Andre, dmb, Krimel, all:
Thanks for the reply. I've been thinking on this with a certain 'double-vision'. A decade ago I would have largely espoused the stance that dmb is holding on this thread, yet now, I see it otherwise. I see a distinction between 'belief' and 'knowledge.' (Yes, Marsha, both are illusion, but I'll ignore that for a moment and play in the conventional.) Belief is personally volitional; the individual chooses where and how to imbue meaning. (There is a subtle equivocation inherent in belief. By one meaning we choose a significance regardless of any additional information. By another we act from an abscence of logical negatives. We do not unreasonably disbelieve in the presence of evidence.--by shorthand we say that we believe.) Knowledge is based not on volition, but on pattern recognition and through use becomes skill and by this manner self-validates. At the physical level knowledge operates rather independently of belief. A single word of your reply, Andre, unlocked the puzzle for me. So,I will attempt to unfold it. Krimel's point on the real difference in qualities of behaviors set up a distintion. (I also re-read David's post and realize I should have seen a clue to it there, too) I think we may be describing different parts of the same elephant. >>>>dmb said:...think that whenever we act we are acting on the basis >>>>of beliefs so that the correlation approaches 100%. Except in >>>> sleepwalkers... mel: I read right past the sleepwalkers comment the first time. But when we are acting from unconsidered reaction, an 'unintegrated place', when our own reactions are unthinking and just automatic, we are in fact not much more aware than sleepwalkers. Well considered, integrated,balanced action is different. So, the question would be implied are some connections between beliefs and actions more accurate than others, just as some behavior is more integrated--more conscious? Are some less? Are some beliefs more harmonious or sympathetic to actions, while others are distinctly less so or even contrary to actions? Oh, Andre's word was 'relevant.' That was the 'light' that let me see the shadow in mind that hid the puzzle... >>> mel replied: > >>> ...So, on that model, 'false cause' beliefs are not >>> the cause of behavior (strikes or homeruns), but rather the >>> specific choices made in ACTION are. mel: My above comment focused only on the disconnected or contrary beliefs and Krimel focused on both types of behavior in his comment below. >> Krimel added: ...While some very specific behaviors might >> be belief driven, like voting, most are the result of habit... (interleaved reply) > Andre: > Hi Mel, I tend to lean towards dmb's response. Isn't the action, regardles > of performer, the expression of all relevant level spov's getting together > in one harmonious unity? mel: Yes and No. Yes is when we act in one harmonious unit with the relevant spov's. No is when we act from some dis-harmonious position and the biological and intellectual may act at odds with the social and physical. Andre: > And Quality being the 'motivating' and 'expressive' factor, the interpretation of which depends upon one's analogues? > Not sure what true or false cause have to do with this. Actions, physically, usually cut through such abstractions as irrelevant. Riding a bicycle is belief agnostic... for example > > Of course they'll admit it is silly..they would look silly not to admit this > but this is because superstition has a rather negative connotation. mel: To some people superstition is negative, but it's not to others. Andre: > > Suppose I go for a job interview tomorrow. I'll put some neat clothes and > shoes on. This will make my appearance more acceptable, improve my chances > on getting the job, raising my confidence and thus ensuring that my > performance has quality. (these are all superstitions) > During the interview (the performance) I know and feel confident (and > sometimes remind myself) that I have done everything within my power to make > this a quality performance and I exude this. mel: I don't see these as entirely superstitions. I see clear social level communication on the physical expression of conformity to expectation. Separately you also claim the clothes raise your confidence. (You could have as easiy chosen a rabbit's foot, lucky penny, a ritual, a double-latte as an excuse to act confidently, but in the moment it is only your attention to detail, listening skills, communication ability, on the spot feedback judgement, and experience that get you through.) Separately you say your clothes ensure performance quality. I would submit that the clothes are merely a social level artifact. You may imbue them with belief, but that does not change the clothes. --- Another example I should have thought of earlier is from the time I first started studying martial arts. It is common for a beginning student to confuse belief and intent with action. For a while this continues and the slaps, thumps, falls, and bruises that the student experiences are valuable feedback that what you believe you are doing and what you are actually doing don't match. The red stinging mark on my cheek irrefutably informs me that while I may have believed that my left arm was blocking it was not in the right place at the right time. So, I learned to attend to the skills and ignore the beliefs. Eventually, with a bit more competence, the student comes to see that directed action creates engagement--conneciton. And relationships between opponents are new things that have never existed before, as the two have never come together before in the manner of this precise moment. (Yes Dynamic as all hell) Perception changes and belief falls away. The thrust out arm from my opponent defines my motion. And in the dance of balance it may 'look' like a punch, buy it functions as a lever. There is no 'block', but rather the response to receive and use the lever that has been given. Or more to point it is a new 'body shape' to invite my change in direction as we co-create a different form entirely. I know upon re-reading it this sounds sort of foo-foo and newage-y, but it's really about directly relating to what is 'now' and not to the abstracted notion of belief. Not sure if I've made my point clear as I wobbled about, but there's a whole bags full of words to build something out of. thanks-mel Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
