truth and falsehoods. If I say I neither believe nor disbelieve, then this statement goes against the what is believed and stored within the brain in which sth is now existing. sth will fight this statement to the "death" because the belief system in that brain will not allow its self to lose. it would prefer to die than lose, i.e., be wrong. When I say I neither believe nor disbelieve, then that means I am right and sth is wrong. Beliefs, by their nature, can not be wrong. If a belief could be wrong, then that belief would just be a guess or a thought.

If the truth of something is not yet known, then i just view as that, what it actually is, to me, i.e., something unknown, which by the way is the Truth. See, again Truth can be so simply, easily, and quickly found while remaining open. How I would then generally refer to this Truth is just what i think is right, or just a view i have of it, which may or may not be right, or only how i see it, which again may or may not be right or wrong. But i would never refer to something, which was especially open to being right or wrong, as have a belief, in or of it, nor of believing (in) it. To say that I believe (in) something that may or may not even yet be true nor right nor correct, i think, would be an absolute contradiction in and of itself. I find this extremely funny to even contemplate. I find it even funnier that some people actually believe that they HAVE TO do that. Even funnier still they even believe that if they do not do that, then they will die.

Does sth still want to keep disagreeing with what I do do?

Why does sth just tell us what sth does instead of trying tell every one of us what we do and HAVE TO do?

Unless sth is some sort of "God", and is therefore able to tell all of us what we do and that we HAVE TO do it, which may or may not be the case. But until then, if sth is just another person, then, in all truth, sth is just a person who can really only speak for itself only and tell us what sth does and what sth HAS TO do only.
Post Reply