The Linguistic Quantum World
Every now and then I get pulled into the quagmire of thinking about thinking. I'm down there right now, flailing about in the muck, so I thought I would fling some of it at you guys.
The following is the line of thinking that got me here. What is a belief, and what is an attitude? Are they synonyms? Are they different aspects of the same thing? Are they completely different concepts? If they're concepts what do they represent? If they're different aspects of the same thing, what is that thing? If they're synonyms, what are they synonyms for? I'm mostly going to deal with belief in this post, but I'm throwing these questions up at the top because, again, they're the questions that got me to the point of making the post.
We receive language as a tool that we use to differentiate the undifferentiated raw data of experience [notice that the words "raw" and "data" used here are metaphors]. I want to understand my beliefs, so I use language to dissect my experience of believing [dissect, another metaphor].
Back to the original questions above. What is a belief? On the surface it appears to be a set of thoughts formed into words (or not) that signify something for me in my world. But I think this is just a surface level understanding. If I use language to dig around deeper into the cadaver of my thoughts, the knife eventually hits the operating table. I've cut through the whole thing. Belief is not a set of thoughts which are then represented by words. Belief is more fundamental than thought. Language, remember, is a tool. Beneath language, at the quantum level of experience, is something that exists in an undifferentiated form. This is belief. Belief is undifferentiated from reality down here. There is no "higher" reality in a spiritual sense, nor a "true" reality (in contrast to falsehood) in a logical sense, that exists "behind" or "beneath" my beliefs about reality. Belief is reality. There is no difference.
Edit: Be warned that there's a good chance I'll pull a newbie OP move and ghost this entire thread, i.e. not respond to anyone's replies. No guarantees either way. This is just word vomit and I'm not posting these thoughts with the intention of arguing a position.
The following is the line of thinking that got me here. What is a belief, and what is an attitude? Are they synonyms? Are they different aspects of the same thing? Are they completely different concepts? If they're concepts what do they represent? If they're different aspects of the same thing, what is that thing? If they're synonyms, what are they synonyms for? I'm mostly going to deal with belief in this post, but I'm throwing these questions up at the top because, again, they're the questions that got me to the point of making the post.
We receive language as a tool that we use to differentiate the undifferentiated raw data of experience [notice that the words "raw" and "data" used here are metaphors]. I want to understand my beliefs, so I use language to dissect my experience of believing [dissect, another metaphor].
Back to the original questions above. What is a belief? On the surface it appears to be a set of thoughts formed into words (or not) that signify something for me in my world. But I think this is just a surface level understanding. If I use language to dig around deeper into the cadaver of my thoughts, the knife eventually hits the operating table. I've cut through the whole thing. Belief is not a set of thoughts which are then represented by words. Belief is more fundamental than thought. Language, remember, is a tool. Beneath language, at the quantum level of experience, is something that exists in an undifferentiated form. This is belief. Belief is undifferentiated from reality down here. There is no "higher" reality in a spiritual sense, nor a "true" reality (in contrast to falsehood) in a logical sense, that exists "behind" or "beneath" my beliefs about reality. Belief is reality. There is no difference.
Edit: Be warned that there's a good chance I'll pull a newbie OP move and ghost this entire thread, i.e. not respond to anyone's replies. No guarantees either way. This is just word vomit and I'm not posting these thoughts with the intention of arguing a position.
Comments (53)
The problem with that is that you can obviously have false beliefs. We do it all the time. 'I believed she was faithful to me but now I find she's been cheating the whole time.' 'I believed when I finally cracked that password I'd get access to all those files, now I discover they've been individually encrypted'. 'Europeans believed that India lay on the far side of the Atlantic Ocean, but Columbus discovered otherwise'. Examples could be multiplied indefinitely. So I think it's plainly misleading to say that belief is reality. One's beliefs might be grounded in reality, but they're often not.
As for 'attitude', it's more wide-ranging, isn't it? Someone with a generally sceptical attitude has a certain mindset, we say - not gullible, prone to question, makes careful judgements. Belief may be part of it. Similar to 'disposition'.
What you believe may indeed be your reality, but it's possible to become unstuck.
I would have to agree. People can certainly live in a 'reality' of false beliefs and often do so and these can come crashing down.
Unstuck? Do you mean being stuck in the centre of belief and reality, or just in one of those two?
It's a good thing and a bad thing that "belief is reality" is false, to the extent that your reality conflicts with mine.
Beliefs certainly exist -- that is a piece of reality but not the same thing as reality.
How about "believing is seeing"? Some times we do not see reality because we do not believe that it is real; and visa versa, we see the non-existent because we believe it exists. Some see god's purposes in every bird song and car crash.
Okay, short attention span-friendly: a belief is a fiction (until corroborated by evidence) and an attitude is a strong feeling about a belief or an experience.
I think a distinction should be made between types of beliefs. The beliefs you're using as examples here are context-dependent and directly related to the world around us. What I'm trying to get at is fundamental belief, the beliefs that are the foundation of how each of us perceives and experiences the world. These are often not apparent to us (maybe more apparent to those of us who post on philosophy forums, true). They're beliefs about the self.
What do I believe about myself? untangling this question requires a lot of rigorous work and honesty. I am the window through which I experience the world; I am fundamental to the world I experience. So what I believe about myself does indeed create my world. These beliefs are more primary than even philosophical or religious beliefs; they underly them. One's philosophical positions are ultimately expressions of one's beliefs about oneself. Philosophical or religious beliefs are beliefs about the world, but beliefs about myself are the foundation on which these other beliefs are built. This is the sense in which I'm speaking when I say belief is reality. To be fair, it's a bit of a dramatic thing to say, maybe a bit of performance art. My fundamental beliefs about myself shape my reality. That could be another way of saying it.
Good. Nothing quite like a spew of thoughts about thinking, self and the world. Ideas not quite regurgitated (as in repetition without understanding) but bringing up swallowed food through one's throat.
Sometimes because the belly has had enough (over-thinking?) or something hasn't agreed with it (toxin).
Numerous causes. Pregnancy > sick > baby. A new thought bringing joy, pain or pleasure to the world.
So, thanks for flinging some our way. To re-digest? Ugh! To examine, yes! Why not infect us all...
The initial questions about synonyms/concepts of belief and attitude. Well, look no further than the online WordHippo Thesaurus. Simple. Pick your pleasing synonym from a list. As Concepts, then probably the SEP or similar.
Quoting Noble Dust
First thing, your thoughts are not dead. They are alive and kicking. Pinning them down can be a problem. Some strong 'believers' do indeed pin or spin dead dogma (assumed, absolute truth) - holding a strict, stuck attitude to life. Others have flexible opinions or are open to examine thoughts/attitudes.
The 'knife of language'. Hmmm. Ah. Now there's the thing...we can verily tie ourselves up in knots.
How blunt or sharp - what are we wielding it for? What t/issue to be cut up and forensically examined?
How many senses involved? Is it to improve our self-understanding or to argue with others about 'belief'.
Both and more. We can make or read poetry to 'dissect' or express...just one example. We can use words like 'The Linguistic Quantum World' to gain attention. What the actual hell...?
Cutting to the chase:
Quoting Noble Dust
What does the term 'quantum' mean? How does it relate to 'experience'? Mental meat? Physical heat? It seems to be the smallest, basic building block, have I got that right? Is it stable? I have no idea. Indeed, the whole thing is a mystery to me. Does it need to be seen to be believed?
Quoting Noble Dust
That could well be true. Just as the opposite. It works both ways. The world, your experience of it, can shape your attitude and beliefs...your current 'reality' can change...depending...
What are your fundamental beliefs about yourself? Thanks for voicing your thoughts :sparkle:
This is a very good question. Even more, if we are debating and sharing thoughts about belief and reality. I met some realists in this forum who only give reliability to those things that are seen. Well, I have a strong belief that ghosts exist, although I never saw any. But whenever I see a person who has already passed away in my dreams, I say I saw a ghost while dreaming. The reality and belief of some aspects of our lives where imagination, dream-like visions, or hallucinations are part of them make us sceptics.
But sometimes the rabbit doesn't come out of the hat. Yet I have a strong belief it will come out the next time. :smile:
:smile: I think that my almost throw-away line at the end of a paragraph [*] was inspired by BC's excellent post, ending:
Quoting BC
[* ] Quoting Amity
For me, the word 'quantum' doesn't mean anything much when it comes to experience. I'm posing that question to learn how @Noble Dust interprets it in terms of linguistics and life.
His 'Linguistic Quantum World' is a story of sorts.
How has he dis/connected the dots to satisfy his 'belief/s'?
Quoting Noble Dust
Where is 'down here'? Where your mind is?
Here, the beliefs about the self is particular to you and your experience, no? Are you trying to make this a general claim in the world of concepts?
Quoting Noble Dust
Im not sure that such a distinction between self and world can be made. Heidegger would argue that the self is projected back to itself from its world. That the self projects itself does not mean that this self exists first and then projects itself or not, but that the self constitutes itself in projecting itself from the world. And Kierkegaard said that the truth or falsity of an aspect of the world is subservient to how it matters to us. Kierkegaard perspective on objective truth may thus conflict in some measure with and .
There is also knowing. When looking at a sunset, I know that I see the colour red, I believe my seeing the colour red was caused by the sunset, I think that sunsets happen every day and I have a positive attitude towards them.
Knowing is more fundamental than believing, believing is more fundamental that thinking and thinking is more fundamental than having an attitude.
Quoting Joshs
Yes. I'm not sure that the distinction between beliefs is so clear-cut. I understand ND to mean that beliefs about the self are the foundation from which we relate our perception and world experience? There are many aspects to self which are not Either/Or.
Quoting Noble Dust
The different aspects of self are inter-related. For example, the physical, mental, spiritual, aesthetic, ethical and psychological. They can be broken down in bits for analytical or conceptual purposes. But as seems to be agreed, it is what matters to us that can make a difference in how the world is seen or interpreted. Perhaps our 'attitude' to events or others attitude towards us. The importance of making the best choice in any given situation. Our stories or narrative self can stem from - or be the source of - this attempt at understanding. Making the pieces fit the whole.
***
Quoting Joshs
I think this aligns with @Noble Dust's view of the importance of self? Knowing self as much as is possible. A basic core, and yet, a changing/changeable self.
***
Thanks for the quote. It comes from Rouse's paper 'Kierkegaard on Truth' - pp13-14 of the downloadable pdf. Here: https://www.academia.edu/30917243/Kierkegaard_on_Truth
Quoting Amity
Thank you for adding the link. Its a fascinating paper.
Yes, substantial and well-written. I've only had a skim through but worthy of a closer read, for sure! Thanks for introducing it. :sparkle:
Do you think each of them is dependent on each other, or should we look at them individually?
That belief ... merely is your ego masking oneself (i.e. being-in-the-world) an 'illusory separation' from the world (i.e. disembodiment fantasy). A psycho-sociological fiction.
Perhaps the following:
I know I see the colour red independently of any beliefs, thoughts or attitudes I may have towards sunsets.
I cannot have a belief about sunsets without having thoughts or attitudes towards them.
I cannot have a thought about sunsets without having an attitude towards them.
I cannot have an attitude towards sunsets without thinking about them, having beliefs about them or knowing about them.
I cannot have a thought about sunsets without having a belief in them or knowing about them.
I cannot have a belief about sunsets without knowing about them.
IE, I can know something like the colour red without having any beliefs, thoughts or attitudes towards it. But if I have a belief, thought or attitude towards something like a sunset, then I must know something about it.
When we 'drill down' from large objects to the sub-atomic, we end up in the spooky quantum world, about which I know nothing. I have heard it's weird. Something sort of vaguely kind of similar happens when we drill down from "apparent reality", the level where 'what is IS and what is not IS NOT", where my individual self is clearly me, where reality is as solid as bedrock, to your linguistic quantum world. There perception, belief, self, reality, meaning, and so on become slippery, We learn from brain science that our "self" is a fantasy created by the brain. Perceptions are often misleading; Reality is a bit rubbery; beliefs play an outsized role, and so on.
At this "quantum level" belief can seem to be reality. We seem to make our own world. It's all kind of spooky, a boggy swamp.
Were one to get stuck in this mire, one might be admitted to a psych ward, at least for observation and maybe for a prolonged stay.
Fortunately for most of us, and I'm looking at you, Noble Dust, we awake with a startled jerk from these reveries and it's back to what we call "the real world". The ground is solid again, the self isn't some hoax perpetrated by a batch of gray matter in our skulls, and god is in his heaven and all is right with the world, so to speak.
BUT such reveries can leave a lingering doubt about just how substantial the real world is. God damn it, I just spilled coffee all over my keyboard!!! Son of a bitch, the bread in the toaster just caught fire. Fuck! I just missed the bus, I'll miss the concert for which I paid $150, and there are no refunds. And it's starting to rain and my fancy leather shoes are getting wet!
Reality intervenes. The soaked keyboard really won't work. The toaster really is shot. Missed buses have real consequences. Rain can really ruin fancy shoes. Finding a hundred dollars isn't a good reality intervention. Losing a hundred dollars is.
First off, it's good to see you step out from the Shoutbox and toss us some meat to chew on. Also, I'd like to praise your use of the term "quantum" in the title, even though the content of the OP has nothing to do with physics. Everything is better, more interesting, when you bring quanta into it. I think it would be good if the forum required every OP to include "quantum" at least once. Now, down to business.
Quoting Noble Dust
My first thought was "no, of course they are not synonyms. I'll provide definitions and set ND straight," but then I went to the web:
Quoting Wikipedia - Belief
So, yes, I guess "belief" is a synonym for "attitude" or at least a type of attitude.
Quoting Noble Dust
To nit pick, processing data from our senses begins long (relatively - you know, milliseconds) before we get to the level of language. In my understanding, language comes along at the end of the production line to package up all the processing so we can tell ourselves and others what it means. I don't know if that makes a difference in the context of your OP.
Quoting Noble Dust
This gets a bit murky. In my understanding, truth is a factor that only applies to propositions, which are expressed in language. So, can you have a belief that is not expressed in words? I think maybe the answer is "no," but I'm not sure. Are you talking about something different from belief, different from truth? I think the answer to that is probably "yes."
Quoting Noble Dust
I teased you about "quantum" previously, but now I'll put the squeeze on you. If you mean "quantum" as a metaphor, ok, but you're opening the door for lots of confusion. If you mean it literally, you're just using the word wrong. As for "something that exists in an undifferentiated form", as I noted previously, that doesn't really exist. Differentiation starts right as signals enter our sense organs. Eyes, ears, noses, skin, and tongues are designed by evolution to sort, classify, and sometimes discard information from the input we get from the world. That processing continues at every step on every level of your nervous system.
So, no. Belief is not reality, at least not in the sense we usually use that word. We do not have access to unprocessed reality. Now we can argue about what we really mean by "reality." That's a common theme here on the forum, one that no one can ever agree on.
To stop picking nits, I do believe there is something - thought, emotion, even motivation to act - beneath language. I think, but I'm not sure, that we can access, experience that something. As you know, I am strongly attracted to the ideas expressed in the Tao Te Ching and other Taoist sources. As I understand it, gaining access to, becoming aware of, that pre-language aspect of our selves is the whole point.
Good OP. Thanks for the opportunity to pontificate.
I forgot this. You should be warned. I know where you live (Brooklyn), and I know what you look like (Casey Affleck with a beard). I'll just go to every hoity toity liquor store in Brooklyn and show them your picture. There couldn't be more than a couple thousand. I'm sure I can find you and give you a good talking to.
So, in order to believe that I dream of deceased relatives, I must first know that they are dead and that they are my relatives. It would be interesting to dream with a random, unknown person, and knowing he is dead later on, after dreaming. My mind would be dizzy from mixing 'knowing' ,belief and thinking.
The SEP article on Belief is fairly clear, I think.
An attitude is a mental state, e.g. hope, doubt, confidence, certainty etc.
A belief is an attitude about a proposition. It can be expressed in the form: S A that P
S is the individual having the mental state
A is the attitude
P is a sentence expressing a proposition
For example, when I believe that it rains, I'm feeling confident about the truth of the sentence 'it rains'. The belief is representational, it can be true or false, unlike experiencing the rain, which is a causal sensory interaction with the rain, not sentences.
I find it interesting, in light of your career as an engineer, that you question having beliefs that are not expressed in words. I often believe, and I'd say know things, without the belief being expressed in words. For me putting my beliefs into words is often obviously secondary to having the belief itself.
You mentioned once, funneling facts into your head and engineering solutions arising later as a result. If you don't mind me asking, were the results that arose from this process results in the form of words?
My stereotype of an engineer is someone who would think that beliefs have to be expressed in words. Be that as it may, for philosophers, beliefs are true or false and truth only applies to propositions which are necessarily expressed in words.
Quoting wonderer1
Not to be cute, but since saying things uses words, how can you say you know things that aren't expressed in words. That's a serious question.
Quoting wonderer1
Hey, no fair using my own previous arguments against me. But seriously, and as I already acknowledged - my understanding and experience is that
Quoting T Clark
And yes, the results that arise from this non-verbal processing are in words and I would call them, if not beliefs, at least conjectures or understandings. The truth, validity, and usefulness of those results can't be determined without further evaluation and justification, which takes place using words and numbers.
Well knowing something about an electronics design I'm considering is often for me a matter of pictures or maybe something somewhat analogous to videos. (Although probably better to just substitute the more ambiguous term "mental model" for "video", because I wouldn't say that it is literally like a video.)
In any case, saying I know something is a different matter than expressing what it is that I know. I'm not likely to be able to express my knowledge of something without resorting to words in a lot of cases. Though I imagine that in some cases I could communicate things in pictures and without resorting to words, if I were attempting to communicate with someone with relevant background knowledge, who was aware of the somewhat strange communication game being played.
In fact the video game Journey is an example of such a strange communication game, as it doesn't provide for language use between players, but it certainly allows for teaching aspects of Journey-world physics via a sort of monkey-see/monkey-do mechanism. It tends to involve a bit of repetitive doing, until the other player develops recognition of a pattern to what is going on in our interactions, and the other player realizes that they can do something that they didn't previously realize that they could do.
I gave a definition of "belief" in a previous post - "attitudes about the world which can be either true or false." You must be using a different definition, which makes fruitful discussion impossible. How can a picture or video be true or false?
Quoting wonderer1
I'm shaking my head. That doesn't make any sense to me. I can't imagine what kind of thing you might say. Please give me an example.
Quoting wonderer1
I never said you can't communicate without words.
Quoting wonderer1
I'd never heard of the game, which isn't surprising. I not a game-playing kind of person. I looked it up though. It looks interesting. I can't tell if it is relevant to our discussion.
As I said, we're using different definitions. Our posts aren't connecting with each other. It's probably not productive for us to continue.
If experiencing the rain is a casual sensory interaction with the rain, my belief cannot be false. There are some elements that exist for themselves and we interact with them, like rain in your example. I couldn't be mistaken when I believe it is raining because I heard thunder or I became wet in the street. So, the sentence 'it is raining outside!' is necessarily true when it is actually raining. It works like an axiom, right?
Otherwise, how can I experience the belief and the sentence separately?
I was thinking about a mental model of an electronic circuit, with "picture" or "video" being words used to try to roughly convey a sense of what it is like for me subjectively to consider such a mental model.
By "true" in this case I mean that my mental model has a correspondence (or isomorphism) with what is going on within the physical system being mentally modeled. That correspondence (or lack thereof in the case of my mental model being false) is not dependent on whether I have attempted to convey my mental model using language.
So, it's a different kind of 'reality' produced for what purpose? Not to show that language isn't required or that there is no attitude. Because the players must be involved and believe there is something of benefit within the game. They have a mental attitude, perhaps hope, as did the programmers. This intrigues me. A different way of connecting. A belief that it is possible - not a case of true or false as in a propositional belief. To be challenged by not an Either/Or - black and white attitude - but something new. It relates to a narrative of wonder and a 'journey' of self, along with others.
Quoting Wiki - Journey 2012 Video game [my bolds]
I love the emphasis on exploration rather than fighting. To connect. With minimal bias.
Philosophers have different approaches to 'Belief'. There is no one size fits all, as you might expect!
I've picked out one, using game-playing as an example:
Quoting Wiki Belief [my bolds]
In a way, we all play games as we interact with others. Verbal language usually the main element. But non-verbal can say just as much, if not more, if particularly sensitive to a frown or smile. Interpretations can be right, wrong or a mix.
The Journey uses music. Isn't that a kind of universal language?
Thanks for sharing :sparkle:
OK. This needs to be clarified. An explanation of what is meant by 'at the quantum level' might help. Unless it is simply a fanciful use of language...being creative...pulling readers in...
I don't know why the focus is solely on 'belief' as a building block of world experience, if that is what you mean? There is a lot of noise and confusion surrounding this. Including the 'self'. All at distracting complex language level. Apart from simple definitions but even they are contested. As is to be expected in philo.
There is more than 'belief' to consider. Why not put mind into neutral and listen to music. Or silence. Find peace there, away from the jungle of talking apes. Feel rather than think. For a moment. Just be. Isn't that the starting point?
Follow up to previous post: 'Is music a universal language?'. Why do some dislike songs, music with words? And can only bear to hear instrumentals, excluding the voice as instrument. Don't they like the human connections made - sometimes disturbing? Escape into a melody...emotion without verbals. A world of your own making or sensing.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201507/is-music-universal-language
Being quiet now. :sparkle:
Something Journey related I posted in another thread recently, that I think will give you a sense of how deeply affecting the game can be:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/924182
Why not? You can separate your belief from the fact that it rains by ignoring the fact, or by doubting or dismissing the splashing sounds of rain as "fake".
But you can't separate the splashing sounds of rain that you hear from your awareness of their presence (or whatever causes your awareness). Even if it's just water from a garden hose, or a stipulated hallucination, the experience is inseparable from the conditions from which it arises.
That's what makes illusions possible: you experience something but believe it's something else. It's the belief that goes wrong, while the experience is a fact that arises under whatever conditions that satisfy it
Quoting javi2541997
Because they are separate. Physically, the belief is a mental state, whereas the sentence is a string of symbols expressing a proposition. Logically, the belief is about the sentence.
So, because belief can lead to mistakes, I tend to have a distorted view of reality because what I believe when I experience rain is frequently wrong. But 'it rains' as a preposition is the truth. Therefore, the latter will help me see reality in a correct manner rather than through belief. Am I right, or am I missing something?
Quoting jkop
But if they are separate, why is belief about the sentence?
Before you were using a non-standard meaning for "belief." Now you're using a non-standard meaning for "truth." This is not just a nit-picky linguistic argument. As I understand it, the thought processes you and I are in disagreement about are different neurologically, psychologically, and philosophically.
Nuff said.
From 'belief can lead to mistakes', it doesn't follow a tendency to have a distorted view of reality, nor frequently wrong beliefs.
The sentence 'it rains' expresses a proposition. That alone doesn't make it true, nor does your belief. It needs justification. But also justified beliefs can lead to mistakes. Hence the classic definition: justified true belief.
I have no idea what you mean by a "correct manner" to see reality. Unlike beliefs which, indeed, can be more or less correct, any manner of seeing reality is correct. None of them could be incorrect, just like there is no correct manner for rain drops to fall. They fall exactly as they are under such and such conditions.
But if you assume that you never see reality, only your own representation of it, well... that will inevitably lead you to doubt whether your manner of seeing reality is correct.
I meant seeing reality in an objective way, because belief is subjective and we already discussed that it can lead me to error. Let's say I believe it is raining because it sounds like a splash on the ground, I hear thunders, etc. With the aim of being more sure about my belief that it is raining, I stick the TV on and the news says: It is raining heavily, so there is a big traffic jam in Madrid. What do I need more to not allow my beliefs to cheat me? The only correct manner to experience reality is using external factors.
Quoting jkop
No, I am not assuming anything. I actually wonder if there is a possibility to see the representation of reality without being cheated by my own beliefs.
Belief in scientific facts is not so subjective...
What is an example of an objective or subjective way of seeing reality? Perhaps a Sunday painter might try to depict an object in some "subjective" way of seeing it, like a drunken poet might think that reality looks more "subjective" through a foggy glass of beer? Others might look for "objective" ways of depicting things, e.g. photo realistically. But does reality look like a photo? Of course not. Would you be seeing reality in a more "objective" way if you could make reality look more like a high-definition photo? No, seeing reality is not like depicting reality.
There's something wrong with the idea that there are such ways of seeing reality. I think the root cause is the metaphorical idea that seeing things is like seeing a picture inside your head. But sensory experiences are not representations, they are presentations.
Quoting javi2541997
You assume that there exists such a thing as the representation of reality. I'd say that's what keeps you away from the possibility of seeing things as they are.
Imagine, what could such a representation look like? Is it flat or in 3D, does it contain all the visible colours and shapes all at once? No, the idea of seeing as representational is based on a simple but fatal misunderstanding of the nature of observation.
I'd have to say, that a more useful language for the companions is dancing. :grin:
OK. Well, I am waiting for our dance companion, Noble Dust, before I twirl one more circle.
Until then...
Chubby Checker - Let's Twist Again (lyrics)
And what about this belief of yours?
Thanks, and thanks for the reply. I'm not sure how much of it I'll get to.
Quoting T Clark
What I'm trying to get at is that what I'm calling "core beliefs" seem to exist in a pre-linguistic way. That's what I'm getting at with the idea of a "linguistic quantum world". It's admittedly a sloppy metaphor. I think there are layers to belief, and if you continue to strip them back, things do indeed get murky until you uncover something pretty raw in the core of your being. It's such a deeply private and personal concept that I literally cannot even attempt to describe with language what's there or what it is because it's most likely different for every person, and it's a place to which many people seem unwilling to go. Is this philosophy? I don't know.
Your post I quoted is a belief of yours. Is it subject to its own rules?
Quoting Noble Dust
Re - 'layers of belief' and 'stripping them back' to a 'raw' basic, sense of self in a 'core' being:
For you, this 'concept' is so deeply personal that words seem to fail you. However, as a concept there's plenty to be considered. I think you mean it is what we might discover about ourselves if we dig beyond the superficial. What is important to us in the attitude we take towards life and living. And that sometimes takes time and effort to work out. And not always reliable, given our usually subjective and already biased perspective. On TPF, there's plenty of theory and pontification to be challenged. What's important to me are the implications. The practical consequences. Do we walk the talk?
Here's one psychological approach which outlines, explains 3 layers of belief. Although separate, they are interconnected. They form a cognitive belief system which might help navigate life and situations arising:
'The cognitive-behavioural therapist understands how these three layers of cognition operate as a system and is skilled at discovering hidden or unconscious automatic thoughts, and intermediate and core beliefs. Only by being aware of the most deeply held beliefs, a person can start challenging those that are unrealistic and unhelpful.'
https://psychologytherapy.co.uk/blog/core-beliefs-and-attitudes-rules-and-assumptions-in-cognitive-behavioural-therapy-cbt/
***
So, we can all think of practical, perhaps spiritual, implications of holding certain ways of looking at life, can't we? Each appraised as being more helpful or beneficial to wellbeing. This 'judgement' can become part of our 'core' self. Our deepest values unchanging...until perhaps something happens to shake our very foundations....
In another thread I recently had a similar discussion where I got all hard-ass and philosophical about what a belief really is. Now I've started down that same path with you, but I'm not sure that is the right way to go about it. As I acknowledged in my previous post on this thread, I recognize layers of thought, consciousness, experience, or whatever you want to call it that come before language. That is at the heart of what the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu are about. Becoming aware of how this all fits together is why I am interested in philosophy.
Are you sure it wasn't this thread? :cool:
I'm old. You'll have to make allowances.