UnbornTao

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.

Good one! In other words, inquiry - or contemplation. The emotional component isn't necessary, though. Just the questioning. But if it helps, good. Thanks.

Now do the same with men.

Coffee culture Much of spirituality

Memes.

Consider that you might be believing things without acknowledging that you are.

I'm liking this! 'Where' might not be the best question to ask. 'What' is better, more open. What is an emotion? What occurs in your experience? What is melancholy? What do you "do" prior to feeling that way? You might think that hearing something made you feel a certain way - as if your state were dictated by an external factor - a melancholic song, in this case. Say the song was playing, but you were deaf. Now what? What does this suggest? Obviously, you first have to perceive something. Can the emotion be produced without the external stimulus - at will? If so, what does this possibility suggest relative to the source of emotion? This half-assed line of questioning can hopefully open some doors.

OK then.

Social media bios. The concept of selling oneself - as a "marketing" strategy - to get what you want.

Agree. In the way I'm using the term, not really. A discovery is by definition an encounter with the reality of something, whereas belief is basically a thought about the reality of something. Analogously, it would be like seeing Santa Claus yourself versus merely believing in his existence (sorry, kids). Hmm... this sounds good, and it smells like a belief itself at the same time. Just my intuition, I could be wrong.

Let's see how the situation plays out from now on. Hopefully, and naively, the transition occurs and goes smoothly.

Good news, everyone!

Good. Science doesn't demand belief (as much, perhaps), so in that sense, whether an experiment or discovery is factual is more relevant than whether we believe in it or not. Belief is - or should be, in theory - less present in scientific circles and methodologies. It could go much deeper than what initially comes to mind, though. What are belief and the act of believing? If you set aside any form of conjecture, assumption, hearsay, learned notion, belief - what's left in your experience relative to the nature of things? Nothing, most likely - this is virtually a universally-shared condition.

How so? Unless it were a religion, why would it have to involve belief if so-called existence is presumably what's being sought? Belief is antithetical to discovery.

I liked this. It's tricky because, even though we might be cognizant of this trap on some level, we can still be under the spell of beliefs. To be clear, I don't want to give the impression that believing is bad. Mistaking this activity for the truth is another thing - which is what we have to increasingly become aware of, if discovery and growth are our goal. What do I think is true that I haven't personally experienced?

Doubt that's entirely accurate. In any case, you'd be making the case for corruption in the simile above

(Misleading) Marketing is conformity, too. This reminds me of the whole-grain bread I used to buy at the supermarket. Reading the food labels on the back, I found out it was actually about fifty or sixty percent whole grain.