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.
