Boxing up varieties of belief

Most people don't like to be put in boxes. Meaning, categories. Hey, I'm an individual, unlike anyone else! we like to believe.

Fair enough.

But I see nothing wrong with putting how we believe into boxes. So I've done just that -- stimulated into belief-categorizing action by a question that's been running through my mind recently:

Why do some people's proclamations irritate or please me more than other proclamations?

I'm speaking generally here, about all sorts of utterances. Verbal sayings. Blog posts and comments. Books. Magazine articles. Any way that someone communicates a belief from their brain into mine.

Sometimes I get an instant emotional rush of What the @#$%&! as soon as I register a communication that rates high on my irritation scale. Other belief messages produce a pleasant smile, and not just because I agree with what I've heard.

So what's going on here? What are the varieties of belief that generate such different reactions in me?

Here's how I've put believing into boxes. (click to enlarge the image) This isn't terribly sophisticated, but it reflects the basics of how I see people -- me included, naturally -- and their beliefs.

First, I'm assuming that everything anyone is aware of, or communicates to others, is a belief. Meaning, it isn't 100%, guaranteed, no doubt about it, Truth with a capital "T." There's always a possibility of being wrong, or at least not totally correct.

For example, our basic assumptions about reality could be off-base. This could be a computer simulation. We all could be part of a dream. Or dead and in an afterlife that seems like living. Whatever.

Regardless, we feel like we know something about what's going on. That's a belief. Which we have some reasons for believing -- as shown on the "Good Reasons for Belief" heading. I've divided those reasons into just two categories: "Few" and "A Lot."

I could discuss what a good reason is. But I won't. I think most people know the difference between a good and bad reason for believing something. Evidence is key, just like in a trial.

However, some beliefs don't require evidence. Subjective opinion is a perfectly fine manner of believing. I don't need a reason for saying "I prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate." Or, "I can't stand to listen to rap music."

Recognizing that reason-light opinions of this sort are subjective, most people don't try to push them onto others. That's where my "Insistence on Belief" heading comes in: it divides beliefs into how strongly they're forced onto people who may not hold them.

If you don't have good reasons for a belief, as is the case with religions, yet you want it to be accepted by others, I call this a "Dogmatic Assertion." Take it or leave it; but you'd better take it.

On the other hand, well-founded beliefs that should be accepted by everyone are "Objective Facts." Like gravity and electromagnetism. Or 2 +2 = 4. Societies can't function without a general consensus about facts of this sort.

If you've got a lot of good reasons for believing something, yet you aren't out to push the belief onto other people, I call that a "Non-assertive Truth."

Examples: a talented musician who knows he can play the piano well, but doesn't rush to show off on every keyboard he comes across. Or a well-read person who could correct a misquote he hears in a conversation, but chooses to let the error go.

Here I've shown some typical language used by people operating in each belief box. Three of the four are rarely irritating.

The only one which is almost guaranteed to gall me, now that I've embraced churchlessness, is "Thou shalt..." -- frequently used by those who don't have good reasons for what they believe, but want other people to accept their beliefs nonetheless.

Lastly, this shows the types of people who frequent each category of belief. I had some trouble coming up with a term to put in the upper left corner. "Liker/disliker" is kind of lame. Suggestions welcomed.

Whatever this box is called, we all spend much time in it. Life is largely about liking and disliking, minimal reasons required.

Republican or Democrat. Football or baseball. Cats or dogs. Pickup or sports car. Blond or brunette. PBS or MTV. Christian or Buddhist. Vegetarian or meat-eater.

Make your choice. Feel free. Go for it.

Just don't claim that I need to follow in your footsteps, if all you've got is "I like" or "I dislike" to back you up. Reasons please! Good ones. If you don't have them, you're a fundamentalist who is wasting my time.

However, I'm always ready to listen to those in the "Scientist" category. I use this term loosely, meaning anyone whose beliefs are founded on solid evidence and experience. A dance instructor can be a scientist in this sense, because what they're teaching is demonstrably true.

I was thinking of "Humble sage" in a similarly broad sense. Many people know a lot yet don't broadcast it to the world. Content to tend a productive tasty garden, they don't feel a need to open up a vegetable stand.

Well, my goal here was to both better understand how I see different varieties of believing, and explain to myself and others why I react the way I do to people who come across as being in the various belief boxes.

Like I said, I rarely have a problem with anybody who isn't acting from the fundamentalist mindset. If someone says to me, "I love feeling that Jesus is by my side," I'll respond with "That's wonderful."

That statement doesn't need a reason. Love and feeling stand on their own. It's only when the sentiment is rephrased as "If you don't accept Jesus, you're headed to hell" that we have a problem.

Now you'd better come up with some damn good reasons why I should believe in my eternal damnation. So far, I haven't heard any.

Comments

[Roger]

Would "intuitional assertionist" work?

[Stuart Resnick]

> Sometimes I get an instant emotional rush
> of What the @#$%&! as soon as I register a
> communication that rates high on my
> irritation scale.

I get irritated when it seems like someone is STARTING with what they want to believe, then work backwards to find arguments to justify it... rather than starting at zero and deciding what to believe based on evidence.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

[Stuart Resnick]

> The only one which is almost guaranteed to
> gall me, now that I've embraced
> churchlessness, is "Thou shalt..." --
> frequently used by those who don't have
> good reasons for what they believe, but
> want other people to accept their beliefs
> nonetheless.

When I can remember that the "Thou shalt" people are dealing with their own insecurities, trying to bolster their own confidence by hoping others will support it... it gives me more compassion for them. It's very hard for me to remember this sometimes.

A buddy of mine with a less rational orientation looks at it this way. Say we go to a Sedona power vortex and feel a special rush of energy. I say that it's a psychological phenomenon, and someone else says it's simply "true." My buddy would say that we're both right, because if you believe in it, it's true for you; if you don't believe, then it's not.

I'm not suggesting that my friend's perspective is right or wrong, just putting it out there. (For the people who believe in a placebo, it really is effective medicine; for those who don't, it isn't.)

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

Hi Brian,

I went through some of your posts. I genuinely feel that you analyse everything too much. Haven't you ever felt that to realise the ultimate you need to give up all this analysis? What is the use of hair-splitting? If you have to go beyond the mind, don't you feel you have to stop thinking??

I assume you must have read "The Power of Now" by Eckhart Tolle.

You say -

Just don't claim that I need to follow in your footsteps, if all you've got is "I like" or "I dislike" to back you up. Reasons please! Good ones. If you don't have them, you're a fundamentalist who is wasting my time.

No one can give you reasons...good ones or bad ones...No one can sit and argue for years with you...No one will prove you the truth cause one who knows it won't waste time proving it to others...

I think of whatever I have read and practiced and felt so far....the crux is stillness...absolute stillness of the mind...
Since you write and analyse a lot...you seem to create a lot of noise in your head for yourself....don't you feel so?

Where do you think all this is going to lead you towards? All these blogs and so many discussions with each and every person?

Why don't you just give up over analaysis that leads to paralysis?

[Juan]

I enjoy a lot all his posts, and I think all his posts are marvellous.

What I understand from his posts is that he is awakening the mass (especially people like me).This is what his message is:

No one can give you reasons...good ones or bad ones...No one can sit and argue for years with you...No one will prove you the truth cause one who knows it won't waste time proving it to others......It is only you who has to find the truth, No Living Master, or God in Human form or any Religion or any Satguru or whatsoever it is, can lead you there.

[Stuart Resnick]

> I think of whatever I have read and
> practiced and felt so far....the crux is
> stillness...absolute stillness of the
> mind...

Extreme quiet and stillness is indeed Truth. And it can have medicinal value (removal of suffering) to sometimes practice putting down all thinking and returning to that emptiness for a while.

But Truth isn't limitted to stillness. Everything is Truth... everything you perceive, do, say, and think. Just as it's possible to get attached to names and forms, or to thinking... it's also possible to get attached to quiet and stillness.

That's why a Taoist teaching says, "The stillness that's found in stillness isn't true stillness. It's the stillness that's found in noice that's true stillness."

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm

[Rain]

Mostly I am fine with what anybody else believes as long as it doesn't hurt others or want to push it onto me.

As for analyzing too much, how does one write a blog without doing that?

Juan, Stuart,

> It is only you who has to find the truth, >
> "The stillness that's found in stillness > isn't true stillness. It's the stillness > that's found in noice that's true >stillness."
I am sorry but who told Brian this and how and why do you believe that? Did the above manifest in Brian's head suddenly 1 fine day when he was having coffee?

Sorry, but why do you believe Taoism??
Why do you believe in anything? For e.g. even in Spiritual Non-practice...

I am trying to understand...is believing and reading loads of literature of Taoism/Zen more credible than believing a living guru?

Who can validate Taoism? Who can validate anything?

So basically believing in anything is as crazy as believing in a Guru...isn't it...or maybe even worse??!!

To start practising anything without believing is just not possible..

You have to put faith in something to begin with!!

[tucson]

I agree with Juan, Stuart and Rain who reacted to the annonymous commenter above who crticized Brian's intellectualism. Brian is a big boy and doesn't need my help to address this, but that comment is purely judgemental from a realative pespective and incomplete knowledge of the person they are speaking of. In short, the writer is full of crap.

I know a little about Brian's lifestyle and he does meditate daily, practice Tai Chi, nature walks, even dancing, which all promote "stillness". He is aware of the benefits of stillness, but it is also his predilection to to think, question and conceptualize. Writng is personal expression for him in the same way an artist paints pictures. No doubt he enjoys the reactions he gets to his posts. It's entertainment, fun. This is his thing. No need to get on his case about it.

[Stuart Resnick]

> Sorry, but why do you believe Taoism??
> Why do you believe in anything?

I didn't say anything about believing in anything.

> To start practising anything without
> believing is just not possible..
> You have to put faith in something to
> begin with!!

Even if true, what's the relevence of such an assertion? For instance, maybe you started practicing because you held some belief. That doesn't mean you need to hold it now. You have a choice: to hold a belief, or to examine and question it along with everything else.

It's one thing to respond to the experience of this moment (when hungry, eat; when tired, sleep; when someone is suffering, help; etc etc). It's another to respond based on a belief you hold. Responding based on belief can be problematic, when the belief is static, and experience is always changing moment to moment.

Anyway, it does get overly theoretical to discuss this in terms of "belief" in general. What particular belief do you want to hold, and why? That can be interesting to examine.

(Of course I'm OK with anyone believing anything. But it can be helpful to question and examine alternatives.)

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm

[Brian]

Anonymous commenter, some thoughts.

First, you say that I should stop thinking. Yet you are obviously thinking, or you wouldn't be able to put ideas together in your comment. So it seems you believe that sometimes thinking is fine, and sometimes it isn't.

Where did you get the idea that I consider thinking is the way to understand the ultimate? I'm quite sure that I've never thought that, or said that. You're just assuming that.

What I said in this post is that if someone claims to know something, and wants other people to accept that claim, he or she needs good reasons. But I also said that it is possible to know something, and keep it to yourself.

I suspect that you feel this is how ultimate knowledge works: it is known directly by the knower and can't be communicated to anyone else. Fine, that's also what this post implies.

But you communicated thoughts to me. So if you possess ultimate knowledge yourself, clearly you're in the other category: someone who wants to convince others he or she is right. Well, keep trying. You haven't done it yet -- not for me, at least.

As another commenter (or more than one) said, it's deeply dualistic and divisive to put down thinking -- especially when you're using thoughts to do that.

I don't think all of the time. No one does. Much of my day, typically, is spent: walking in nature, doing Tai Chi, meditating, dancing, and such. These are thought-free moments, not totally, but they have a much different feel from the moments I sit down and write a blog post.

Why do I think and communicate my thoughts in my blogs? Because I like to do it (upper left hand box in my belief box model). That's the big reason, really. I just like to do it, just as I like to eat strawberries.

You have a lot of assumptions in your mind. Nothing wrong with that, but you should realize that what is true for you, or what makes sense to you, only applies to you -- unless you can offer up good reasons that convince other people.

I sense more than a little fundamentalism in your comment. You seem to want me, and others, to accept what you said even though you just put thoughts out as "thou shalt's."

Thou shalt not think more than I say you should.

Well, you're welcome to put forth that thought. Just don't expect that I'll take it seriously. I've never believed that thinking is inimical to consciousness raising, or whatever you want to call "enlightenment."

Evidently, every supposed great mystic or sage that the world is aware of engaged in thinking, or we wouldn't have any idea that they were great mystics or sages. Is it possible to function as a normal human being without the capacity to think?

I'm not aware that it is.

[manjit]

Anon. wrote "Who can validate Taoism? Who can validate anything?

So basically believing in anything is as crazy as believing in a Guru...isn't it...or maybe even worse??!!"

You are absolutely right! This is an astonishing insight you have revealed to us! Like At the dust of your lotus feet I shall eternally prostrate!

There is no external knowledge, or guru, or book, or heaven etc that needs to be either believed in or validated.

That you exist.....that there is an 'I AM' presence within; THAT is the entire 'practice' you need, from start to finish, birth to death.

Ask your-self if you need either to believe in it, or need it validating from book OR 'living master'.

I know I am just another 'Anon' poster on the www, a few lines on a screen. Perhaps slightly crazy, or a poseur....or perhaps just plain deluded. Not some elegant turbaned man sitting on a dais before a million devotees.........but, I can assure you of this Mr Anon......it doesn't matter which satguru you believe in, or what 'spiritual practice' you take, or which book you read, or whoever 'validates' it, if you are a satguru or a demon, if you abide in heaven or hell......you will never be away from or change this 'I AM' presence.

If you understood this sublimely simple truth, the search would immediately come to an end.....and you would laugh at the absurdity of all your travails.

And you would know bliss.

Peace.

[manjit]

Guru comes. Shaktipat or naam-daan or blessings or whatever are given. Deep meditation is undertaken. Vast vistas of ineffable beauty and intoxicating scenery of paradises open up inside.

Amazing stuff.

This way and that the mind is swept. Joy, elation, bliss etc etc. I'm too impatient to try and describe the indescribable, really. A million volumes of writing will not cover it.

BUT, the real ineffable mystery? That this ALL took place in I AM.

Amazing!

You tell me, where is there to go, what is there to do, and what guru is greater than this I AM, that can conjure up and destroy countless 'satgurus'? I have never seen a satguru where I AM was not....

Wonderful!

[tAo]

you're quite right manjit... i was just about to make a very similar comment. but you put it quite well. and just as you said, it really is all that simple.

now i don't know if that anonymous poster actually intended to mean this, or how profound it is, but it really doesn't matter now... because you saw it shining and picked it out of the mud, and then you put it up for all to see by.

jolly good show mate !!!

namaskar