I like these posts^^^-however; What is being said is more upon "belief" A "truth" can always be proven A "belief" cannot always be proven, but can be explained A explanation upon a "belief" is not always true. A belief is not always upon "perception of reality", rather a "lack of reality" in many cases. For example; No Touch Chi Knock Outs; The receiver is in such "belief", that they had lost the "perception of reality" They had come so much into their "belief", that they actually faint, or pass out after the method is at its climatic stage. There were also religious cults with venomous snakes, and other types of "leap of faith". All in the "perception of belief", RATHER THAN a "perception of reality" The intellectual level of it all is to distinguish between "perception of belief" and "perception of reality" . . .
A belief can never operate independent of the one who believes in it. Direct experience requires it. A priori knowledge is based on hearsay or assumptions and conclusions drawn from hearsay. At some point along the discourse, both a priori and a posteriori requires faith or belief the the truth of something.
But it is beliefs that shape our reality; they are not separate. Reality separate of beliefs and expectations would be formless. This is because the objects of our reality hold no underlying intrinsic essence until we manifest the dichotomies that give rise to is and isn't or existence and non-existence. We all experience a unique reality that is very much dependent upon our beliefs so to say we should perceive reality rather than perceive belief is silly once we understand that reality is built from belief. This is ontology! we decide to sub-divide and name the nameless; this is what western philosophers have called the grand hierarchy and what eastern philosophers have called the 10,000 things.
Like I said, when it is independent of the believer it ceases to be a belief because belief - within this context - is a matter of faith, and when there is operation that validates faith (i.e proof) then it is truth not belief. And again, when you don't believe in something and it still exists then that is truth, or at the very least tangible Hiding behind pointless and intellectually fluffy definitions has not advanced mankind one rats pube
Interesting. I somewhat agree, to a point, that a belief can shape a reality. I cannot agree that every belief can shape a reality of truth I rather perceive a truthful reality than a belief without truth . . .
Of course! But we're limited to being believers, therefore certainty in an objects independence is only hearsay. We cannot view the world objectively, only through our own eyes. The operation that validates faith is what determines our BELIEFS, not a truth. It is our own judgement - based on belief - that determines which operation validates faith. Many choose to validate their beliefs using science, whereas others may use another's testimony, their perceptions, introspection, etc. There are many methods we can use to form beliefs and we shouldn't give all the power over to the scientific method. We glorify the scientific method like it is error free and in doing so we dismiss the remaining belief founding methods. I disagree with this remark because we need to remember that "hiding behind pointless and intellectually fluffy definitions" is how we communicate with one another. We use our man-made concepts and conventions to interact as human beings. We also use our man-made concepts and conventions to organize and formulate ideas intellectually. Without "intellectually fluffy definitions" we could not reason. Personally I feel that mankind's advancement is a result of our ability to reason and formulate unique ideas and then share them with one another so that they may be analyzed and critiqued before implementation. This is all a result of us "hiding behind pointless intellectually fluffy definitions", and without these definitions we would be at stage 0. Anyways, It seems we've zoomed out considerably from the original focus of chi gung. This thread is becoming more and more abstract by the post .
Indeed. Belief is a powerful thing...stronger than steel However, there is the "Criteria of Truth" Not really. Chi Gung is within the realm of ontology, it is upon the essence of this discussion per truth and belief.
Not because it's error free but because it gets results. It's no coincidence that we are conversing on computers, networks and a world wide web that was founded upon the findings of science rather than other "belief founding methods". It's because computers designed through other "belief founding methods" don't actually exist let alone work. We glorify the scientific method because no other method has done so much the aleviate suffering, disease and early death. All "belief founding methods" are not created equal.
So you are saying it is alright to believe turtles all the way down? And that Peter Popof is genuine? Or that having sex with a virgin cures AIDS? Asinine thinking And you also fail to see the obvious - even a belief needs something to justify it (feeling, perception) which is just scientific method with very low and loose standards. Bollocks "fluffy" is colloquial for "nonsense" in this instance. I have no problem with thought or thinking deeply about things, but while people are trying to make themselves feel all superior intellectually by spending 10 hrs arguing about whether a table exists I would be more concerned about putting bread on it
I believe those believers without science should turn off and abandoned all devices and roam the earth never taking a bath and with itchy loincloths (like phishheads) You blinded me with science It's poetry in motion and now she's making love to me The spheres are in commotion The elements in harmony She blinded me with science "She blinded me with science!" And hit me with technology
The flip side is also true ... no other method has been used so much the cause suffering, disease and early death. Science is just a tool and only fools 'glorify' their tools, which-ever paradigm they're from or are in alignment with.
Err. politics and religion knock it into a cocked hat in that department Give specific examples if you are postulating the above because it is reading like reactionary nonsense
Politics and religion can certainly be a motivation for using a tool (such as science). Politics is not the same as religion is not the same to science. Even though among some ijits, blind faith in science approaches the blind faith in religion, and other ijits imbue the political process with religion. Work on your semantics first, unless you're an ijit such as I previously described? I'm sure you're not!
Well put and very true. I understand science's importance, I definitely do not mean to come across as being anti-science, but it is very true that we often blindly put our faith into the current scientific model and we leave ourselves closed to that which stands outside of it. Now just because science cannot grasp the qualities of the internal art's does not discredit it or disprove it. Science is really good at measuring, analyzing, and further sub-dividing physical objects but it doesn't function well with the immeasurable. Sometimes we need to experiment on our own. Personally I would not consider chi gung a waste of time. I've gained so much from its practice. Whether it is placebo or not is irrelevant. Placebo could very well be science's way of attempting to grasp what it has called the "supernatural". The mainstream scientific model dismisses many important occurrences by classifying them as "supernatural". Some scientists using the scientific method are now beginning to understand these "supernatural" occurrences in a very natural way but they are meeting violent opposition from the mainstream scientists that are not open to a drastic change in the contemporary model.
...we often blindly put our faith into the current scientific model as well as; we often put blind faith into things upon belief without scientific proof-study Placebo effects can arise from a conscious belief. This is not science classifying anything as supernatural, but as a pervasive phenomenon
