Guest guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Hi Richard, First, belief needs to be defined. I use the dictionary definition. To argue about an undefined word is pointless. It remains that belief is acceptance of actuality without proof. In that, belief is an admission of ignorance, for knowing, or knowledge, is certainty which is proof. Evidence is only proof of itself. Enough evidence is proof. A claim that everything is a belief, immediately contradicts itself, for the claim purports to know this as fact, yet provides no proof - as is consistent with beliefs. The believer doesn't even know what he says he believes (that everything is a belief), yet expects others to accept his belief (that everything is a belief) as truth (known). That is, a believer just expects everyone to take his word for the truth. Those are the words used by religion, medicine, politics, criminals, con-men, spies, liars, and other fraudsters that take advantage of belief. A typical person is only one person of a species, a civilized one at that, and does not represent the full species. A civilized cooked food eater is the first to say they've always liked cooked food and forever will, despite the complaints of their non-thinking body parts. Their words are specious evidence. Anyone's words of liking the cold and snow, as evidence against their species' tropical nature, ring hollow against his/her and their species' nakedness at birth and through life, and against mountains of other evidence. More evidence is needed to prove the cold-weather nature of the species. The evidence is decidedly in favour of the species' tropical nature. Enough evidence for and only specious evidence against, is proof. I speak about the species when I say " dreams " . By its " dreams " , I mean its desires at its natural core of being, unfettered by the chains of civilized living, which cultivates specious thoughts. Belief is much about filtering reality, in civilized living. That's why it is important to avoid belief. A cliff doesn't care what a careless human believes or does. It is average for a civilized human to believe (which is called normal, for civilized humans). It is not normal or natural for a naturally behaving human species to believe in the manner civilized people do. They don't have to, just as all wild species do not have to. Wild animals act on instinct. Instinct is what is known by the senses, inborn or naturally learned from actual experience - knowledge. It's unfortunate that beliefs influence civilized behaviour, for civilized behaviour naturally creates reality, as all behaviours do. Beliefs may appear harmless at first, like belieiving in Santa Claus, but their harm comes in teaching people how to follow beliefs in dissonance with the other non-thinking senses. Trouble soon starts, like war, medicine, religion, politics, money making, labouring, eating cooked food, slavery, non sense-based spirituality (if it's based on belief, which it generally is), television, genocide, and a thousand other scourges of civilized living. What is known does not need to be believed in, for what is known is self-evident. Being subjective doesn't require one to believe. Subjective is to consider oneself. Objective is to consider something other than self. Both are best done with knowingness. Both can be done without belief. Know oneself, know others. Believe in yourself or others at your peril. No one can know everything, obviously. Most things are not needed to be known. What is pertinent is all that is needed to be known. Science is the systematic study of nature, by definition. The scientific method uses analytical systems to produce accurate, precise, and dependable knowledge. Science makes no guarantees when improper investigative techniques are used. There is nothing requiring belief, in these statements. The condescending tone is imagination, if that is what was imagined. I'm sincere, even as I may joke around, tease, test, humour, and ponder at times. I wish good, except when I don't. My fantasy is that the current world was perfect, but I first need to define perfect. I'll state that the world will be perfect when it is without civilization. Since I'm part of civilization and I'm dependent on it for my existence, I'm bound to go along with it. It is time well spent to practice thinking in logical, non-believing manners, especially for a civilized human that is dependent on reality for its healthy existence and yet spends such a inordinate amount of its life thinking in terms of beliefs and following them. What is required is that civilized humans give up their belief that civilization is natural and normal for the humans species. It's obvious that civilization has only been around recently and has been especially rapidly increasing for a few hundred years. Longevity in nature is about sustainability, which is zero average growth. Evolution means long term survivability, which necessarily includes sustainability. What is sustainable about uncontrolled growth in civilization? What is sustainable about civilization? Do we pull the wool over our eyes and call uncontrolled growth sustainable? Clearly, the only thing natural about civilization is that it is a natural disaster in motion. Think volcano, avalanche, landslide, tsunami, earthquake, forest fire, insect infestation, tornado, hurricane, and crustal shift, only in biological terms as a population explosion about halfway through its course. Respectfully, Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Hey Robert I define belief as what brings me joy. I find dictionary definitions are often lacking in depth. I could define it as " knowing " , however if it stops bringing me joy then I would want to change it. What I believe creates my reality and the facts and truths that I perceive to support it. So now you know my definition. I rather like this Abraham-Hicks quote: " Everything is valid and everything is truthful, because Law of Attraction lets everything be. The question is not whether it’s right or wrong, whether their approach is right or wrong or whether my approach is right or wrong. The question is, does their approach feel good to me? And if it doesn’t, then I choose a different approach. " In some ways, this feels like a very " tropical " approach to life! As a further example of this type of belief for clarity, I would quote again from the same source: " Befriending your body is the only way we know of coming to understand that your body is resilient and that it knows what to do, and that it will be whatever you ask it to be. But you have to ask it to be that in a place of nonresistance. It’s the most significant information that we have ever expressed relative to your physical body and food. You must love your body, and then lovingly give it the food. And when you love your body and lovingly give it the food, it matters not what food you give it. " As to the dreams, dreams of the species do not exist (unless you are speaking of archetypes), dreams of individuals do. By chunking up so much, you are missing the importance of individuals. You will find me in shorts and no shirt (or less if I can do it legally) happliy doing my thing at 60F. That some or many others of my species don't do this is no concern of mine, as my diet and my way of living is my business, and what such a nebulous entity such as " the species " does isn't my concern. However, I'm glad that you find such research to be stimulating I would also comment, that what humans do now is normal for them to do now, that prehistory does not constitute a golden standard of what man should do or be now, and that wild animals and pre-civilized man are not role models for humans today, particularly early humans with a life span of 20 years or so. It is quite obvious that the " human species " of today does not wish to act that way or they would do so. It has nothing to do with mass ignorance, illness, or some kind of misguidedness, it is what the human species has created. That you might wish to act that way is your perogative, and I salute you for your in-depth study of it. Persumably you will keep some of the trappings of civilization so that you can continue to share your findings. If you have a citation that proves what early man believed, it would be interesting to see it. It would seem to me that early man must have some beliefs in social structures that increase in complexity over time and in the resiliancy and adaptability of human beings, since that is what man ended up creating, and creating is an act of belief and will. I think that belief gives humans an edge over mere biological evolution. Good eating Richard -------------- Original message -------------- " Robert Rust " <rustrobert > > Hi Richard, > > First, belief needs to be defined. I use the dictionary definition. > To argue about an undefined word is pointless. > > It remains that belief is acceptance of actuality without proof. In > that, belief is an admission of ignorance, for knowing, or knowledge, > is certainty which is proof. Evidence is only proof of itself. > Enough evidence is proof. > > A claim that everything is a belief, immediately contradicts itself, > for the claim purports to know this as fact, yet provides no proof - > as is consistent with beliefs. The believer doesn't even know what he > says he believes (that everything is a belief), yet expects others to > accept his belief (that everything is a belief) as truth (known). > That is, a believer just expects everyone to take his word for the > truth. Those are the words used by religion, medicine, politics, > criminals, con-men, spies, liars, and other fraudsters that take > advantage of belief. > > A typical person is only one person of a species, a civilized one at > that, and does not represent the full species. A civilized cooked > food eater is the first to say they've always liked cooked food and > forever will, despite the complaints of their non-thinking body > parts. Their words are specious evidence. Anyone's words of liking > the cold and snow, as evidence against their species' tropical > nature, ring hollow against his/her and their species' nakedness at > birth and through life, and against mountains of other evidence. More > evidence is needed to prove the cold-weather nature of the species. > The evidence is decidedly in favour of the species' tropical nature. > Enough evidence for and only specious evidence against, is proof. > > I speak about the species when I say " dreams " . By its " dreams " , I > mean its desires at its natural core of being, unfettered by the > chains of civilized living, which cultivates specious thoughts. > > Belief is much about filtering reality, in civilized living. That's > why it is important to avoid belief. A cliff doesn't care what a > careless human believes or does. > > It is average for a civilized human to believe (which is called > normal, for civilized humans). It is not normal or natural for a > naturally behaving human species to believe in the manner civilized > people do. They don't have to, just as all wild species do not have > to. Wild animals act on instinct. Instinct is what is known by the > senses, inborn or naturally learned from actual experience - > knowledge. > > It's unfortunate that beliefs influence civilized behaviour, for > civilized behaviour naturally creates reality, as all behaviours do. > Beliefs may appear harmless at first, like belieiving in Santa Claus, > but their harm comes in teaching people how to follow beliefs in > dissonance with the other non-thinking senses. Trouble soon starts, > like war, medicine, religion, politics, money making, labouring, > eating cooked food, slavery, non sense-based spirituality (if it's > based on belief, which it generally is), television, genocide, and a > thousand other scourges of civilized living. > > What is known does not need to be believed in, for what is known is > self-evident. > > Being subjective doesn't require one to believe. Subjective is to > consider oneself. Objective is to consider something other than self. > Both are best done with knowingness. Both can be done without belief. > Know oneself, know others. Believe in yourself or others at your > peril. > > No one can know everything, obviously. Most things are not needed to > be known. What is pertinent is all that is needed to be known. > > Science is the systematic study of nature, by definition. > The scientific method uses analytical systems to produce accurate, > precise, and dependable knowledge. Science makes no guarantees when > improper investigative techniques are used. There is nothing > requiring belief, in these statements. > > The condescending tone is imagination, if that is what was > imagined. I'm sincere, even as I may joke around, tease, test, > humour, and ponder at times. I wish good, except when I don't. > > My fantasy is that the current world was perfect, but I first need to > define perfect. I'll state that the world will be perfect when it is > without civilization. Since I'm part of civilization and I'm > dependent on it for my existence, I'm bound to go along with it. > > It is time well spent to practice thinking in logical, non-believing > manners, especially for a civilized human that is dependent on > reality for its healthy existence and yet spends such a inordinate > amount of its life thinking in terms of beliefs and following them. > > What is required is that civilized humans give up their belief that > civilization is natural and normal for the humans species. It's > obvious that civilization has only been around recently and has been > especially rapidly increasing for a few hundred years. Longevity in > nature is about sustainability, which is zero average growth. > Evolution means long term survivability, which necessarily includes > sustainability. What is sustainable about uncontrolled growth in > civilization? What is sustainable about civilization? Do we pull the > wool over our eyes and call uncontrolled growth sustainable? > > Clearly, the only thing natural about civilization is that it is a > natural disaster in motion. Think volcano, avalanche, landslide, > tsunami, earthquake, forest fire, insect infestation, tornado, > hurricane, and crustal shift, only in biological terms as a > population explosion about halfway through its course. > > Respectfully, Robert > > > > > > Visit the Seattle Raw Foods Community: http://rawseattle.org > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 My fantasy is that the current world was perfect, but I first need to define perfect. I'll state that the world will be perfect when it is without civilization. Since I'm part of civilization and I'm dependent on it for my existence, I'm bound to go along with it. ***** Hmm, what a self-loathing statement. The world will be perfect when I and the rest of humanity are gone! Puritanism to the extreme. But no conditions need be placed on perfection. The world IS perfect, despite its many imperfections. Clearly, the only thing natural about civilization is that it is a natural disaster in motion. Think volcano, avalanche, landslide, tsunami, earthquake, forest fire, insect infestation, tornado, hurricane, and crustal shift, only in biological terms as a population explosion about halfway through its course. ***** Sheesh, wouldn't it be more fun to think Mozart, or at least Roy Orbison? Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.