Belief has nothing to do with fact or faith, it has to do with motivation.
Since my thoughts are so free loose and random, I decided to totally unstructure my thought process and randomly jump from topic to topic spontaneously. I radically shifted the way I feel because I bypassed logic and analysis and feeling and just went with deep instinct and my creativity. My positive mind came out, and I felt much better and free in a way I've never felt before. Logic is worthless here. I think this is a really worthy technique, I will be using it from now on. I realized belief has nothing to do with fact - it has to do with motivation - if I believe in myself I will change my perspective and have a chance at changing behavior; saying "I can do it" is not logical - it is emotional. It means I get that I may still not succeed but it shows I believe in myself (which means a whole mess of things, self worth, motivation, expectation, positive aspects not negative, not focusing on past, being strong, having self compassion, open mindedness, acceptance, etc..).
The caveat is you have to have memorized alot of things about yourself and life to do this fully. It isn't just random with out structure. It is logical in nature but more holistic in nature. Kind of like rolling a dice. Nonsense doesn't come out but there aren't always connections. It comes straight from the subconscious though which is why it cuts through so well. Yes you can logicize your emotions to sanity or do whatever but this is much more direct and effective. And it fits with the doctrine of non belief, or conditional belief. After all abstract logical truths by and large have little relevance to in the moment neurological motivation patterns in our awareness.
The caveat is you have to have memorized alot of things about yourself and life to do this fully. It isn't just random with out structure. It is logical in nature but more holistic in nature. Kind of like rolling a dice. Nonsense doesn't come out but there aren't always connections. It comes straight from the subconscious though which is why it cuts through so well. Yes you can logicize your emotions to sanity or do whatever but this is much more direct and effective. And it fits with the doctrine of non belief, or conditional belief. After all abstract logical truths by and large have little relevance to in the moment neurological motivation patterns in our awareness.
Comments (11)
Language needs to integrate/map new occurances in the real world(creative/analogical thinking) while maintaining a certain stability of words in order for them to be used as comunication tools(conservative/logical thinking).
Analogical thinking is characterized by creating a context/story that allows to link two concepts and /or integrate new concepts. F.e. Gold=yellow, Sun=yellow theerefore gold is/stands for the sun. Or gold=yellow, honey=yellow honey=liquid gold. Here the story is given via the same colour yellow.
Common form Poetry
Logical thinking is characterized by defining somethings and then deducing based on this definitions while maintaing formal correctness. F.e. Man defined as Mortal, Socrates defined as Man, ergo socrates is Mortal.
Common Form Scientific Paper
The balance of this varies from person to person, and within a person depending on circumstances like age.
The variance between persons can be seen via the political spectrum where the left is rather integrating and the right is rather conservative(Us political compas).
The variance within a person can be explained as follows. A joung child needs to still integrate more and has less concepts/words that are well established therefore it is rather open torwards new stuff (integrating) while the old person has used concepts that one got used to that helped surviving for a long time and therefore tries to rather conserve this seemingly good concepts. Thats why people start left and become more right during their life.
Quoting Nasir Shuja is a bit of a simplification. A big enough motivation to connect two concepts via a rather complex story/contex can be achieved for any two concepts. However one should be carefull with only focusing on motivation since reality tends not to bend torwards your motivation. But you aknowledge that. I also think it makes a hughe difference what the topic is and as long it is yourself I don't see to big of a problem.
:
Just bc I have logic doesn't mean I know how to use it or that it can solve my enotionem problems. I regard logic more as a loosely defined structure to ensure a relative efficacy of communication if yhe situation permits, not as a God. The truths of logic /math are eternally true, as are existential facts, but ultimately do those things resolve anything for me? I'll respond to your q about the problem of life here.. let's see what comes out..
Suffering and beauty are cyclical. Problematic. Existential meaning is relegated to the unknwn.
The arbitrarity of deontological moral good and evil. Problematic. Intention is what matters in communication for example. It is relegated to the unknown
Logical semantics is context derived. Problematic. Truth is relegated to the unknown.
The brain - what separates my body in the act of seeing from the object I am seeing and naming? Problematic. Metaphysics snd heirarchy of mind (what is a thought, what is a sensation) are relegated to the unknown.
Experiences that fall outside the range of predictive logical empiricisms. Problematic for causal and metaphysical theories. Causality (including/lumping in our relative perception of time, from the mystical to the simple theories of strings that haven't been verified yet - to take the inverse) is relegated to the unknown.
The nature of the subconscious. It influences us as if a machine, forming beliefs by virtue of past possibly deterministic experiences, in a chain onwards. Influences action problematically. Free will is relegated to the unknown.
So on and so forth.
There is a lot of unknown, a lot of fundamental mystery that all gets lumped together into a blob together. If anything this negstively derived mystery makes me see a lot of my life experience and desires and actions from a certain perspective - that they have to do with this slowly self revealing fundamental mystery which is not separate from life and the here now (samsara-nirvana non duality), but which is simultaneously beyond it (final liberation).
This has happened countless times brcsuse of some past trauma
I have a panic attack.
My thoughts go:
Too much torture
Why is this happening
Why is there so kuch suffering
Why does the beauty come do immensely and leave so soon snd leave me in another type of misery (love I mean, haven't been so successful there)
I try to stop my thoughts by logic.
My answer is I have no idea to any of the above points.
I see I don't know (basically anything), and that further scares me.
I see this is all caused by my thoughts.
Over s course of years they learn and fade.
Hence I integrate the problems of philosophy into my emotional subconscious because the panjc state is an existential crisis. But I also am able to see past it. Which is even more mysterious. I don't feel philosophy should be treated as an abstract game anymore.. we need to make it practical.
I'm primarily interested in philosophy in the vein of "I believe there is a refrigerator in my kitchen."
As an alternate methodological means (an alternate to science) of observing and analyzing the world, including us and our relationship with the rest of it.
I am never sure of what the speaker means when using those words...particularly the "I believe in..." format.
Here are several uses of the words that obviously have widely different meaning values.
"I believe in myself."
"I believe in God."
"I believe at least one god exists."
"I believe no gods exist."
"I believe I'll eat leftovers tonight."
Nasir, first of all, I find the first part of your essay title compelling...but the second part falls flat (for me.)
Okay...can't think of any reason to object to that observation.
Does it?
I guess it depends on how you are using the word "belief."
Your "I believe in myself" (you used it a couple of times) is unclear to me.
Can you help me with that?