Well, perhaps you could define belief then, from your perspective.

A percept in which a notion, idea, concept or other is designated as fact or truth, without necessarily any relation to knowledge, data, experience or other.

Well, what would someone base belief on then outside of "knowledge, data, experience or other"? And how is "knowledge" defined?

If I give an example of something I believe in, say, a creator/god, whilst I may have never seen the creator with my human eyes, I believe in the creator because it makes sense for one thing (it stands to reason in my mind), and for another thing, there is "knowledge" or a knowing that comes from outside of myself and into myself. Something that does not correlate to anything physical like a piece of proof, but that "feels" right and as if I know it to be true.

An example of this is remembering a past life. If a human lived other lives at different or concurrent times, how would they know if they never saw that other life/body? Nor used any other physical sense to detect it? Yet there are many documented cases (with scientific-method applied) where small children remember their prior lives and the details they could in no possible way otherwise know, and which are then verified.

I myself have recalled pastlives with the aid of self-hypnosis (and spontaneous recall as well). And it is a matter of identifying with memory (which exists outside of the body) and bringing it into the brain. It feels like imagination because it is more similar to the process of imagination than remembering something that happened in the current lifetime. This is because memory of things from this lifetime have passed through one or more of the five sense and have left a chemical/physical trail in the brain - a pathway for retrieving or retracing the memory. It is the familiar route of remembering. But there is another way to get knowledge and that is through connection to the soul (higher self). This is also how I believe clairvoyance operates. The soul knows perhaps everything, certainly far more than the incarnate spirit.

Anyway, I bring this all up because belief can be based upon "knowledge" that is within the soul but that has laid no prior pathway through the physical brain. And this may not qualify as "knowledge" to someone who does not believe that memory and knowledge exists within the soul.

Another example of belief I have is in fairies, though I cannot say what fairies are exactly. I do believe in them, I have photographed what I know/believe to be fairies, and I have been educated on fairies, by fairies, whilst I was in an altered state of consciousness.

To sum up, IMO, belief is based on knowledge, and/or data and/or experience, but those things do not necessarily happen in this lifetime or with waking consciousness. I can't really think of an instance of belief where it isn't based on these things. Even a child who believes in Santa does so because they are told by their parents that Santa exists which constitutes data, and this is backed up by experience of sitting on Santa's lap and getting gifts.

For me, I actually believe in everything because I believe in infinity. The thing about belief is it can be malleable. You can add to it or take away from it as you go, but it provides a great base and lots of ladders to get you to other premises and ideas. Belief can be freedom from boundaries, which I should think appeals to you. And yet it does not, right?

There is difficulty in a reply due to a lack of differentiation of percepts/concepts.

The epistemological points are quite worthy I'd say.

I operate in freedom and without limit/boundary to answer the last query.

Thank you, Al.


Ok.



I mean no disrespect , but how?! How do you operate in freedom without limit/boundary? It seems like it would be chaos. And I realize that we are looping back on all this again. And I feel that you have tried to help me to figure this boundary-lessness out and learn it for myself, but I seem unable to grasp how you can operate without boundaries. I would truly like to though! Will you try to describe what that is like and give an example of how that works?

Well firstly I might point out that without limit/boundary does not imply one can walk through walls, as there are conditions that would ordinarily prevent this with basic physicality. This much is self evident. However I would not assume the "hard-reality" many might perceive and thus take to be true reality. That said, to clear what may be seen as the obvious and perhaps that already understood, to attempt to explain the limitlessness using an analogy may go like this: That understood, conceived of and received via another - a thought, notion, belief or other is simply placed upon the work-table so to speak. The work table in this analogy is the conscious understanding of all existence. Thus anything - any idea, concept or similar may be placed upon the table, rather than any rejection through perceptual bias for example. So the first point might be that everything may be considered, with the consideration for that which has yet to be considered also. The second point might be that nothing on the table is simply assumed to be an absolute truth.

The freedom aspect we will perhaps consider at a later point. There is still more to fit into the picture with regards to a relation between freedom and chaos.

On the limitlessness, you have mentioned/used the word "open" previously - I would say there is at least a parallel there in the understanding. Even if consciously unaware of what is being said here, perhaps like yourself one can still be "open" to a degree.

I will leave it there for now and let you contemplate if you choose.

WOW! I've been following his thread here and there and I must say both of you guys are impressive. The information that you share are mind boggling every time I think I get the gist of what is being said I'm lost again LOL!!! It seems that when I go AHA! two seconds later it's more like HUH? never the less I still love learning from you guys even though my mind can't contemplate what is being said .

Thanks for the feedback OQ! Your perspective on what we are discussing is valid. This discussion does seem to go back and forth where one minute it seems to make sense and the next it is confusing again.

I think that what we are doing here is trying to reconcile our belief systems in some way. Trying to see how the other sees and looking for overlap and common ground. By doing this, we can refine our view, test it against the new view, strengthen it in places, and lop off restructure bits that no longer seem as valid as before. IMO, this type of discussion is synergistic growth.



I know what you are saying here, Al. It is what you have been explaining to me all along about considering "things" without perceptual bias or rejection of ideas. And I think for the most part we are aligned.

I agree that everything should be considered, and that nothing is an absolute truth. However, I feel that having no bias is too hands-off. Perceptual bias can limit thinking, but is necessary in order to gain a foothold. In other words, you have to have a perspective (a limited/specific perspective), and judge to some degree, otherwise everything is meaningless. I guess it depends on whether or not you believe collecting knowledge is collecting meaning? Do you?

I don't think progress can be made without judgement. And that gets back to my belief that progress is what we are here to do -- it is divine will that we progress. So do you believe we are here to progress, or just to exist?

Also, I think it is possible to have a perspective (bias) and yet have a rule of thumb not to reject anything out-of-hand (to the best of one's human-limited ability). To consider all things possible. That's why I say I believe in everything. It is my way of saying that I do have a certain point of view, but I allow for everyone else's point of view as valid, in the very least, to them. And they are equal to me. So their view is a valid equal view (but not identical). Their view can only be viewed through my view (as my view is my identity), and as such, some views might be impossible for me to embrace or incorporate. But I still accept they exist as valid.

Knowledge collected provides meaning/understanding.



Why not both with a perpetual push/pull towards the former?


Ok.

Yes!