How did you change paradigm?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 8032
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Belinda »

Trajk Logik wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:53 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:57 pm Language was not "invented" but was spontaneous as it still is for unselfconscious uninhibited native speakers.
Ok, so "invented" might have been the wrong term to use. How about "selected" as in natural selection?

I have no idea what a "unselfconscious uninhibited native speaker" is. Examples, please.
Belinda wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:57 pm When native English speakers get together in the pub they don't take along a phrase book of correct word-symbols. we know the symbols others are using by context and continued usage.
Sure they do. The rules are stored in their memory. You had to learn the vocabulary, which means you had to learn what words referred to. Do you remember learning the vocabulary of your native language? You know the symbols others are using because you went to school and learned English.
Belinda wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:57 pm It seldom happens that friends indoctrinate each other and if they did so they would cease to be true friends. Language is not usually a power game but is a means of building community.

My point was pretty clear in that we do not get to choose what our native language is. We are indoctrinated with it, not just by our friends, but our family and teachers as well.
Belinda wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:57 pmOur minds do not represent the world. Our minds create the world. There is no thing in itself such as the apple in your example. Neither direct nor indirect realism is the case.
Wow. Almost every sentence here is stating a negative without any reasons as to why you are disagreeing, which is effectively saying, "I just don't like what you've said and I'm not going to explain why". The only thing you've actually asserted here is that our minds create the world, but what does that even mean? What is a mind? What is the world? To say "our minds" is to imply that there are more than one. If there are more than one, then what is the medium that separates our minds, if not the world, for there to be more than one? This is a good example of misusing language in such a way as to create philosophical problems rather than solve them.
You learned the vocabulary as an inextricable part of social life. This is true from earliest babyhood. Language and learning together are social and a major means of socialisation.

For example of the absurdity of ostensive language acquisition, the young child's parent does not point to his child's sister and repeat "sister" in the hope his infant will connect the symbol with the sibling and not unfortunately connect the pointing action with the parent's hand. No. What the normal parent does is use the word sister in a social context e.g. "Don't kick your sister" or "Your sister likes broccoli".

Explicit, formal learning takes place in special social situations where, for a variety of reasons, it matters that there be no ambiguity. Jargons are an example of explicit formal learning. People who are adequately socialised know when to use jargon and when to use everyday language.

"Our minds create the world" is not the best way to explain the theory of absolute idealism. However I assure you that if you can be unremittingly sceptical you will arrive at that theory.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Skepdick »

Trajk Logik wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:53 pm You know the symbols others are using because you went to school and learned English.
So what language were you speaking while you were learning English?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Lacewing »

Great topic!
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:59 am So..paradigm, belief system, worldview is what I am asking about. (not political worldviews)
Some examples...
You changed from Christian to atheist (or the reverse).
You went from monist to dualist (or the reverse).
Physicalism to idealism (or any other similar ontological shift).

Not just this or that belief but rather a shift in your whole worldview/ontology/metaphysics/paradigm.

What happened that led to this change?
Was the change gradual or due to a single event/epipheny/something else?
Did you do anything intentionally that led to the change? (for example, intentionally sought out experiences that might confirm a new way of seeing, or intentionally challenged authority figures/experts in the view you then left)
Although I was raised to be a good little Christian girl from 5 to 16 years of age, I always saw and felt the 'will of belief' that was required and present all throughout the environment and people I knew... even from the beginning. It was not truly convincing to me, it seemed made-up, it didn't make sense, and at times it seemed less than divine.

I already had a sense of 'naturally belonging', from my earliest memories as a baby. I noticed that adults acted like everything was separate, but I somehow felt more connection than they did.

I was more than ready for a shift as soon as I could realistically acknowledge one for myself. From 16 through 19, I went through a period of total rebellion to experience and explore everything I'd been denied. After surviving that, I settled down and began exploring alternative views of spirituality which I hadn't ever been exposed to. The broader view was making much more sense. I had developed a great filter for weeding out 'manmade stories'... so I did not subscribe to any new specific doctrine. Rather, I opened myself to what was natural and true in a larger cosmic sense, and I felt full of love in doing so.

Then I got married to a fellow cosmic explorer and we started tripping on LSD a lot. That further blew the doors off of the limitations I'd been taught about reality and life. It also deepened my experience of everything being connected. It was wonderful. I always had great trips. I realized I was more spiritual (naturally!) than I'd ever felt as a Christian.

After leaving my 5 yr. marriage, I embarked on a wonderful exploration of life and various modalities using my own shifted perspective. Ever since, this paradigm shift has been amazing in breaking so many supposed rules and restrictions, and in experiencing such levels of joy! Despite my rowdy nature on this forum... challenging religion and its stories... I am a loving person who wants the best for everyone. I do not wish to scare people, or rip away their security blanket, I just want to challenge the intoxication and limitation that people have been convinced of. I see religion as a barrier to attaining broader views of love and spirituality. Religion is too limited and controlling, and it steals/distorts the capability for people to realize their natural essence and connection... for which no middle-men are needed. My hope is for people to step free of that if they too feel inspired to -- else, they can ignore me and keep doing whatever they feel content with. :)

I think the potential of life and energy are continually changing and expanding, so having the capability to shift seems valuable.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2562
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Lacewing wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:31 pm Great topic!

Although I was raised to be a good little Christian girl from 5 to 16 years of age, I always saw and felt the 'will of belief' that was required and present all throughout the environment and people I knew... even from the beginning. It was not truly convincing to me, it seemed made-up, it didn't make sense, and at times it seemed less than divine.

I think the potential of life and energy are continually changing and expanding, so having the capability to shift seems valuable.
Great post. Perceiving the "will of belief" and recoiling from it.... Such an interesting perspective. It's absolutely true, and when you notice it in the right light, the most natural reaction is indeed to recoil.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Lacewing »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:37 pm Great post. Perceiving the "will of belief" and recoiling from it.... Such an interesting perspective. It's absolutely true, and when you notice it in the right light, the most natural reaction is indeed to recoil.
Thank you :)
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:41 pm You learned the vocabulary as an inextricable part of social life. This is true from earliest babyhood. Language and learning together are social and a major means of socialisation.
Language is social, learning not necessarily so. You must first find it valuable to know what others are saying, which isn't social, and then you can learn to lie, to manipulate, which isn't necessarily social either.
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:41 pm For example of the absurdity of ostensive language acquisition, the young child's parent does not point to his child's sister and repeat "sister" in the hope his infant will connect the symbol with the sibling and not unfortunately connect the pointing action with the parent's hand. No. What the normal parent does is use the word sister in a social context e.g. "Don't kick your sister" or "Your sister likes broccoli".
How would the infant know which verbal sound, "Don't" "kick" "your" or "sister" refers to their sister to then be able to refer to their sister when they aren't kicking her and when she isn't eating broccoli? For this theory to work, we would need to be exposed to every use of the word to be able to use the word only in those specific contexts and not new ones, but we know that we can. Context is not important, as I can talk about my trip to Paris when I'm not in Paris. I could be in a pool, climbing a mountain, sitting on my couch talking on the phone, and talk about my trip to Paris - no context necessary (except that I've actually been to Paris).

Actually, research has found that pointing and vocabulary are linked:
https://www.parents.com/baby/developmen ... ies-point/

In a computer language, you have to define variables to then perform functions with them. The variables are defined with strings or numbers, or even categories (arrays). This is equivalent to vocabulary in written/spoken languages. Grammar is the rules/functions that you can perform with the words. By learning the grammar you can then use your vocabulary to create new sentences without having been exposed to the context.
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:41 pm "Our minds create the world" is not the best way to explain the theory of absolute idealism. However I assure you that if you can be unremittingly sceptical you will arrive at that theory.
Absolute idealism = Solipsism, in which case there are no "other" minds. If your mind creates the world, does that no include the other minds?
Last edited by Trajk Logik on Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:48 pm
Trajk Logik wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:53 pm You know the symbols others are using because you went to school and learned English.
So what language were you speaking while you were learning English?
Part of learning/practicing a language is speaking it, so while learning English I was speaking English. If you wanted to know what language I spoke before learning written/spoken language, then my answer would be mentalese.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lang ... prTheoThou
Belinda
Posts: 8032
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Belinda »

Trajk Logic wrote:
How would the infant know which verbal sound, "Don't" "kick" "your" or "sister" refers to their sister to then be able to refer to their sister when they aren't kicking her and when she isn't eating broccoli? For this theory to work, we would need to be exposed to every use of the word to be able to use the word only in those specific contexts and not new ones, but we know that we can. Context is not important, as I can talk about my trip to Paris when I'm not in Paris. I could be in a pool, climbing a mountain, sitting on my couch talking on the phone, and talk about my trip to Paris - no context necessary (except that I've actually been to Paris).
If the mother behaved in the way you describe she would damage her child psychologically. This would be like the mother telling lies to her child.

When a young child starts to talk and sees a doggie for the very fist time and the adult who is with her say "That's a big doggie" the child (most of them are fascinated by dogs) gets the concept not quite right and may refer to cats and horses as doggies. Then the concept is refined as the child gets more concrete experiences of various animals.
The young child cannot at first form abstract concepts such as Paris. As time goes on and she learns what people say about the concept of Paris she forms her own concept of Paris whether or not she goes there. The social context is usually important for normal learners. It's matters who tells you and in what circumstances they inform you that Paris is great fun to explore.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Lacewing wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:31 pm Although I was raised to be a good little Christian girl from 5 to 16 years of age, I always saw and felt the 'will of belief' that was required and present all throughout the environment and people I knew... even from the beginning. It was not truly convincing to me, it seemed made-up, it didn't make sense, and at times it seemed less than divine.
So, it seems you were never fully in that paradigm. (And this is a kind of shorthand, 'belief system' might be better. 'Paradigm', I think, implies a well connected set of ideas. Belief system allows, I think, that this might be a mixed set of beliefs, not all of which necessarily fit together. Either way, it seems you were never fully in that set of beliefs. Which then raises the interesting question....What was your paradigm, belief system, when you were a child?)
I already had a sense of 'naturally belonging', from my earliest memories as a baby. I noticed that adults acted like everything was separate, but I somehow felt more connection than they did.
And here we have some kind of belief system, or attitude. Or a piece of one. You use words associated with feelings 'sense' and 'felt'. You 'noticed' which connected also to 'sense'. So, we might say that as a child you already had a non-verbal perceptoin or attitude. This might be seen as a kind of innate set of beliefs (for you, for us, for some people).

And this innate set of perceptions or core perception clashed with the belief system of the monotheists around you (and perhaps with any modern physicalists also you would encounter. Christians, for example, may seem like they have a belief system that is independent from modern secular (atheist tending) people. But actually they share a lot of common features. The latter group denies transcendence and is likely to be officially monist. But there are many things assumed by both groups, both being products of the mixed batch of Western monotheism mingling with Greek ideas. The latter group rejected a part of Abrahamist ideas, but still are birthed from the tradition.
I was more than ready for a shift as soon as I could realistically acknowledge one for myself. From 16 through 19, I went through a period of total rebellion to experience and explore everything I'd been denied.

Sex, drugs and rocks and roll, more or less, used as a kind of metaphor, or?
After surviving that, I settled down and began exploring alternative views of spirituality which I hadn't ever been exposed to. The broader view was making much more sense. I had developed a great filter for weeding out 'manmade stories'... so I did not subscribe to any new specific doctrine. Rather, I opened myself to what was natural and true in a larger cosmic sense, and I felt full of love in doing so.

Then I got married to a fellow cosmic explorer and we started tripping on LSD a lot. That further blew the doors off of the limitations I'd been taught about reality and life. It also deepened my experience of everything being connected. It was wonderful. I always had great trips. I realized I was more spiritual (naturally!) than I'd ever felt as a Christian.
Would it be fair to say that these experiences and your attitudes/beliefs could be batched under the term 'New Age'. This is not a specific set of beliefs and does not necessarily put any person or group in as authorities, but generally has some common traits, including the ones you had as a non-adult where you experienced something other than separation?
After leaving my 5 yr. marriage, I embarked on a wonderful exploration of life and various modalities using my own shifted perspective. Ever since, this paradigm shift has been amazing in breaking so many supposed rules and restrictions, and in experiencing such levels of joy! Despite my rowdy nature on this forum... challenging religion and its stories... I am a loving person who wants the best for everyone. I do not wish to scare people, or rip away their security blanket, I just want to challenge the intoxication and limitation that people have been convinced of. I see religion as a barrier to attaining broader views of love and spirituality. Religion is too limited and controlling, and it steals/distorts the capability for people to realize their natural essence and connection... for which no middle-men are needed. My hope is for people to step free of that if they too feel inspired to -- else, they can ignore me and keep doing whatever they feel content with. :)
and this makes me think the broad category of New Age might have been a good guess. I'm sure you've heard that term used. If it is off, could you explain how. What beliefs/attitudes, perhaps also experiences, do you have that fit and don't fit that category?
I think the potential of life and energy are continually changing and expanding, so having the capability to shift seems valuable.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Skepdick »

Trajk Logik wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:00 pm Part of learning/practicing a language is speaking it, so while learning English I was speaking English. If you wanted to know what language I spoke before learning written/spoken language, then my answer would be mentalese.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lang ... prTheoThou
Uhuh. And in what language did you learn mentalese?

Eliminativists are super-confused about this speak of "beliefs", "desires", "intentions" and "fears" etc...

Where did you learn those English words before you had learned English or mentalese?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:48 pm Trajk Logic wrote:
How would the infant know which verbal sound, "Don't" "kick" "your" or "sister" refers to their sister to then be able to refer to their sister when they aren't kicking her and when she isn't eating broccoli? For this theory to work, we would need to be exposed to every use of the word to be able to use the word only in those specific contexts and not new ones, but we know that we can. Context is not important, as I can talk about my trip to Paris when I'm not in Paris. I could be in a pool, climbing a mountain, sitting on my couch talking on the phone, and talk about my trip to Paris - no context necessary (except that I've actually been to Paris).
If the mother behaved in the way you describe she would damage her child psychologically. This would be like the mother telling lies to her child.
If the mother behaved in what way? I wasn't describing a mother in any way. I was asking how the infant could understand what the mother was saying just by saying "Don't kick your sister" or "Your sister likes broccoli"? How would the infant know which word refers to their sister? You seem to be saying that the infant will eventually pick it up, but that is inefficient.

As I already pointed out and you ignored, infants understand pointing by 12 months and pointing in linked with language use. It would be much more efficient to point to their sister and say, "sister", which then allows the infant to use the term to refer to their sister IN ANY CONTEXT. Please read my posts thoroughly before responding.

Here is a story about a man that didn't learn a language until he was an adult. Watch how he finally understands what the word, "cat" means.
https://vimeo.com/72072873

Notice how his instructor, Susan, said that at first he just copied her, not understanding. This is what you are proposing, that infants would just copy what we say without understanding what was said, or that anything was being said. For him to understand what "cat" means, he had to make the connection between the scribble and his own experience with a cat.
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:48 pm When a young child starts to talk and sees a doggie for the very fist time and the adult who is with her say "That's a big doggie" the child (most of them are fascinated by dogs) gets the concept not quite right and may refer to cats and horses as doggies. Then the concept is refined as the child gets more concrete experiences of various animals.
The young child cannot at first form abstract concepts such as Paris. As time goes on and she learns what people say about the concept of Paris she forms her own concept of Paris whether or not she goes there. The social context is usually important for normal learners. It's matters who tells you and in what circumstances they inform you that Paris is great fun to explore.
But why do that when the infant understands the concept of pointing at 12 months and you could just point to the dog and say, "doggie"? From there the infant could then use the term, "doggie" in any context involving a dog. Again, how does the infant know which one of the words you said ("That's", "a", "big" or "doggie") refers to the dog? Sure it would take time of several uses in many different contexts for them to eventually learn what "doggie" refers to. This isn't how our minds work though. Our minds work by way of categorization and causal references.

Take the game of chess. You don't need to learn all the different possible moves in chess. You learn the rules and then come up with strategies to win given the rules that you have. If what you said is true, then we could not learn chess by reading the rules. We'd have to watch chess players play the game and show us every possible move before we could perform the moves ourselves.
Last edited by Trajk Logik on Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:09 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:00 pm Part of learning/practicing a language is speaking it, so while learning English I was speaking English. If you wanted to know what language I spoke before learning written/spoken language, then my answer would be mentalese.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lang ... prTheoThou
Uhuh. And in what language did you learn mentalese?

Eliminativists are super-confused about this speak of "beliefs", "desires", "intentions" and "fears" etc...

Where did you learn those English words before you had learned English or mentalese?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism
You must have me confused with someone else as I'm not an eliminative materialist. What is a material anyway?

Mentalese is instinctive. Beliefs, desires, intentions and fears, etc are composed of mentalese. You don't need to know a language to think. You do need to think (mentalese) to learn a language. You need to be able to make distinctions between different words and what their relationship with the world is before you can use those words, and that is done by thinking/mentalese.

We can only think in visuals, sounds, feelings, tastes and smells. Words are composed of shapes and sounds, so to think in words is to think in shapes and sounds, which is what you've been doing since your birth. So thinking in a language is just you consolidating those various images, sounds, feelings, etc. under on symbol for efficiency.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Skepdick »

Trajk Logik wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:19 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:09 am
Trajk Logik wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:00 pm Part of learning/practicing a language is speaking it, so while learning English I was speaking English. If you wanted to know what language I spoke before learning written/spoken language, then my answer would be mentalese.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lang ... prTheoThou
Uhuh. And in what language did you learn mentalese?

Eliminativists are super-confused about this speak of "beliefs", "desires", "intentions" and "fears" etc...

Where did you learn those English words before you had learned English or mentalese?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism
You must have me confused with someone else as I'm not an eliminative materialist. What is a material anyway?
I didn't say you are an eliminative materialist. I merely pointed out that to an eliminative materialist your view (mentalese) is incoherent.
Trajk Logik wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:19 pm What is a material anyway?
It's just a colloquial figure of speech. It's what everything is made of. Nobody knows if it's actually true, but it's a simple and useful way to talk.

Care to tell us what "beliefs", "desires" , "intentions" and "fears are ?
Trajk Logik wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:19 pm Mentalese is instinctive.
What's an "instinct"?
Trajk Logik wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:19 pm Beliefs, desires, intentions and fears, etc are composed of mentalese.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So one mysterious phrase like "matter" is confusing but 4 of them like beliefs, desires, intentions and fears are a-OK ?!?
Trajk Logik wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:19 pm You don't need to know a language to think. You do need to think (mentalese) to learn a language.
What's "thinking" anyway?
Trajk Logik wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:19 pm You need to be able to make distinctions between different words and what their relationship with the world is before you can use those words, and that is done by thinking/mentalese.
So this is done by appealing to words like "thinking" and "mentalese". How do these words relate to the world?
Trajk Logik wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:19 pm We can only think in visuals, sounds, feelings, tastes and smells. Words are composed of shapes and sounds, so to think in words is to think in shapes and sounds, which is what you've been doing since your birth. So thinking in a language is just you consolidating those various images, sounds, feelings, etc. under on symbol for efficiency.
This all sounds way too complicated for my simple brain.

I just express myself.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Lacewing »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:19 am
Lacewing wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:31 pm It was not truly convincing to me, it seemed made-up, it didn't make sense, and at times it seemed less than divine.
So, it seems you were never fully in that paradigm. (And this is a kind of shorthand, 'belief system' might be better. 'Paradigm', I think, implies a well connected set of ideas. Belief system allows, I think, that this might be a mixed set of beliefs, not all of which necessarily fit together. Either way, it seems you were never fully in that set of beliefs.
You might be right. There were times I think I somewhat convinced myself of it. I was immersed in it... going to church regularly 3 times every week... participating in all other church-related activities... and visiting elderly shut-ins with my Mother. Although I did not have a choice (as a child), my heart was open... and I wanted truth. I recognized similar effort being made by the adults. We were all good people doing the right things by the Bible, and yet I eventually learned that only a certain number of Christians would supposedly get into Heaven. What was the reason for that? There was so much that didn't make sense in the way it was interpreted and believed.

When I was 14 or so and visiting my Father in another state (as I had done since I was 7), our conversation turned to religion in a way it never had. He revealed to me that he had studied theology and he explained that there had been so much varied interpretation (and manipulation) of the Bible throughout history, that it really could not be a clear representation of what it was claimed to be. I respected my Dad. He was a no-nonsense, intelligent and good man. The fact that he knew more about the Bible's history than I did, and he didn't believe it, mattered to me and aligned with my questions about it.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:19 am Which then raises the interesting question....What was your paradigm, belief system, when you were a child?)
Honestly, I felt I was another part of nature. I was happiest in nature, playing with lizards and frogs and other forms of life, exploring wild places away from all the adults, and it felt like I belonged just as nature belonged. It didn't make sense that I would be condemned to a Hell for not believing in and worshipping a God of some sort... but I tried to do what I was taught.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:19 amAnd here we have some kind of belief system, or attitude. Or a piece of one. You use words associated with feelings 'sense' and 'felt'. You 'noticed' which connected also to 'sense'. So, we might say that as a child you already had a non-verbal perceptoin or attitude. This might be seen as a kind of innate set of beliefs (for you, for us, for some people).

And this innate set of perceptions or core perception clashed with the belief system of the monotheists around you (and perhaps with any modern physicalists also you would encounter. Christians, for example, may seem like they have a belief system that is independent from modern secular (atheist tending) people. But actually they share a lot of common features. The latter group denies transcendence and is likely to be officially monist. But there are many things assumed by both groups, both being products of the mixed batch of Western monotheism mingling with Greek ideas. The latter group rejected a part of Abrahamist ideas, but still are birthed from the tradition.
Yes. We are imprinted with beliefs that are handed down through the generations. But how distorted does all of that become in the process? Humankind evolves... we don't think or believe in the same ways as our ancestors, so it doesn't necessarily make sense to apply their beliefs to our world. Especially not at the expense of what feels innately true to us. Reverence should be given to those basic senses and feelings. Children are not faking it... they are in touch with the truth of their being. Adults who have lost touch with that, might then search for something to imprint as that. It's very weird. It seems to me that the truth of my being cannot be taught to me by anyone else, nor should it need to be. Rather, it's up to me to remain clear enough to see/hear/feel/know/use it. Of course, I might learn through or be inspired by others, but I do not need an interpreter or leader. That's just how it is for me... perhaps it is different for other people, although I don't know why it would be. Why wouldn't we be born into this world 'spiritually' complete?
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:19 am
I was more than ready for a shift as soon as I could realistically acknowledge one for myself. From 16 through 19, I went through a period of total rebellion to experience and explore everything I'd been denied.
Sex, drugs and rocks and roll, more or less, used as a kind of metaphor, or?
Yes... good times. Very alive and full of adventure -- qualities I have maintained with my attitude, but without all the sex and drugs (since my late 20's). :)
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:19 amWould it be fair to say that these experiences and your attitudes/beliefs could be batched under the term 'New Age'. This is not a specific set of beliefs and does not necessarily put any person or group in as authorities, but generally has some common traits, including the ones you had as a non-adult where you experienced something other than separation?
Hmm. My first reaction is to resist the classification/label of 'New Age' because there can be so much distortion and dismissal associated with it. But actually, yes, it probably fits in many ways. I certainly didn't know anything about that as a child -- but when I began exploring New Age ideas, they were speaking my innate language much more than Christianity had.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:19 amthis makes me think the broad category of New Age might have been a good guess. I'm sure you've heard that term used. If it is off, could you explain how. What beliefs/attitudes, perhaps also experiences, do you have that fit and don't fit that category?
I'm not interested in following anything. I don't think there are any specific rules or realities. I think everything is in motion, and potential is limitless in many ways. I'm focused on being guided/directed by my innate sense through each circumstance if not through each moment. And I am very grateful for all of it.

Thank you for the discussion. It's interesting to try to put these ideas and experiences into words.

What do you sense and use for yourself?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: How did you change paradigm?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Lacewing wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:01 pm You might be right.
And I'm not trying to convince you. More or less I paraphrase and categorize what other people write. To triangulate and then to put it in packets I find useful - for whatever it is I am doing here in this thread. So, if I seem off, I expect people to let me know.
There were times I think I somewhat convinced myself of it. I was immersed in it... going to church regularly 3 times every week... participating in all other church-related activities... and visiting elderly shut-ins with my Mother. Although I did not have a choice (as a child), my heart was open... and I wanted truth. I recognized similar effort being made by the adults. We were all good people doing the right things by the Bible, and yet I eventually learned that only a certain number of Christians would supposedly get into Heaven. What was the reason for that? There was so much that didn't make sense in the way it was interpreted and believed.
I think this is a key phenomenon and separates out people by how they respond. You have a belief system. Some parts seem good, others unpleasant but maybe right, others feel more questionable. At some point one's own emotional reaction becomes so strong or one decided to validate this.

I think there are people who as a rule will always shove that down and away. And this, of course, is not restricted to religions. It coult be that you support trans rights, but something about the way wokeness around this and gender is being presented in schools feels wrong. You can shove that down and support everything you are supposed to, or you can mull it, even bring it up - at your own risk - with others 'on your team'. So there are people who can take seriously their own reactions to messages/policies handed down from the authority and there are those who can't. And really there are all sorts of gradations and further one can be open to one's own reactions in some areas but not others. For some it leads to a break from the whole belief system. For some, they remain a half-outsider. Still in, but not agreeing on some core idea. (that can be very tough, especially these days as we head back into Medieval us/them categorizing).

When I was 14 or so and visiting my Father in another state (as I had done since I was 7), our conversation turned to religion in a way it never had. He revealed to me that he had studied theology and he explained that there had been so much varied interpretation (and manipulation) of the Bible throughout history, that it really could not be a clear representation of what it was claimed to be. I respected my Dad. He was a no-nonsense, intelligent and good man. The fact that he knew more about the Bible's history than I did, and he didn't believe it, mattered to me and aligned with my questions about it.
This can happen also. We encounter a counter-expert. And something about their views rings true.
Honestly, I felt I was another part of nature. I was happiest in nature, playing with lizards and frogs and other forms of life, exploring wild places away from all the adults, and it felt like I belonged just as nature belonged. It didn't make sense that I would be condemned to a Hell for not believing in and worshipping a God of some sort... but I tried to do what I was taught.
Did you actually conceive of it this way, the being another part of nature? Or is that how the adult sees what the young you was like?
Yes. We are imprinted with beliefs that are handed down through the generations. But how distorted does all of that become in the process? Humankind evolves... we don't think or believe in the same ways as our ancestors, so it doesn't necessarily make sense to apply their beliefs to our world. Especially not at the expense of what feels innately true to us. Reverence should be given to those basic senses and feelings. Children are not faking it... they are in touch with the truth of their being. Adults who have lost touch with that, might then search for something to imprint as that. It's very weird. It seems to me that the truth of my being cannot be taught to me by anyone else, nor should it need to be. Rather, it's up to me to remain clear enough to see/hear/feel/know/use it. Of course, I might learn through or be inspired by others, but I do not need an interpreter or leader. That's just how it is for me... perhaps it is different for other people, although I don't know why it would be. Why wouldn't we be born into this world 'spiritually' complete?
Children anthropomorphize. It is a kind of assumption out there, amongst non-spiritual, non-religious people that belief in God or spirts or something beyond or what gets classed as the supernatural or...(the list goes on) only arises from indoctrination. But that's just not true. There was a large study of this, which I can't find (just tried), that showed that children have this tendency.
Hmm. My first reaction is to resist the classification/label of 'New Age' because there can be so much distortion and dismissal associated with it.
Yes, I have judgments of much of what gets classed as New Age. At the same time, I have beliefs that also get categorized there.
But actually, yes, it probably fits in many ways. I certainly didn't know anything about that as a child -- but when I began exploring New Age ideas, they were speaking my innate language much more than Christianity had.
OK
Thank you for the discussion. It's interesting to try to put these ideas and experiences into words.
Great.
What do you sense and use for yourself?
I generally don't like to go into this in a philosophy forum. Once I start going into it, I am more or less making assertions about reality and then it's fair game to expect me to back this up. The problem being that words on a screen is certainly not my justification and it shouldn't be for others. My beliefs have built up over a long time (though perhaps with foundations similar to yours from childhood - I was sort of Christian, but never exposed in the way your were. My father was an atheist and my mother was a mystical agnostic (I know, that's an oxymoron, but it's an accurate desciption. I went to a Christian school for two years and loved chaple and stories and praying, but I was never really Christian). I loved nature and people. I anthropomorphized a lot and not just animals. But it took leaving home and coming into contact with a greater variety of people to start exploring experiences and ideas that were outside one of the two mainstreams around me in childhood: Abrahamis religion and secular science influenced worldviews.

I think the physicalist explanation of reality is very effective for some things, but is extremely limited. There's a kind of assumption in philosophy forums that if you can't convince others to believe something via rational (and even online) discussion, then you are irrational for believing it. That's just silly.
Post Reply