*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Paul,
thank you for the comments regarding belief and truth.
Your translation of the German phrase into
"You can GUESS about things in church but here and now you need to KNOW"
conveys the meaning accurately.
It sounds much more like good English than my translation :-)
(I dare judge that because I feel much more confident in understanding
English than to transform a meaning from my native tongue into English.)
I have a couple of questions.
You introduced the matter of truth into the discussion.
Actually it began with "believe" versus "know".
How does to "know" relate to "truth" for you?
And do you think it is possible to believe a truth?
(I do not mean: to believe in the existence of a truth.)
I wonder if truth actually can exist. If it does, then it must exist
outside
a world or universe. If one would ever find out a truth, about a
universe he is in, it would be possible to derive everything necessary
to as-is (completely understand and therefore duplicate) that universe.
It would theoretically vanish.
A truth could be considered as something absolute - and absolutes are
allegedly unobtainable according to LRH.
I do believe in that because it seems plausible to me and I've so
far not encountered anything that would contradict that.
I usually feel quite content with working hypothesis.
A search for truth - in my opinion - is futile beyond the fun you
can have along the research path. I go with the motto: "The way is the
target (aim?)." Again one of my botched translations ;-) I hope
you guess again what is meant :-)
The comparison with the horizon always comes to my mind. One wants to
advance towards truth/horizon. You collect knowledge/experience along
that way but with every step you make toward the truth/horizon it seems
to change and retreat.
You said: "We are in an amnesiac state."
How can we make such a statement if we do not know?
Do we know that ore do we rather believe that?
"To attack one's religion is to attack the very core of the individual."
Yes, I agree. I only want to expand it a bit and add: ideologies, all
kind of ...isms, convictions, believes, "stable" data, ...
If you want to destroy an opponent, invalidate his stable datum.
A whole lot of destructive gaming is going on in regard of the above items.
This is interesting because it would be easy to deescalate those issues
if only man were able to accept and hold two seemingly contradicting
ideas simultaneously in their minds. (A mind which is reactive seems to
work like a computer, exclusively on the basis of "either or"; a healthy
mind would be able to consider "... as well as ...".) A playful game
without
the need to overwhelm could still go on. A certain amount of disagreement
is
a good thing. Otherwise, what lessons would we get out of life? As usually,
It's all about the "golden middle path" - to comfort zone of +/- 50%
randomity;
somewhere around 20 on the scale.
A final question:
You wrote: "But then we would not have the focus."
I do not understand that sentence. I do understand the words
but not what you meant in the context.
Do you mean that we would not have "reality" because we're not
focused. Focused in the sense, like a projector focuses to produce
an image on the screen. So do we produce our reality by focusing
with or on our believes which make our attitudes which determine
on which kind of postulates we tend to operate? (In short: Our
believes create our reality.)
Not least because of the recent discussions about believe versus know
and axiom 31 I was motivated to ponder and reconsider some ideas
which had been brought up here.
What I found out so far is that "believe" is unjustly undervalued
or even devalued in comparison to "know". I do not go as far as to
grant "to believe" seniority above "to know". And I agree with those
who denounce the sloppy use of language particularly in media and politics.
Never the less language - as crude it may be as a communication vehicle -
has inherently a deeper wisdom. That's only natural since the word is
with us for a pretty long time now :-).
Therefore it seems to me not unnatural when people use words like
"believe" and "know" synonymously.
Best regards
Robin
----
David,
by scanning through the recent posts I saw that I've missed
to answer your question: "Do you live in Germany?"
No David, I do live in Austria (not to mix up with
Australia - which we call "down under" ;-).
Austria is a small country in the middle of Europe
and has a boarder line with Germany. We speak the same
language. But you could easily distinguish us by our
different dialects.
Best regards
Robin
----
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 13:00:03 +0100, <[email protected]> wrote:
Send TROM mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of TROM digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: TROM Digest, Vol 145, Issue 5 Belief
(The Resolution of Mind list)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 11:02:29 -0700
From: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [TROM1] TROM Digest, Vol 145, Issue 5 Belief
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Robin,
Belief is an estimation of the truth when the truth is not known.
Since Christians don't regularly go to heaven every day and talk with
the
folks there they operate on a "guess".
There is a huge difference between Belief and Truth - which is ok.
What
is not ok is mistaking Belief for Truth. At that point searching for the
truth stops.
The phrase " Believing you may in the church " .... German places the
parts of the sentence differently than English. My guess is the English
translation would be " You can GUESS about things in church but here and
now
you need to KNOW "
The triangle would be Faith Hope & Charity - or that is what I was
taught in
Catholic school. I think they thought of love as sex and didn't want to
discuss it.
One can be convinced that his faith is a certain truth. But he's still
'wishing and hoping'.
There would not be such an addiction to religion if we knew (KNEW) we
were
immortal, could easily remember our past incarnations and have an
excellent
grasp on the future.
We are in an amnesiac state.
We don't know.
Since it is an issue that strikes home we savagely cling to whatever
explanation we can come up with as to what the hell is going on, who am I
and what am I doing here.
To attack one's religion is to attack the very core of the individual.
If we had all the data then religion would be a poo-poo subject.
(unimportant)
But then we would not have the focus.
best,
?
Paul
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
