UnbornTao

OK then, thanks. Surrendering one's fantasies is sobering, albeit a bit discouraging in the short term, too. That's the direction being pointed at.

Cats are superior beings.

I still think there's some resistance to acknowledging your experience as it is, but that's fine. Consider: Is that something you've heard and then adopted as true?

Yes. "Representing" is the key term here. Even if valid and accurate, that is what believing is about.

That could be the case. Is it entirely accurate, though? What is thinking? What is emotion?

You're right in that it might not be possible to entirely transcend the tendency, but a lot of progress can be made in that direction. No need for enlightenment in order to discard beliefs, I don't think. It probably helps, though. Tons of practices promote belief-interchange as the path towards what's true. They just don't realize it. But yes, I get your point. Definitely. I see openness and attachment to one's beliefs as mutually exclusive, in a way. As for the question above, for example, we might live as if life were somehow fundamentally unfair. And we might think this is true. How could this belief be recognized for what it is? Something to look into. And look at the resistance that might come up as a result of this confrontation, too.

Thanks for the encouraging words. And yes, check it out for yourself if interested. Probably the best quality of Pyrrhonism is its radical openness paired with a solid ability to think rigorously. As far as I'm aware, most other schools of thought start from too many presumptions. Presumptions are their place of origin whereas this kind of skepticism is aimed at reducing, stripping down, doubting.

Every form of elitism.

No cap. I don't know what that means.

Replace the sick man with Jeffrey Epstein.

The stories might be real, but I don't know. The oldest video is one month old. The entire channel smells a bit weird.

Thanks, GPT. Now provide a quesadilla recipe. There's really no problem with insight as long as it is real. Just make sure it is a true insight, not just a good idea, or something else entirely.

How much of that could be AI?

The compulsive habit or need to keep up with the news.

No, it's R. G. Bury's translation of Pyrrho's work. I wish I could write something like that - from that kind of thinking which is virtually non-existent - but I currently can't. Maybe the verb 'to finish' gave the wrong impression.

https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/s/CdwyII6d0i

This is a wise thing to keep in mind. You can have them - my suggestion would be to just recognize them for what they are (which unironically diminishes much of their power over us). No belief is true - consider this. Some can be valid, useful, functional.

That is not really the point. Believing is fine. The problem is mistaking it for the truth - which we do all the time - and not recognizing a belief for what it is. I'm not saying this effort is not deeply threatening to our sense of ourselves and the world. We'd rather accumulate more beliefs than discard them. Notice the inherent vulnerability in not believing anything, if such a state can be achieved, and to whatever degree we move toward it. The aim of this thread is to point out this need, too. And that analogy doesn't apply here. It could be used with models, meditation, theory, exercises, etc. - not belief. Belief would be like a rope tied to the boat, preventing it from moving toward the other shore. Notice the dynamic playing out as we speak. For example, the promise of any practice is inherently adopted and assumed on faith. There's a bunch of assumptions (belief) underlying that short statement. As you say, the bitch of this topic is finding out the ones we aren't aware of.

Amen! That occurs regardless, but there's a (subtle at times) difference between listening, and believing. The object of the belief isn't as relevant as the act and impulse to believe is - and of course this dynamic applies to this place too (hello ). This is why I created the thread, for the most part.

What do you mean? Expectation, in my view, is imagining the future turning out a certain way - conceiving of a particular scenario for the future.

The problem with 'where' is that it presupposes that the thing is already known, even if only to a degree. The experience of what something is is taken for granted. 'What' opens up our inquiry and helps clear out assumptions. Maybe it isn't physical or objective and so there's no location to it, even though a psychophysical process might well accompany the emotion. For example, did the melancholy start at the same time the song occurred? Did it stop when the song ended? This might suggest the song was not really the source, but perhaps a trigger. Can you recreate the same melancholy without the song playing? What if you listen to the song a hundred times? Does the feeling continue to come up? Just throwing some questions around.

Outlines of Pyrrhonism (have yet to finish it, though). Also, me no understand. Develop that kind of thinking.