I've been enjoying the comments that have been left on my previous post, "Become your own weird religion of one." Thanks particularly to commenters "cc" and "Willie R."
You've made me think. About my own thinking. And wonder. About my own wondering.
In the post I said that I found it difficult to believe that I believe what I believe. That's true, but "cc" correctly noted there still is an illogical intuitive consistency in the weird stuff that courses through my psyche.
Yes, everyone holds irrational beliefs and most of us believe we're not irrational people, but no one can hold a belief that violates their sense of who they are.
We believe what serves our sense of identity, regardless of how mistaken we may be, so our beliefs are always consistent with some notion of who and what the believer is. If I believe the guru's words are The Truth, I know who I am and behave accordingly. Likewise when I know I can always be mistaken and deluded. Your beliefs, no matter how loony or lucid they may be, are consistent with a notion of yourself, so you can't hold a conflicting belief without changing your sense of yourself.
Nicely said. Definitely better said that how I said what I said. In fact, the comment above says what I meant to say better than I could have said it.
I didn't mean to imply that I'm amazed at the weird beliefs, assumptions, feelings, and what-not about reality that have taken up residence in my mind. After all, my mind is my brain in action, and I am nothing other than that.
So "cc" points out why a personal disorganized religon of one makes much more senseless sense than a public organized religion of many. As he said, there's no way my idiosyncratic weird beliefs can be at odds with my general sense of myself.
Thus I'm going to be more comfortable with my own Religion of One than a shared Religion of Many. Given that there is no demonstrable proof either is true, might as well go with what feels the best.
Regarding the comments of "Willie R.," as noted in a reply I enjoyed his reminiscing of psychedelic trips in the late 60's, when I also did my LSD/mescaline inspired delvings into the nature of reality. Here's some of what Willie R. had to say.
I used to drop a lot of acid in the late 60's/early 70's. During one of my earlier trips, I was a back seat passenger in my friend's vehicle - he was driving and his brother was riding shotgun. I had just come to realize a profoundly deep insight into the nature of Reality, and I wanted to tell my friend and his brother about it.
They were engaged in a conversation themselves, and would brook no interference despite my vocal supplications. By the time I finally gave up trying to solicit their attention, I had totally forgotten what I wanted to say to them. Then the further and more important insight into the nature of Reality hit me: they don't give a shit what's going on between my ears. Nor was I capable of giving a shit about what was going on between their ears.
I never forgot that realization. Even now, this very message flies in the face of that realization.
We all have a tendency to think that we know something that all others do not know, and that if they did know it, they would be all the better for it (or the worse for it, if that knowledge would make things difficult to accept).
I am smug and condescending when it comes to my beliefs. They work for me, and I know you, the reader, do not give a shit about that. In turn, I do not give a shit about what you think, either.
That's my religion, and mine alone.
Thanks for sharing those thoughts, Willie R.
They fit with what I said in my previous post, "I recommend keeping the farther reaches of your far-out Religion of One to yourself. After all, you have no reason to believe in your own craziness. So anyone else is going to be even more mystified by what transpires in the most mysterious regions of your psyche."
But talking about how difficult it is to talk about our unique Religon of One -- hey, go for it.
After all, we've got to talk about something, or this blog, or conversations of any sort, wouldn't be possible. I didn't mean to suggest that we all should go around with mute Buddha-smiles, merely lifting a flower when someone asks What do you believe?
That would be boring. I enjoy getting glimpses into the weird stuff other people believe. Of course, my own stuff doesn't seem at all weird to me, because it is mine.
we've got to talk about something, or this blog, or conversations of any sort, wouldn't be possible.
I come here to talk about how wrong-headed we can be because the only thing we're getting right so far is to get as far away from religion and spirituality as we can. That means being ever more conscious of how we're reacting, what we're thinking, and why, because looking at our behavior, it's clear we're groping in the dark and grasping at straws.
We don't need to talk about what we're good at it or how happy we are because that's a bore. We need to talk about how mistaken and deluded we can be because that's what needs attention. To me, this is being "positive" because it's realistic, practical, and more interesting than personal testimony or opinion.
Posted by: cc | August 25, 2013 at 08:50 PM
cc,
“... because the only thing we're getting right so far is to get as far away from religion and spirituality as we can.”
Very important sentence. That’s definitely what I am realizing in the last few months. With the aid of this blog. Thanks to all of you.
„We need to talk about how mistaken and deluded we can be because that's what needs attention. To me, this is being "positive" because it's realistic, practical, and more interesting than personal testimony or opinion.”
For me it is not enough to realize that we are mistaken and deluded and to talk about it, for that's what we will always be. We have to develop, make progress, and find new “solutions”, or better said: possibilities of new solutions, even knowing that these solutions are only further delusions.
Comunicating personal opinions I consider very important. The exchange of thoughts is the best tool to construct my mind. At every point of my life I need new perspectives.
Posted by: Sandra | August 25, 2013 at 11:12 PM
I must beg Blogger Brian's indulgence in allowing me to express, in flat contradiction to the rules of engagement associated with the current discussions, my most fundamental, private, and cherished belief: the experience of existence is exactly and precisely the same for everyone.
It is sort of a self-validating belief, because equivocation is not possible; the amusing aspect, for me, is that existence itself IS equivocation. Verbal communication is all about the reification of impossibility, as it were: we try to say what cannot be said, because existence has no identifiable, intrinsic characteristics that are in any way measurable. (note for cc: I am being preachy)
Alan Watts was one of my favorite philosophers. In one of his diatribes concerning the equivalence of all blatant opposites, he said that if you were to take a snapshot of the face of a person at the peak of the most intense sexual orgasm they ever experienced, and also took a snapshot of the face of the same person at the moment when they just smashed their thumbnail with a hammer due to an errant blow, in studying the pictures, you would not be able to correlate the pictures with the experience.
I am through waxing anecdotal for the time being.
Posted by: Willie R. | August 26, 2013 at 07:11 AM
For me it is not enough to realize that we are mistaken and deluded and to talk about it, for that's what we will always be. We have to develop, make progress, and find new “solutions”, or better said: possibilities of new solutions, even knowing that these solutions are only further delusions.
We can't predict the future, so no one can say with certainty that "we will always be" mistaken and delusional, or for that matter, that we will even exist as a species a year from now. Furthermore, no one can "develop, make progress, and find new solutions" without first finding out what one is doing wrong or neglecting to do in the first place.
Since you give great value to "personal opinions" and "the exchange of thoughts", my opinion is that you might scrutinize your own thoughts before offering them for exchange.
Posted by: cc | August 26, 2013 at 08:28 AM
cc,
thank you for answering. To scrutinize my thoughts I need the exchange with other people - or some reading, of course. I can't find out by myself that I am wrong without the help of another way of seeing or thinking. I don't know how an eremite is drawing his conclusions, as for my part, this doesn't work.
Posted by: Sandra | August 26, 2013 at 09:35 AM
Who we hold ourselves to be...is alas beholden to who we remember ourselves to be. Such a fragile line memory is... to reality. We are a composition delicately performed through the auspices of memory. Which can, and does, fail us.
A colleague of mine, a dear and delightful person passed away a year now...having suffered 4 years of Alzheimers. A brilliant statistician and armchair philosopher who could not remember anything in the end...not even his wife.
Posted by: Try Again | August 26, 2013 at 09:55 AM
I can't find out by myself that I am wrong without the help of another way of seeing or thinking.
You're incapable of seeing things "another way" without help or prompting from someone else only if you believe that to be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
Posted by: cc | August 26, 2013 at 10:56 AM
cc
are you joking?
Do you really think that there's no need for comunication, no need for other people's opinions, no need for exchange?
As for myself, I am glad to learn from other people's views. And in doing so I don't feel helpless.
Posted by: Sandra | August 26, 2013 at 03:00 PM
Do you really think that there's no need for comunication, no need for other people's opinions, no need for exchange?
Huh? We're communicating, aren't we? If I thought "that there's no need for communication" I wouldn't read this blog or submit comments to it.
As I advised earlier, give some thought to what you publish before pulling the trigger.
Posted by: cc | August 26, 2013 at 03:40 PM
I very much agree with cc on all points, especially cc's initial comment posted August 25 at 08:50 PM (see above).
On the other hand, Sandra wrote:
"We have to develop, make progress, and find new “solutions”, or [...] possibilities of new solutions, even knowing that these solutions are only further delusions."
That notion makes no sense to me.
First of all, there is no "have to". There is no necessity to "make progress and find new solutions", when you still don't understand your present wrong thinking. Progress and solutions you say? Solutions for what? Don't look for more until you have understood and corrected your previous mistakes.
And second, why would you want to merely replce one delusion, with yet another delusion? I mean, thats seems absurd.
So, like cc said, what is really needed here is that we simply begin to face up and admit the and come out of the delusions and wrong-headedness, the mistakes and myths of our past and present. This is all that is needed. We just need to free ourselves from out of the lies and myths that have trapped and blinded us for so long. To separate the false from the real, and vice versa.
As cc said. we simply need to start "being ever more conscious of how we're reacting, what we're thinking, and why". Yes indeed.
Why look elsewhere for new "solutions" etc, when you don't yet fully understand your previous and current wrong thinking, and the mistakes you have been stuck in?
So cc is quite right, imo.
For a bit of humor that I thought would be appropriate here, please watch and listen to this short video:
The Most Interesting Word in the English language:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyBap-T4ZDU
Posted by: tAo | August 26, 2013 at 05:48 PM
If you steal money to start a business, and become very rich in 30 years time, no matter how honest your are in those 30 years, your wealth is still built on immorality and dishonesty.
Same goes for ex-drugs-users:
The very first experience with the help of drugs, points you immediately in the wrong direction.
Even if the mis-direction is a tiny fraction of a degree, it will haunt you in 30 years time.
Posted by: Carl Botha | August 26, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Thank you tAo for explaining.
I think it's also a question of my bad english that I cannot express what I want to and on the other hand I don't always understand accurately what the dialogue partner wants to tell me.
I agree very much with this statement: “Why look elsewhere for new "solutions" etc, when you don't yet fully understand your previous and current wrong thinking, and the mistakes you have been stuck in?”
Anyhow,
when you say
“...what is really needed here is that we simply begin to face up and admit the and come out of the delusions and wrong-headedness, the mistakes and myths of our past and present. This is all that is needed.“
It’s not logical. If you think that you were wrong in the past/present, how can you be sure that you are right in the present/future? Maybe you just replace one mistake or myth with another?
Thats what I meant by replacing one delusion with another. How can I know if my “new view” is the better one, the right one?
Thx for the funny video.
Posted by: Sandra | August 26, 2013 at 11:44 PM
"It’s not logical."
That tells me that you still don't understand.
"If you think that you were wrong in the past/present, how can you be sure that you are right in the present/future?"
Again, its not about becoming more right, or changing your thinking into something more right... its simply about letting go of your wrong-thinking & wrong-believing.
Why do you feel that new more right-thinking must take the place of the old wrong-thinking? You seem to want to keep making the same mistake.
Why are you looking for some new and better and different thinking to replace the old wrong thinking? Just simply admit that your ideas are wrong, and stop trying to impose these (wrong) ideas and opinions upon reality.
"Maybe you just replace one mistake or myth with another?"
I am not advocating doing that... but it seems that is exactly what you keep desiring to do.
"How can I know if my “new view” is the better one, the right one?"
There is no "better one" or "right one". You simply need to abandon all views, old and new. All views are (intrinsically) wrong (wrong-thinking). Stop trying to find some final, true answer. Simply accept reality as it is. You will never resolve the mystery. Stop trying to arrive at some supposed right-thinking. No kind of thinking is right-thinking. All beliefs are wrong.
Posted by: tAo | August 27, 2013 at 03:11 AM
This conversation about looking for solutions before fully understanding the problem is a pet peeve of mine at work. The trend in the workplace is to cut off discussions of problems and only offer solutions. I find it very frustrating, not only when I am cut off from discussing problems but I don't feel engaged to offer opinions on others' solutions until I feel I understnad the problem. I know is sounds really obvious, but if you've not worked in this kind of environment you might be surprized. And then peoplemwonder why we are having the same problems over and over year after year.
Posted by: Skeptic | August 27, 2013 at 07:57 AM
If you think that you were wrong in the past/present, how can you be sure that you are right in the present/future? Maybe you just replace one mistake or myth with another?
When you realize you've made a mistake and you examine it to find out why you made it, you've learned something; you've become enlightened. But if you never look closely at your mistakes and erroneous behavior, and blame "ego" or whatever, you learn nothing and remain unenlightened.
You can't always know whether your response is appropriate or intelligent, but you can tell by its effects if it was not. That's how we learn. It's called trial and error. Your errors show you what not to do. But if you're less interested in what you're doing wrong than in maintaining high self-esteem by denying and downplaying your mistakes, you'll never learn, and you will "mistake one myth with another" for having never learned how to identify a myth in the first place.
Posted by: cc | August 27, 2013 at 09:13 AM
O yes, I think I've got it now (sorry I'm a bit slow on the uptake)
Your comments are precious.
This will be an endless and unsatisfactory story, if I continue in this manner, since there obviously is no truth to grasp. Everything is right and everything is wrong.
Posted by: Sandra | August 27, 2013 at 10:06 AM
I don't know if you noticed my misquoting of you, Sandra...
My mistake: "you will "mistake one myth with another" for having never learned how to identify a myth in the first place."
My correction/revision: "you will "replace one mistake or myth with another" for having never learned to identify and acknowledge them in the first place.
Posted by: cc | August 27, 2013 at 10:36 AM
there obviously is no truth to grasp. Everything is right and everything is wrong.
This is a self-cancelling conclusion. If there is "no truth to grasp", to say so is a lie.
There is much to grasp, but you're grasping at guru-speak to avoid learning.
Posted by: cc | August 27, 2013 at 10:58 AM
All views are (intrinsically) wrong (wrong-thinking. Stop trying to find some final, true answer. Simply accept reality as it is. You will never resolve the mystery. Stop trying to arrive at some supposed right-thinking. No kind of thinking is right-thinking. All beliefs are wrong.
Not true. A belief is provisionally valid until you can show, prove, demonstrate its invalidity. "Right" thinking is simply that which cannot be shown to be erroneous.
If there is a "final, true answer" it is that everything can be questioned and that final, true answers are questionable.
Your advice to "Simply accept reality as it is" is impossible to take. There's no way of knowing what reality is. We can only process the information our senses receive. It's all a matter of perception. The degree to which we're unacquainted with (and uninterested in) the many ways we can misunderstand our experience, is the measure of our delusion.
Posted by: cc | August 27, 2013 at 12:11 PM
"It's all a matter of perception."
So many ways of perceiving, everyone using many different processes of seeing and understanding the world and so-called reality.
Dictionary: "perception":
• the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses : the normal limits to human perception.
• the state of being or process of becoming aware of something in such a way : the perception of pain.
• a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression.
• intuitive understanding and insight.
• Psychology & Zoology: the neurophysiological processes, including memory, by which an organism becomes aware of and interprets external stimuli.
Posted by: just me | August 27, 2013 at 03:29 PM
cc you seem to be in a nit-picking frenzy lately. It seems that everyone on this blog is wrong apart from yourself.
There is no implication that tAo is defining what reality is in his comment. In fact, that is precisely his point; he's actually saying that reality is a mystery so there is no point in trying to reach a place of final resolution.
You're being pedantic about what may be simply errors of language or difficulties with expression. For instance when Sandra wrote: "there obviously is no truth to grasp. Everything is right and everything is wrong." I simply and intuitively read that to mean that everything is simply what it is - there's no ultimate right or wrong.
(Oh, and talking of pedantic; I'm sure that if anyone else here had written: "If there is a "final, true answer" it is that everything can be questioned and that final, true answers are questionable", you would have been the first to leap in and point out the self-contradiction built into the proposition.)
You seem to be in danger of turning into the blog pedant (every blog or forum has one) - waiting in the wings to analyse every nuance of every comment. I'm sure that it puts many people off commenting and may shut down the possibility of more varied discussions.
Posted by: Jon | August 27, 2013 at 03:36 PM
Jon,
Thanks for explaining (to cc) what I was trying to say in my comment. You are on target when you say "...what may be simply errors of language or difficulties with expression".
When I read cc's reply, I too immediately felt that cc was being unecessarily pedantic, and thus cc was/is more or less missing my point.
And yes Jon, I was not at all defining what is reality, I was simply attempting to point out that trying to nail down 'reality' is futile (imo). I used the term "reality" to generally indicate the world (and all that comprises it) AS IT IS, rather than whatever we may think about it.
CC,
When I said "stop trying to find some final, true answer", it is indeed precisely because "final, true answers are questionable".
When I said "simply accept reality as it is", it is precisely because "there is no way of knowing what reality is".
When I said "no kind of thinking is right-thinking", what I meant is that mere thinking is unable to encompass reality, so it is not possible to arrive at some ultimate comprehension by means of thinking.
When I said "all beliefs are wrong", I was actually referring to more complex type of beliefs as in religion and philosophy etc.
I could go on, but I'm just not into belaboring the issue. At this point in my life, this sort of thing is not all that interesting to me. I was simply trying to offer some simple clarification to Sandra.
I was not into getting into some big serious nit-picking debate. So Jon is right.
However, some people seem to enjoy the challenge of argument and debate. Yet for me, its draining. And so this is precisely why nowadays, I tend to refrain from commenting on blogs.
Btw, I don't think we are in disagreement, I think it more that you just read (interpreted) me wrong. I do appreciate your wanting to question and scrutinize all assumptions.
Sandra,
It appears that you have now understood the gist of what I was trying to say. I hope it was helpful. And thanks for being so polite, I do appreciate it.
Posted by: tAo | August 27, 2013 at 08:15 PM
when Sandra wrote: "there obviously is no truth to grasp. Everything is right and everything is wrong." I simply and intuitively read that to mean that everything is simply what it is - there's no ultimate right or wrong.
That's a very liberal - if not charitable - interpretation.
You seem to be in danger of turning into the blog pedant (every blog or forum has one) - waiting in the wings to analyse every nuance of every comment. I'm sure that it puts many people off commenting and may shut down the possibility of more varied discussions.
It would seem that I am the "blog pedant", but if my pedantry discourages the incoherent babble of religious cranks that use this space as their pulpit, I may be performing a useful service. Then again, there may be more readers who'd rather read gibberish and drivel than what I have to say.
I always appreciate your comments, Jon, and that includes your criticism.
Posted by: cc | August 27, 2013 at 09:18 PM
In fact I was reflecting that it was better for me to shut up. It is tiresome and arduous to ponder every word before writing it down. I further came to the conclusion yesterday that it makes no difference - whatever I am writing, it will be corrected.
Posted by: Sandra | August 27, 2013 at 10:48 PM
I agree with Jon that cc's style of comment could potentially silence some good discussion on this blog, which would be a shame. Perhaps Brian could remind people about respectful posting. I'm sure everyone is capable if the odd overly passionate reaction to a comment or of being misinterpreted, but cc is getting rather predictable in a style of personal attack that is unnecessary. I apologize if this comment has the trappings of same.
Posted by: Skeptic | August 28, 2013 at 06:18 AM
I agree with Jon that cc's style of comment could potentially silence some good discussion on this blog, which would be a shame.
I'd rather be corrected than agreed with because agreement tells me nothing and a correction (when its correct) tells me what I'm doing wrong, and that's what I need to know.
Now that I've been notified that I'm correcting incorrectly, I stand corrected and I will take pains, henceforth, to make my corrections as painless as possible. If this is not enough of a self-correction, please forgive me for being incorrigible.
Posted by: cc | August 28, 2013 at 09:54 AM
I find it difficult to be a religion of one. Nearly all my thoughts are conclusions from external influences. Belief has so many meanings, but I think we are discussing our philosophies of life, reality and so on.
The religious beliefs we are discussing appear to be concerned with an effective understanding of ourselves in relation to our senses.
There are questions about who or what we really are, whether our sense of self is illusory, whether the conscious part of us persists and so on.
How to make sense of our senses? I think we have all considered many possibilities, and cannot reach the same conclusion. Even the so called physical reality, sense of morals, justice and personal freedoms and responsibilities are constantly debated.
If we cannot agree on what is plain to see, agreement about the metaphysical is likely to be difficult.
At some point, we all try to identify with one group or another. We seek 'like minds'. This seems perfectly reasonable. It would be unreasonable to agree with every aspect of these other groups. But somewhere, there will be someone who feels the way I do about x. Or y. Or both.
And when I find those people I contradict them at every opportunity. Because I am creative. Because I am me. But I'm getting pretty close to running out of ideas. I'm not sure that I even had many.
And there is the benediction. The realisation that I'm out of ideas. Haven't got a clue. Before this, I made bread and chopped wood. Now I chop wood and make bread. Is this enlightenment?
Posted by: Unusual Farmer | July 30, 2015 at 04:34 AM