GENIUS FORUMS

please make exceptions for my obvious stupity as i ask if anyone could explain or simply describe how it is one believes .
is there a process i am missing ? Please refrain from a faith based retort,as this simply takes one to the same inquiry,are people simply calling themselves "christians"for example,in order to create and belong?
If each of us merely labels "ourselves" into idea based catagories we can only differ,can we connect in the honesty of our complete lack of actual knowledge?

Every individual fact you hold to be true is a belief. The label is largely irrelevant, as there are "freethinking atheists" who are superstitious morons, "open-minded agnostics" who are indecisive and unphilosophical, etc.

The -ism should come at the end of the reasoning process. "I believe such-and-such, therefore I represent a given belief-set," is what a methodical thinker will decide. However, many people seem to have this strange desire to make it work the other way around: "I am a member of this belief-set, therefore I should believe such, and thus I will claim to believe such even if I don't."

dabs, my take on this would be thus...

If each of us merely labels "ourselves" into idea based catagories we can only differ,can we connect in the honesty of our complete lack of actual knowledge?

In which category would such an ‘actual knowledge’ fall into, that any of us might have a lack of thereof? The knowledge that we already have, through comparability that is, IS the only kind of knowledge that is open to us, (this/that, true/false, right/wrong etc. etc.,), and if there is any ‘actual knowledge’ beyond such comparability, then the moment we are aware of it, it becomes a comparable category (falls into the category of knowledge); until then, it can only be merely an assumption through possibilities and probabilities, which is also knowledge compared to we know from what we don’t.

Knowledge is revealed through comparability itself; one should not give up so easily. It is those that give up the pursuit due to intellectual tiredness, who will never realize that the pursuit itself is the destiny; no “actual knowledge” lies beyond that. In other words, the traveling is the destiny itself. So one should not give up, no matter what, and enjoy such pursuits in good intellectual health. Let ones knowledge expand through experiences; experiences that have no end to it, since there weren’t any beginnings to it at all to begin with, hence no inherent (non-dually independent) “ actual knowledge” to begin with either.

However, it is true that we should not get stuck with our own personal opinions, categories or experience-based knowledge, for each and every individual is a totally unique and different bundle of realizations, no more or less than another; The only exceptional quality that we all share is, experiences based on differentiations, and it makes no sense to fight over differences that are purely differences based on individual personal experiences. Certainties are but opinions based on personal experiences, but are certainly comparable certainties against that which is uncertain to a particular individual. Hence no Absolute Certainty could lie non-referentially. I am absolutely certain of that, referentially.

(Before someone asks “are YOU certain of THAT?” Yes I am; and how does it really matter to YOU?)

hey sapi, the "actual knowlege" i guess im referring to is the texture of "life" outside our own description of it. i take the points u made onboard,and i accept the argument ,"if it has characteristics then it is of the known".however the known is merely a description based on fragments garnished thru the "senses" ,mirrored against the same earlier retained.help me out here.

dabs

hey sapi, the "actual knowlege" i guess im referring to is the texture of "life" outside our own description of it.

HI!

I don’t see the possibility of “life’ beyond our description of it. Even science, today, says that “life” need not necessarily be carbon based; so what exactly are we talking about when we say “life” is the question? There can be absolutely nothing beyond our descriptions of it; if anything is, it is of no consequence or bares no relevance to our current experiences and knowledge thereof.

As I said, our knowledge expands with experiences, and all have not experienced all that there may be to experience. Once certain experience becomes more common, only then will it be accepted as factual knowledge or true. Until then, each individual is on his own. The confirmation of my “objectivity” comes to a degree from the agreement of two or more subjectivities; for example if more than two agree that red is red, then it is red, irrelevant of a fourth being colorblind; because we could never ever KNOW who really is colorblind; him or we three; because an external party who will confirm a third reality does not and cannot exist. The moment one confirms it otherwise, has to necessarily be within the system, and hence could not be relied upon as an ultimate arbitrator. Majority wins after all I’m afraid; at any point of commonly agreeable experience based knowledge. (logical conclusions through reason included)

Other than through comparable reference, no "colours" could exist, nor could "life" for that matter, so where can we exactly look for a real color beyond such a system? There isn’t any thing there non-referentially.

"if it has characteristics then it is of the known", however the known is merely a description based on fragments garnished thru the "senses", mirrored against the same earlier retained.

So? Descriptions change with experiences, with every fragment experienced, as compared to previous fragments. If I can’t trust my senses, then what can I actually trust? As if there is an alternative. If there is, I want to know.

help me out here.

I don’t really help as such, just discuss. Have self-confidence and don't ask for help. Only you can help yourself. It is your quest to know that may have led you here, and only that will lead you to whatever you want to find. I am but a fragment you came across, that's all.

please make exceptions for my obvious stupity as i ask if anyone could explain or simply describe how it is one believes .

the inyuition that compelleth belief through that which is experienced reacting,is the natural Belief and by its domination.everything has to associate itself by its definite emotion,put forth by those in harmony,those inharmonious losse cogency.thereby,belief is limited and determined for you.

is there a process i am missing ?

sometimes referred to as Know Thyself,the complexity of Belief that inquires.
the nature of belief equals all possibilities ultimately true by identification by culture to an idea of time, so what is not now(timely),is not true ,and what is not true,foreshowing.
thought of one thing implies another as oppossed to but not dissociated ,belief is making a conviction of "one".

Please refrain from a faith based retort,as this simply takes one to the same inquiry,are people simply calling themselves "christians"for example,in order to create and belong?

yes,it is far better to admit incapacity than reinforce it by faith,since the seemingly protects but does not change the vital.Idiotcy, and the well known methods of Governments to make bondages more secure.

If each of us merely labels "ourselves" into idea based catagories we can only differ,can we connect in the honesty of our complete lack of actual knowledge?

outside in Self,what is their to believe in?Self is the negation of completeness as reality.No one sees self any time.we are ever what we believe and what it implies by a process of time in the conception,by this bondage creation is caused.