My belief system

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: There is a difference between having a belief and asserting it as a truth. It would be wrong IMO to conflate the two...

Some interesting PM conversations to come out of this thread but I think this statement here is the defining quality that defines the true Jedi from the role player. As a Ranger it seems obvious to me that having a belief is asserting it as a truth, but many here seem to be able to divorce these two concepts. This allows them to exist in a fantasy existence and ignore the reality of their situation. Its a dangerous place to dwell because it encourages delusion and abandons the paramount skill of critical thinking that I feel all true jedi should embrace as thee highest form of interaction with our reality in a never ending search for truth.

In your opinion...

Tellahane wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: There is a difference between having a belief and asserting it as a truth. It would be wrong IMO to conflate the two...

Some interesting PM conversations to come out of this thread but I think this statement here is the defining quality that defines the true Jedi from the role player. As a Ranger it seems obvious to me that having a belief is asserting it as a truth, but many here seem to be able to divorce these two concepts. This allows them to exist in a fantasy existence and ignore the reality of their situation. Its a dangerous place to dwell because it encourages delusion and abandons the paramount skill of critical thinking that I feel all true jedi should embrace as thee highest form of interaction with our reality in a never ending search for truth.

In your opinion...

Have you been partaking of the 420 celebration?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Tellahane wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: There is a difference between having a belief and asserting it as a truth. It would be wrong IMO to conflate the two...

Some interesting PM conversations to come out of this thread but I think this statement here is the defining quality that defines the true Jedi from the role player. As a Ranger it seems obvious to me that having a belief is asserting it as a truth, but many here seem to be able to divorce these two concepts. This allows them to exist in a fantasy existence and ignore the reality of their situation. Its a dangerous place to dwell because it encourages delusion and abandons the paramount skill of critical thinking that I feel all true jedi should embrace as thee highest form of interaction with our reality in a never ending search for truth.

In your opinion...

Have you been partaking of the 420 celebration?

Nope don't drink don't smoke.

Tellahane wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Tellahane wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: There is a difference between having a belief and asserting it as a truth. It would be wrong IMO to conflate the two...

Some interesting PM conversations to come out of this thread but I think this statement here is the defining quality that defines the true Jedi from the role player. As a Ranger it seems obvious to me that having a belief is asserting it as a truth, but many here seem to be able to divorce these two concepts. This allows them to exist in a fantasy existence and ignore the reality of their situation. Its a dangerous place to dwell because it encourages delusion and abandons the paramount skill of critical thinking that I feel all true jedi should embrace as thee highest form of interaction with our reality in a never ending search for truth.

In your opinion...

Have you been partaking of the 420 celebration?

Nope don't drink don't smoke.

Ahh, well maybe you should try it sometime. In any case I see no relevance to your comment other than as a goad of my thoughts. Especially since I stated in my comments that "I feel". So what purpose is there to your comment in reply?

Tellahane wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: There is a difference between having a belief and asserting it as a truth. It would be wrong IMO to conflate the two...

Some interesting PM conversations to come out of this thread but I think this statement here is the defining quality that defines the true Jedi from the role player. As a Ranger it seems obvious to me that having a belief is asserting it as a truth, but many here seem to be able to divorce these two concepts. This allows them to exist in a fantasy existence and ignore the reality of their situation. Its a dangerous place to dwell because it encourages delusion and abandons the paramount skill of critical thinking that I feel all true jedi should embrace as thee highest form of interaction with our reality in a never ending search for truth.

In your opinion...

I'm not sure I can agree with what Kyrin said there either on an instinctive level. And I too have little in terms of substantive criticism against it.

Gisteron wrote: I'm not sure I can agree with what Kyrin said there either on an instinctive level. And I too have little in terms of substantive criticism against it.

Curious, why do you feel that? I would say that possessing a belief is accepting whatever that belief is as truth. This is not something we have control over. We cant choose what to believe. For instance one just cant decide to believe in God if they truly dont believe. And if one is truly convinced God exists that was not a choice either. However we can also convince ourselves we believe through things like faith. But this is an unreasonable means to arrive at that belief because it can be used to believe anything. So it must be abandoned and replaced with something that is reliable. I would say that most reliable mechanism is sceptical evaluation of evidence. And following evidence to truth is not a single act, it is a process that modifies us (our belief) over time. This is the only reliable means I can see to live a valid life. To shun this and stubbornly refuse to follow the process by ignoring evidence so one can continue to hold onto their unfounded belief (and its inseparable assertion of also unfounded truth) comes out of fear to abandon something that makes one feel safe or special in some way and this reduces one to a fantasy role player and not one that values actual truth.

I'm not sure I have or can articulate a case to that effect, but I think there may be a distinction worth making between thinking that a thing be true and being willing to assert that it is. Though often enough I do too make that mistake, I'm not comfortable with asserting things I am unwilling or unable to defend or at least somehow substantiate. It seems entirely possible to me that someone might believe something and yet avoid asserting it, say, if they understand that though they have been presented reason enough to convince them, they couldn't make enough of a case for it to anyone else.
Now one may argue that if one is unable to make a case before any third party, one may well for that reason not be rationally justified in believing the thing in question oneself. I am sympathetic to that position but I do not find it trivial. My point is that - barring arguments of this nature - it is by no means obvious that to think of a thing as true or accurate necessarily implies asserting it as such also.

So you are speaking of professing the belief verbally. What I'm really talking about is not only that, as in the case of this thread, but also a self assertion. So when it comes to the OP, that was a verbal (written) confession of belief. To believe something and to say you believe it is an assertion of its truth. However one can also believe something and never confess that belief except to ones self. This is also an assertion of truth although one carried out internally within the ones psyche. Would you agree? I see no means to seperate the belief in something from that beliefs assertion it is true in one of these forms.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: There is a difference between having a belief and asserting it as a truth. It would be wrong IMO to conflate the two...

Some interesting PM conversations to come out of this thread but I think this statement here is the defining quality that defines the true Jedi from the role player. As a Ranger it seems obvious to me that having a belief is asserting it as a truth, but many here seem to be able to divorce these two concepts. This allows them to exist in a fantasy existence and ignore the reality of their situation. Its a dangerous place to dwell because it encourages delusion and abandons the paramount skill of critical thinking that I feel all true jedi should embrace as thee highest form of interaction with our reality in a never ending search for truth.

Seems your not understanding any of my explanatory replies, which address this point. Again, it depends what the belief is representing. I'll take another leap since I'm so easily understood... and go straight to suggesting if any truth is misrepresented beyond its application then its likely to always become unstuck from the very parameters which define it as existing in anything beyond 'concept'. That is surely alone no reason to attack the 'mechanism' of belief, and the potential we have to generate positive outcomes from engineering it in effective ways!!?? That would be the very definition of mundane wouldn't it? Seemingly only done to stay safely anchored in the safe harbor of superficial semantic sidelines. I'd wager a genuine seeker will understand what I mean because they will have sought it out and have personal insight and experiences to reflect upon it... while someone who has not will be more likely to suffer being stuck in the closed set of their subjective experience of reality and any limitations they may have on their imaginations about its potential.

I'd rather suggest to attack it when its shown to be false in function rather then appearance. Though it should not be needed to attack anything because it would be self evident in terms understood by all parties at that point... but that requires an exploration of it and its application - to define how its meant to exist as truth. Non-judgmental curiosity and the other skills within intellectual humility. For that what I'm calling truth is not whether it represents objective reality in its most proper PC designator necessarily, but rather what its representations are trying to achieve. Most normally this is objective existence, but it need not be limited to that IMO. Otherwise its like just trying to force everyone to discuss science and history... which are great topics... but its not anyone place to force those things.

Here is an experiment to highlite my point. Watch a movie with the sound down so low you cannot hear the words, and invent a new dialog from the acting alone as you watch it. It's not the truth, what you believe to be happening, but it can be more fun then the actual script.

You just quite succinctly described the position of the role player, not only at this temple but in society in general. Nice job, however I chose to not be a role player, but a real participant.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: You just quite succinctly described the position of the role player, not only at this temple but in society in general. Nice job, however I chose to not be a role player, but a real participant.

Not at all, unless you can show me what you mean in the context of my post and its meaning? Which should be easy for you since you say its so succinct for you.

I'd actually struggle to classify my path as role playing... and an effort to do so would be a bit of a waste of my time, but feel free to have a crack.

14 pages later I find it ... odd ... discussing some one else’s beliefs. Anyhow, Leny C I look foward to more posts and seeing you in the forums. May the Force be with y’all.

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: 14 pages later I find it ... odd ... discussing some one else’s beliefs. Anyhow, Leny C I look foward to more posts and seeing you in the forums. May the Force be with y’all.

We are not discussing someone elses beliefs but the nature of belief in general and how it applies to reality.

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: 14 pages later I find it ... odd ... discussing some one else’s beliefs. Anyhow, Leny C I look foward to more posts and seeing you in the forums. May the Force be with y’all.

What's odd about it? Our own rules encourage members to debate ideas not personalities. Beliefs are ideas, and on a discussion forum where we openly admit to having syncretic origins it seems like quite a natural progression.

ren wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: 14 pages later I find it ... odd ... discussing some one else’s beliefs. Anyhow, Leny C I look foward to more posts and seeing you in the forums. May the Force be with y’all.

What's odd about it? Our own rules encourage members to debate ideas not personalities. Beliefs are ideas, and on a discussion forum where we openly admit to having syncretic origins it seems like quite a natural progression.

True
This IS a discussion forum.

I'm a little disappointed with some of the responses in this thread. I think at some point I tried to make the point how is Lenny's belief system different from others? The point of that question is that I think we all try to take some measures in limiting our criticism, especially of Abrahamic religions, in an effort to avoid unnecessary offense. Maybe it's because these religions are more "mainstream" and stranger ideas represent more "extreme" views. But why? Why do we not treat all religions equally? Shouldn't they be? Or is it because many people believe in them and thus, mob rule, creates the boundaries where we respect the belief simply because it is believed?

And at what point does the "poking and prodding" become a kind of religious persecution because I've been in many debates where people felt attacked for less. I simply wish there were rules when it comes specifically to debating someone's beliefs publicly. Like, if you're asking questions that's cool. But if people start jumping in stating facts against their beliefs I think the OP should have the opportunity to actually invite that type/level of scrutiny kind of like having consent before intercourse.

Because what's going to happen is the natural response to one set of beliefs being attacked is to question other people's beliefs. And I can tell you that major religions borrow from other cultures, embellish details, create false narratives, lie, etc. all in an effort to assert their own dominance. And believers do not question the historical authenticity for the most part. They simply believe. I remember talking to a Christian friend about Christians celebrating Christmas even though it is an obvious pagan holy day. I couldn't give justice to his response but in effect he said it didn't matter. HE... gave it the meaning that it needed to have... for him.

Without singling any out, MOST religions are guilty of whatever anyone might reasonably say about Lenny. Research? Most major religions are sourced from oral traditions, many of which can be proven false. Every believer believes they have the "truth". That's simply part of their belief. But how they use their belief can be positive or negative. I have yet to hear any argument about how Lenny's own belief is negative, just that people disagree on a factual basis. Okay. I also disagree with the bible on a factual basis and it's pretty easy to do so. But that's not why people believe in it.

People don't believe the bible because it proves it's entire account of past and future is accurate. They believe in the bible because they believe in God. And so by extension the bible gives them a STORY that connects them to God. A story. Do they care where God came from? How many people really even care what Jesus's name actually is? All these so-called "facts", at the end of the day, mostly don't matter because for believers it is all about the belief in something greater than themselves. It's all about the belief in God. And for Lenny... it's all about his belief in the Force.

The "system" part is simply the STORY that, for him, reinforces his belief. And that story inspires him just like the fictional SW universe inspires me. Judging Lenny would be like casting the first, second, and third stone at myself. I also believe in the Force. And if for this person the Force manifests as a dream and for that person it manifests as story and for someone else it manifests in the religion they grew up with... what difference does it make?

ren wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: 14 pages later I find it ... odd ... discussing some one else’s beliefs. Anyhow, Leny C I look foward to more posts and seeing you in the forums. May the Force be with y’all.

What's odd about it? Our own rules encourage members to debate ideas not personalities. Beliefs are ideas, and on a discussion forum where we openly admit to having syncretic origins it seems like quite a natural progression.

a belief is more than an idea. It is a held idea tied to our ego and the more we belief something the more that belief and idea become part of us. At that point, you are debating the person because we are a collection of memories and experiences, knowledge and beliefs. All these things combine to form our unique perspective. And that.... I think it what should be respected and treated accordingly.

ZealotX wrote: I'm a little disappointed with some of the responses in this thread. I think at some point I tried to make the point how is Lenny's belief system different from others? The point of that question is that I think we all try to take some measures in limiting our criticism, especially of Abrahamic religions, in an effort to avoid unnecessary offense. Maybe it's because these religions are more "mainstream" and stranger ideas represent more "extreme" views. But why? Why do we not treat all religions equally? Shouldn't they be? Or is it because many people believe in them and thus, mob rule, creates the boundaries where we respect the belief simply because it is believed?

And at what point does the "poking and prodding" become a kind of religious persecution because I've been in many debates where people felt attacked for less. I simply wish there were rules when it comes specifically to debating someone's beliefs publicly. Like, if you're asking questions that's cool. But if people start jumping in stating facts against their beliefs I think the OP should have the opportunity to actually invite that type/level of scrutiny kind of like having consent before intercourse.

Because what's going to happen is the natural response to one set of beliefs being attacked is to question other people's beliefs. And I can tell you that major religions borrow from other cultures, embellish details, create false narratives, lie, etc. all in an effort to assert their own dominance. And believers do not question the historical authenticity for the most part. They simply believe. I remember talking to a Christian friend about Christians celebrating Christmas even though it is an obvious pagan holy day. I couldn't give justice to his response but in effect he said it didn't matter. HE... gave it the meaning that it needed to have... for him.

Without singling any out, MOST religions are guilty of whatever anyone might reasonably say about Lenny. Research? Most major religions are sourced from oral traditions, many of which can be proven false. Every believer believes they have the "truth". That's simply part of their belief. But how they use their belief can be positive or negative. I have yet to hear any argument about how Lenny's own belief is negative, just that people disagree on a factual basis. Okay. I also disagree with the bible on a factual basis and it's pretty easy to do so. But that's not why people believe in it.

People don't believe the bible because it proves it's entire account of past and future is accurate. They believe in the bible because they believe in God. And so by extension the bible gives them a STORY that connects them to God. A story. Do they care where God came from? How many people really even care what Jesus's name actually is? All these so-called "facts", at the end of the day, mostly don't matter because for believers it is all about the belief in something greater than themselves. It's all about the belief in God. And for Lenny... it's all about his belief in the Force.

The "system" part is simply the STORY that, for him, reinforces his belief. And that story inspires him just like the fictional SW universe inspires me. Judging Lenny would be like casting the first, second, and third stone at myself. I also believe in the Force. And if for this person the Force manifests as a dream and for that person it manifests as story and for someone else it manifests in the religion they grew up with... what difference does it make?

It was posted in 'open discussions'. If it wasn't open for debate, it should not have been posted here.

ren wrote: It was posted in 'open discussions'. If it wasn't open for debate, it should not have been posted here.

By it, I assume you mean his belief system. But it wasn't posted as "let's discuss the truth and accuracy of everything I'm about to say because what I'm about to say is true". Debating the historical validity could have been viewed as off topic. If anything, I think the OP should get to control what he or she wants to discuss and what their thread is about. I'm not sure everyone is so informed about the implications of the term "open" discussion. Open Discussions can still have rules, protocol, guidelines, regulations just as we still expect folks to display manners, ethics, decorum. And I don't think one should suffer the consequences of posting on the "wrong forum" if indeed that's what happened.

At all times I think we should treat all members and visitors alike the same way we would want to be treated. Lenny did an admirable job keeping his cool and trying to respond to everyone but, being present from page 1, at some point it started looking more like target practice and we must always be mindful of our motives and act with humility and nobility. If one stops caring about the other person's feelings then what is the true reason for the continued discourse? I mean don't we want to encourage different perspectives, thoughts, ideas? Trying to kill them in infancy isn't exactly welcoming.