The rationalization of our own Belief Systems

Is that not innate instinct?

JLNobody:
After posting my reply to you I noted that cicerone imposter was there ahead of me and said his thing in a few succinct words, and very effectively, as always.......and answered very knowingly by yourself with that little smile.

kuvasz:
I like your post to JLN re our current discussion.....seems like we are all getting on the same wave- length.

kuvasz & fresco :
We all agree that objective reality is subjective , but the difficulties inherent in our various subjective rationalizations of that reality are a stumbling block to having ourselves a solid new religion as you suggest.....particularly since there is no ghost in my machine.

That which speaks does not know, and that which knows does not speak. Belief systems are the tip of the iceberg. Or it takes nothing to observe something.

The ghost is continuous with the machine,

We as the individuals that we think we are, rationalize our perceptions to an extreme degree; to a point where the rationalizing and assuming create a world that is in fact not there.

If it is the case that something (an observable) has to be observed to exist, is dependent on observation as many mystics/sages say, i.e. Krishnamurti, Ramana, Balsekar etc. Where ?'things' and >cause-and-effect< only come into existence upon observation, then the room or building you are presently in has no foundation; there is no earth under your feet.

When Buddha said I have no eyes, ears, nose etc. etc. He meant it literally; if they are not being observed they don't exist. Which means observation as consciousness is unmediated and direct. Consciousness is not emergent or dependent on anything; the body, brain or anything else.

In that sense the words of some sages are misleading when they say consciousness works through a body-mind-mechanism, i.e consciousness is prior to all observables. If one does not assign causes to perceptions, the perceptions are simply what they are. That's what ?'Whatever is IS' means; do not assign causal relations, do not rationalize observations, do not made assumptions.

But of course we all do. And then wonder what the true nature of reality is, not realizing that it is constantly being over looked. It is probable true that what is true is so simple, almost it seems ?'too' simple for most to grasp.

Exactly so, Twyvel. You've been meditating it seems. As you say, (your) reality is too obvious to grasp. This is so in part because it includes the grasping itself. In meditation (Krishnamurti's "choiceless awareness") "The perceptions are simply what they are. That's what 'Whatever is IS' means; do not assign causal relations, do not rationalize observations, do not make assumptions."

And in spirit of keeping things simple I'd just like to add that my bottomline on the subject is the following:
Any idea or concept you might develop, to whatever extent it may regard (I like tea, I love you, I think that political party might be right, I think I like this religion, I think niggers should die, ...) is based on your environment but at first will be examined to some degree and questioned, this is self evident(no?). As soon as one decides he's going to stick to a certain belief system because it seems to work, one loses the use of an 'idea'(I'm using the term as I've seen it being used in the movie 'dogma') and its inherent flexibility and one commences the use of a 'belief' which implies certain dogmatic principles and the infallibility of that system. Here begins the rationalization of any belief system you might have, any philosophical point of view which has been uttered by others.

(All your comments seemed to be off-topic so I glanced over them, if somebody feels he or she adressed a vital issue, let me know)

Yes JLNobody, the grasping and the reality (that which is grasped) are one.

It is in retrospection, in complexity, that it is too simple, too obvious to grasp, where/when a grasper appears. [language problems].

ReX wrote:



Thanks for providing an example of rationalization.

twyvel:
Thou art a fascinating mind! You thrive in the duality of contradiction, yet deny the dualism of what you observe. You state categorically that the ghost is "continuous" with the machine, which , following your earlier statement means nothing because you said "that which speaks does not know"
How "believable" can you be when you expound so confidently that consciousness is not emergent or dependent on anything, not the body, not the brain, or anything else.? (That which speaks does not know>>>>!!!!)
You state that one must "not assign causal relations....not rationalize observations..."and yet
you come back to earth so conveniently by referring to Rex's excellent clarification of the rationalizing approach , while noting that your comments are off-topic, (which they are!), ...and you once again categorically state that his statement, as quoted by you, is an example of rationalization.
One thing that is being proven in these exchanges is that deliberate flexibility in the meaning of language and deliberate obscurity in the
expression of ideas is an effective buddhist approach to explaining his observed reality.....indeed a great example of the rationalization of one's Belief System.

Hey hey, not fair, Zen does not know words. Agreed zen is just a part of buddhism, but it's because words have certain meanings we associate with them that in 'reality' may differ from it's true meaning...Well, I hope you know what point I'm trying to make. Language is incapable of speaking the Truth. According to buddhism that is. Phrased by 'staind' this one line from a song keeps repeating in my mind: I speak to you in riddles, because words get in my way.
But agreed, it's just another 'example of the rationalization of one's Belief System.'
Which is logic (by definition) and therefor we can find ourselves agreeing with it.
Yes, there is of course, also the case of intuitive knowledge instead of logical knowledge but I assume you do not make this difference because both can be defined as to be formed by 'ratio' and 'empirical' thought, or something that transcends thought(meditating), which relies on innate knowledge, which in turn is synonymous with intuitive knowledge. My point is, I could easily make a nonsensical statement and not back it up in any 'valid' or 'logical' way. Everybody would disagree. This is utterly pointless, and believe it or not, however pointless things may seem, they still have one. Agreed, it's only in our mind and the point might not be as 'grand' or complex really, as you think it is. Like: Life is perfect.
(I just realised the last sentence can be interpreted in a variety of ways and I refuse to clarify because I'd like to see what you're going to do with it :p)

Rex:
You say "This is utterly pointless, and believe it or not,, however pointless things may seem. they have one" Here is a statement that
categorically states that something IS POINTLESS and then , a few words latter states.......no matter,
IT HAS ONE.
You state that "language is incapable of speaking the truth......don't blame language for not speaking the truth....it is YOU who are using language to communicate an idea, a belief.....that
obviously has failings with respect to credibility, so much so , that our evolved method of communicating ideas is not up to presenting it credibly.....except ofcourse by rationalizing it in as much obscurity as is necessary.
Zen , to its credit, confines this obscurity to double-edged questions and stories....
and doesn't waste its time in using words to define the undefinable.
ReX, it was a treat to see you expound so lucidly on the dialectic reasoning ,(rationalizing ?).process in your earlier post ,
but your penchance in equating intuitive knowledge
with acquired knowledge is open to question

Granted that post was a waste of time because language fails me in explaining the unexplainable. It has done so for others as well, but surely on a higher level. I was just trying to point out that language has it boundaries. Yes, they are confined to a smaller region in my particular case. But reality is undefinable for all, as long as you get the main picture, I'm a happy man. If you don't get it, I'll still be a happy man, don't worry .

Nevertheless, I'd like to make some small remarks:

Yes, Zen still rocks.
My 'reasoning' or lack thereof can of course also be seen as a contradictory statement. Reality is filled with those. Well, religion and uncompleted(it's never complete) science is.

Glad you had fun reading it, I was waiting for the moment when someone said out loud what I've thought on many occasions: ReX, your post makes no sense, maybe they'll get the message, but that means you're just a reminder. No new insight shall be given from this dialectic presentation of your system of thought. My lesson: Sleep more, post less when hindered by fatigue.

Penchance?

edit: Spellcheck. I'm not perfect; I'm flemish.

alikimr




Yes, I was trying to point beyond that which points, like a character in a play pointing beyond the play. Or perhaps as JLNobody has often said, a God above god, or the Godhead, the sourceless source of god.

If all subjects, nouns that refer to subjects, regress then there is no knower, believer, doer, thinker etc. Ideas are observed that there exists thinkers and doers and knowers, but as objects we (as idea) are not, we cannot/do not know. And some of what is uttered may be more accurate in its attempt at pointing to the truth, but it is not the truth, anymore then the word duck is a duck, or the word ?'word' is a word. We live in a world of representations in which, as one of those representations, we imagine ourselves as a subject that knows.

-In this world of endless circles of representations everything observable is saturated in consciousness, without which nothing would be known to exist. Consciousness in that sense is primary. And then some say consciousness is emergent from that which is dependent on it to be known…… I find it highly odd, or more correctly, naïve.

-There are different meanings and uses of the word rationalization but I do think that Rex's comments were no more rationalizations then others; if a belief is a rationalization then this thread was/is about rationalizations of rationalizations, a bit of a redundancy, though an interesting one,

For the sake of having replied, I'll demonstrate my point. I'll remain using words, english words and actual constructions so you can understand me, but I'll leave out ratio. I'll leave out reason for what I believe but I'll convince you to believe it anyhow, without thought, I'll put it in some sort of meditative (zenlike) form which surpasses thinking and solves the original puzzle(first post of this thread), to exclude thinking from truly comprehending reality. Whatever I believe, whatever you believe, whatever you believe I believe, this is the reason without reason(ratio), the explanation to the unexplainable.

Because.


There, you've just conceived the unconceivable.

Rex:
Your rationalization of your belief that thinking allows one to "truly comprehend(ing) reality" is fascinating since it leans pretty heavily
on "the reason without reason (ratio)" argument.
As you suggest, I have just conceived the unconceivable. And why?
Because.

( I must say your latest post to this thread was
very enjoyable to read)

Thank you

I enjoyed replying.
And I smile at the thought of making you smile.