Just Think . . .

Before you commit to a belief that will define you and what you'll allow yourself to perceive, please consider the idea that it may not mean only whatever you think. If you are incapable or unwilling to draw meaning from a story and view that meaning, your intelligence, truth itself, as something sacred, then anything you say about the sacred will be less meanignful, intelligent and true than you think.

What do you think?

 

I don't like it.

 

I don't get it.

 

I have better luck shaking my fist at those hoodlums outside my house

 

let's see .

commit to a belief that will define you ... and this belief -for example-
will not allow you to even look at , let alone pick up a hitchhiker .

and that adopted belief of self could be ? ... i am an institutional capitalist and to succeed completely i am diciplined completely .

a bit less diciplined believer drives by and the hitcher hears a passing
'get a job , bum' .

and then what ? the guy gets a ride 5 min. later from someone #3 with the same belief and politely listens to troubles he vaguely understands .

has this been some kind of zen puzzle ? just curious . will they all meet at the next mini-market for coffee ?

 

Confused about what you're saying.

So you're saying someone draws meaning from something, but perhaps the meaning they found was wrong. Then you're saying, "If you're incapable of drawing meaning..." But aren't you already talking about someone who drew meaning, albeit incorrect meaning?

I just think people aren't all dedicated to science. I don't think there's anything you can do about it.

 

I'm saying a couple of things. Don't mistake your belief for information. Recognize the meaning of ANY story is information.

 

I would say that the universe is made of information. There is information in belief.

 

Are you saying?;

Please know that just because you find something to be true, that does not make it fact, except in the sense that you believe it to be so. If you're unable or unwilling to perceive what is meant by something and have it contrast your own beliefs, what you believe to be true may be less truthful that you previously thought.

 

Almost. Belief and truth do not necessarily correspond. Belief does not define what is or is not true, and truth has little or no expression in countless beliefs. Ideally, one's beliefs would correspond with truth, but . . .

I think so. Simply put, truth is an ideal. Like any Ideal, Truth can, and does, take more forms than anyone is prepared to comprehend. Meaning itself is one of those forms. It doesn't necessarily have to be factual in any sense one is willing to acknowledge (i.e. historically, scientifically, artistically, etc.), but it certainly does exist for anyone who is capable of experiencing it.

To tell anyone that their experience does not exist, simply because you do not believe or experience it yourself, is to present yourself and your belief as less truthful than a simple, honest admission that you don't know what their experience actually is.

If truth matters to you, then you have to humbly acknowledge the fact that there are truths that exist outside of your experience. Some of them are well known to others.

This is true for everyone.

Peace and Love

 

The debate isn't about the sincerity of 'believers'.

Its about what it is they actually believe in, and what it is they actually experienced.

I could show you a card trick where I fool the audience. They think they've experienced
magic, but what did they really see?

They believe magic is possible, but is it because they understand magic?

 

Varuna:

But since it's true for everyone, then you have to also admit the sense in which there is no 'outside' experience. Unless of course you're not saying that truth is an ideal. lol

If we can manage to stop killing eachother, it won't matter either way!

 

Agreed

I think it's about the relationship between belief and truth. One would hope they correspond perfectly, but of course, I don't believe that's always true.

I know what you're saying. Despite the illusion, the truth is, the lovely assistant does not disappear. The audience does, however, experience inspiration, creativity, wonder, transcendence, etc. If that isn't magic, then what is?

 

There is an ultimate reality, who knows how much of it exists outside of my experience.

Why would I say anything like that? HAHAHAHA!!!

I hear ya, brother!

 

I'd also like to put this idea out there . . . Your sense of the sacred (yes, you DO have one) is not informed solely by your beliefs.

What do you think?

 

Varuna:

Well, you can, if you're willing to make it infinite, as opposed to 'ultimate'

 

Well that's just a mincing of words.

Inspiration, creativity, wonder, and transcendence. They are all wonderful
things, but why do they need to be made of magic to be wonderful? There is
nothing degrading about describing love or wonder as interacting neurons, or
x amount of hydrogen and carbon atoms breaking and bonding, because the
experience is the same, right?

I'm not trying to say people aren't inspired by deception. I just think its more
than enough to expose that their inspiration is in fact a product of deception.

 

I'm prepared to consider it. Perhaps all consideration is preparatory. Bring on the sacred I say!

 

Heeh! All words are minced about their meanings. It's how we each mean what we do by them lol. Varuna doesn't want to make the lovely assistant really disappear, that's got to count for something!

 

I would hope it's more than that.

They aren't made of magic. Magic is the art of the impossible, the illusion that alludes to an imagined reality beyond the possible. Inspiration, creativity, wonder, and transcendence are not made of magic. Each is a unique pattern of reality, its own form of expression. Each informs you that reality IS in fact, more than you believed it to be. These are not the same thing at all.

Belief (or disbelief) in what does not exist is not the same thing as the realization that there is existence beyond our beliefs.

It's not degrading, just incomplete. It's a reduction of reality to nothing more or less than physical composition. It is an oversimplification that misrepresents the whole. There is something essential left out of such a description. You could do the same with anything. Your favorite song could be described as a series of frequencies, but that description wouldn't say anything about what moves you.

I think the eternally recurring patterns of reality that exist between "things" are, arguably, at least as real as the things.

I think most people love the illusion. Knowing how it works is only one part of the experience.