The Function Of Belief

[flowperson]

Hi Mark...I was thinking about posting an answer yesterday, but it was going to be a lot of work late in the day.

A very philosophical question. Good work. Yawn...maybe tomorrow good buddy.

Okay, you win. I'll take a quick try at it now. Since my array of beliefs is more or less in constant flux each day because of what I look at and retain, my identity is also not definite most days. I'm pretty sure that one reflects the state of the other, although individual identity paradigms change less often than belief paradigms in my case. It has to do with the flow and assimilation of information in my particular case. I'm one old fart that likes to remain mentally and spiritually flexible. I just feel better and my life flows more smoothly when I live that way.

flow....

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hey Mark,

Are you talking about religious belief, or generic belief? Because I could go eighteen different ways on this depending. Belief and one's sense of identity are inextricably tangled in my experience.

Chris

[Paladin]

I don't think there is really any difference between generic belief and religious belief, the process seems the same. However for the sake of argument lets use the term "world view" since that covers both religious and secular outlooks.

[China Cat Sunflower]

To start, I think that both belief (world view) and identity (one's self-perceived place within that world) are mechanisms by which an individual establishes and maintains a relationship with the larger group.

I tried to write about this in two separate posts, but wound up chasing my tail and unable to tie all the ends together. In both instances, after having written four or five paragraphs, I deleted what I had written. It's a good question, I just need to think about it some more.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Ah the silence speaks volumes!

Sorry, was away and missed the question.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Okay, new question: what is the connection between personal belief and identity?

Great question, Paladin!

Leads me to wonder if we should be ignoring the man behind the curtain, the "great and powerful OZ"...?

Personal belief and identity, the connection...

Am I (that is to say, do I identify with) my personal belief(s) of who I am? Or am I what others' believe me to be? Or some combination? Or am I way off base?

How much of our personality is innate (nature) and how much is learned (nurture)? I would guess the learned part pretty well equivocates with beliefs.

And then the question arises, beliefs in what? Self? Worldview? Self within worldview? Worldview surrounding self?

My short answer would be "yes," but there is a very sticky matter of degree that seems hard to cipher by shooting from the hip. Not to say it wouldn't be fun to try!

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Pontius!

Originally Posted by Pontius

I want to clarify the definition of belief. To separate it from ideas about what shapes the world around us e.g. "I believe the earth revolves around the sun".

Belief serves a very similar function whether that belief is a scientific belief or a religious belief (or superstitious belief, or whatever other belief might exist). What you are asking is to better serve one bias at the expense of the other...any way you care to cut it, it is an attempt to dismiss those that do not "believe" the same way...rather than trying to understand the function and purpose of belief as a whole.

Even atheists have to believe in something. I submit that scientific beliefs are as subject to fault and frivolity as any religious beliefs...

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I submit that scientific beliefs are as subject to fault and frivolity as any religious beliefs...

Even when, as in the vast majority of my own views, our belief is qualified by the scientific principle that it is only our best guess? Does belief have to be concrete? Or can it be fluid and flexible, adapting to change and circumstance. The trouble with basing belief on a very dubiously recorded history is that it produces a more or less static or entrenched set of beliefs. This is quite different from a genuinely scientifically defined system. True science is always questioning itself. Religion does not. In practice the difference may be subtle, but it is profound.

Tao

[Paladin]

The implications of the question are indeed many as all of you have pointed out. Chris seems to have a really neat angle on the sociological aspect while juan wrestles with the layers involved in the intrapersonal aspect. Tao, I think you crystalized the thing quite neatly when you ask if we can remain fluid. So, that being said, are we choosing and clinging on to beliefs so desperatley because they represent who we are? Is that why people become so entrenched in their beliefs that killing becomes an option rather than surrender their sense of self?

What happens if the sense of self is let go of? I think most would say we would slip quickly into madness and despair. But I tend to think that if this was done with full awareness of the implications it could lead to transendance, or to put it another way, a completley genuine relationship to actuality.

[Tao_Equus]

Put it this way, I would far rather my worldview was an honest and genuine effort to understand the actual truth of what is. This may deny me the security of a belief system that assures me everlasting life, that something is on my side, or that I am in any way shape or form important and have some deeper purpose in the scheme of things. But on the other side being sure you dont know anything is liberating. You do not have the headache of trying to wrestle the round objects of observation into the square hole of faith. If you know you can never be right then also you can never be wrong. This is comforting. It leaves you free to be just an observer. And as a neutral observer you can far more greatly appreciate the vast richness of all things.

Tao

[Paladin]

Wonderful Tao. But I suppose one would also note the subtle duality of even that position. Not that you personally are affected, but one could cultivate the "role" of observer which may entail a certain detatchment used to insulate one from actively engaging in life as it is. Again, I'm not thinking this is you but I suppose it could happen.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Does belief have to be concrete? Or can it be fluid and flexible, adapting to change and circumstance.

Good question. I don't have a ready answer, other than to say that beliefs can morph over time. Of course, I'm suggesting "fluid like glass" where you seem to be suggesting "fluid like water."

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

This is quite different from a genuinely scientifically defined system. True science is always questioning itself. Religion does not. In practice the difference may be subtle, but it is profound.

I would respectfully disagree. Any person truly of their own volition seeking the things of the spirit continually question themselves. At least I do. Although I do agree the difference is subtle and profound.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I would far rather my worldview was an honest and genuine effort to understand the actual truth of what is.

Fair enough, I do not doubt your sincerity. My pursuit is no less an honest and genuine effort to understand the actual truth of what is. The difference I see between us is the lens or paradigms we each use to describe that truth.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

But on the other side being sure you dont know anything is liberating. You do not have the headache of trying to wrestle the round objects of observation into the square hole of faith.

Agreed. I have no issues personally with the unknowing or uncertain mind, I lean in that direction myself.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

If you know you can never be right then also you can never be wrong.

Tao! This is so uncharacteristically illogical of you! And this lends itself to illustrate the underlying foundational beliefs we cling to *in spite of* whether or not they make "logical" sense.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

And as a neutral observer you can far more greatly appreciate the vast richness of all things.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Paladin

Tao, I think you crystalized the thing quite neatly when you ask if we can remain fluid.

Crystalized fluid...I love the metaphor!

Originally Posted by Paladin

So, that being said, are we choosing and clinging on to beliefs so desperatley because they represent who we are? Is that why people become so entrenched in their beliefs that killing becomes an option rather than surrender their sense of self?

Whoooooooeee! OK, now I think I get a little better handle on what you're after. Lawdy!

OK, what *are* we? A bone bag collection of minerals and water, proteins and DNA? Are we the cumulative collection of our mothers and fathers going back for aeons? Are we stardust, are we golden, are we billion year old carbon? Are we born to be who we are, and predestined (or perhaps predesigned?) to a specific role? What amount of leeway and influence can we individually exert against the cumulative weight of cultural, social and genetic baggage we are born to carry?

By "so entrenched in their beliefs that killing becomes an option" may I presume an exploration as to why humans are so ready to war? I suspect this is but one facet as to why. An important facet perhaps, but not the only one. War is in our DNA.

Perhaps "concrete" beliefs are as good an excuse as any to war, for some. Some will war at the drop of a hat. Others need a genuine excuse, like self-defense. I think the implication with concrete belief is that of projection onto others. Whereas what Tao and I suggest, and I know Paladin is familiar with as a bit more flexible belief, a forcible projection onto others is not necessary. That I would think is born more of experience with futility.

Perhaps I may differ with the two of you on this one point, that if I were faced with being forced by another, then I have no objections to meeting war with war. Defensive, not offensive. It is still war.

Originally Posted by Paladin

What happens if the sense of self is let go of? I think most would say we would slip quickly into madness and despair. But I tend to think that if this was done with full awareness of the implications it could lead to transendance, or to put it another way, a completley genuine relationship to actuality.

Good question. I'm not quite brave enough to try to find out, probably because I do think it would lead to madness *if* it could actually be accomplished (short of brain damage). I still sense an underlying foundation that we can't let go of without really, really upsetting our applecart. We can play around with all of the spurious and superfluous (fun!) stuff all day long, and morph and change over time. But that deep down central core that makes us who we are I don't think can truly be surrendered and remain physically and / or mentally healthy.

But then, at root this is about the Buddhist position of "no self," yes? No ego projection, which could possibly also be said as meekness, modesty and separation from the things of the world; yeah, I can see that. But no self as in no personality, no thought process, no guiding memetic paradigm; no, I don't see it as truly possible without adverse repercussion.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

OK, what *are* we? A bone bag collection of minerals and water, proteins and DNA? Are we the cumulative collection of our mothers and fathers going back for aeons? Are we stardust, are we golden, are we billion year old carbon? Are we born to be who we are, and predestined (or perhaps predesigned?) to a specific role? What amount of leeway and influence can we individually exert against the cumulative weight of cultural, social and genetic baggage we are born to carry?

By "so entrenched in their beliefs that killing becomes an option" may I presume an exploration as to why humans are so ready to war? I suspect this is but one facet as to why. An important facet perhaps, but not the only one. War is in our DNA.

Perhaps "concrete" beliefs are as good an excuse as any to war, for some. Some will war at the drop of a hat. Others need a genuine excuse, like self-defense. I think the implication with concrete belief is that of projection onto others. Whereas what Tao and I suggest, and I know Paladin is familiar with as a bit more flexible belief, a forcible projection onto others is not necessary. That I would think is born more of experience with futility.

Perhaps I may differ with the two of you on this one point, that if I were faced with being forced by another, then I have no objections to meeting war with war. Defensive, not offensive. It is still war.


Good question. I'm not quite brave enough to try to find out, probably because I do think it would lead to madness *if* it could actually be accomplished (short of brain damage). I still sense an underlying foundation that we can't let go of without really, really upsetting our applecart. We can play around with all of the spurious and superfluous (fun!) stuff all day long, and morph and change over time. But that deep down central core that makes us who we are I don't think can truly be surrendered and remain physically and / or mentally healthy.

But then, at root this is about the Buddhist position of "no self," yes? No ego projection, which could possibly also be said as meekness, modesty and separation from the things of the world; yeah, I can see that. But no self as in no personality, no thought process, no guiding memetic paradigm; no, I don't see it as truly possible without adverse repercussion.

Hi Juan,

I think you have a good handle on what it is I'm driving at here. If we are fully engaged in the brine of life we know what it is we are about. Rather than fall asleep and act merely as automotons reacting to our programs, chosen because they represent our desired image.
Letting go of self wouldn't entail becoming vacant, I think I agree with your point on the inherent nature, but we would know that we are acting out of a belief, a mental construct.
Here there is still a self, looking out at "the world". Still a dualistic nature of subject and object, it seems it cannot be avoided.

Now I'm not driving at the old idea of "oneness";that doesn't quite get it either because of the zen idea of not one-not two nicht wahr?

the human process and function facinates me because of all this. Rather than leading to despair or madness, the willingness to be aware of our self-delusion can give us a very rich experience, knowing we are characters in a story we constructed.

So then, do you want the red pill or the blue pill?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Paladin

If we are fully engaged in the brine of life we know what it is we are about. Rather than fall asleep and act merely as automotons reacting to our programs, chosen because they represent our desired image.
Letting go of self wouldn't entail becoming vacant, I think I agree with your point on the inherent nature, but we would know that we are acting out of a belief, a mental construct.
Here there is still a self, looking out at "the world". Still a dualistic nature of subject and object, it seems it cannot be avoided.

Now I'm not driving at the old idea of "oneness";that doesn't quite get it either because of the zen idea of not one-not two nicht wahr?

the human process and function facinates me because of all this. Rather than leading to despair or madness, the willingness to be aware of our self-delusion can give us a very rich experience, knowing we are characters in a story we constructed.

OK, somehow I have managed to lose myself in the semantics. This is why I find Buddhism frustratingly obtuse. I mean no disrespect, I simply don't get it, it just doesn't resonate.

Maybe I am too much of a black and white person (I really do try to compensate for this), but I am not understanding how "no self" can still be "self," but not really, but kinda sorta, depending on the situation. Only we don't call it "self," which doesn't really matter because we don't have one anyway, except when we do...

I promise, I am *not* trying to be difficult, but I have to ask what is meant by the terms "self," "identity," "ego" and "personal."

Can a person guide and direct their individual self to a minimalist level (I don't know if this is correct, but I think this is what was implied) in an effort to shed the burdens of the world? Yeah, sure, absolutely no problemo. To me that is a lifestyle choice and a little self discipline, stir it up and say the magic word and *poof*: Thoreau. I don't see that as shedding self. Shedding ego perhaps, self no.

I am open to correction.

Originally Posted by Paladin

So then, do you want the red pill or the blue pill?

Which one makes me larger? Which one makes me small? And would someone please point the way to the hooka smoking caterpiller?

[Paladin]

I take it you haven't seen the Matrix

Seriously Juan, no correction is needed, for there isn't any error. I really think deep down all of us understand actuality, we are just afraid to go there.