Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Faith is poison in the mind.

Many people have faith, or say they do.

Is faith a natural function of the mind, like an infant faithfully and non-conceptually bonding with another for survival?
Or, is faith caused?

There's an innate knowing that knows itself, but it's not conceptual. All infants share that innate knowing of beingness without any knowledge of themselves, otherwise they wouldn't be functioning as they are.. I think that's what the faith part means in that beingness is faithful to itself only...faith being a natural function where it is confident in it's essential capacity for being which babies are. However, mind being dual in it's very nature can function either to serve as itself alone without the filter of what's wrong or right, or to serve the illusory world of concepts. But this is all probably just more metaphysical mumbo jumbo that seems to comes out of my thought stream.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Faith is poison in the mind.

Although mind is never poisonous. The gap between two thoughts is what you are not the thoughts themselves. The thoughts are the only poison here depending on whether you the gap between thoughts are going to identify with them as being you or not.

Faith in knowing you are not your thought but that which is aware of thought is intelligence at it's very best.

Faith is just a confidence and trust that this self shinning beingness holds within itself to be exactly how it is, precise and without error or doubt...without any external agent trying to control it or wanting it to be something other than what it is.

In other words, beingness knows itself by being itself, there is no other agent outside of itself that knows.

Dontaskme wrote:But this is all probably just more metaphysical mumbo jumbo that seems to comes out of my thought stream.

Sounds like a negative self-assessment fulfilling a purpose perhaps hidden from the thought stream. Any more commentary would further stray from the Hobbespoint.

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Faith is poison in the mind.

Many people have faith, or say they do.

Is faith a natural function of the mind, like an infant faithfully and non-conceptually bonding with another for survival?
Or, is faith caused?

False dichotomy.
All things natural are caused.

the constant conjunction of events does not necessitate cause

-Imp

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Faith is poison in the mind.

Many people have faith, or say they do.

Is faith a natural function of the mind, like an infant faithfully and non-conceptually bonding with another for survival?
Or, is faith caused?

False dichotomy.
All things natural are caused.

So you're saying that faith is natural, faith is caused, and faith is poison in the mind. Correct?

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote: Many people have faith, or say they do.

Is faith a natural function of the mind, like an infant faithfully and non-conceptually bonding with another for survival?
Or, is faith caused?

False dichotomy.
All things natural are caused.

So you're saying that faith is natural, faith is caused, and faith is poison in the mind. Correct?

No I'm saying you are confused.

Actually, that's exactly what you said.

In a polite way, and not a PC way, I was merely gesturing for you to expound your ideas, to elaborate, to show the benefit of what you have realized not only for yourself, but for posterity. We suspect that you have the capacity to fit these views into a philosophical shape of principles that will smooth out any contradictions in your view, that folks may perceive when guided by beliefs.

But we also understand your imperative to do what it is, that you do. Those parsnips are getting to you.

Dontaskme wrote:Faith in knowing you are not your thought but that which is aware of thought is intelligence at it's very best.

This knowing only requires simple observation.
Paradoxically, memory’s knowing, which is faith, can also distract from simple observation.
Thoughts come and thoughts go.
You do not come and you do not go.
You are always here.
So, you cannot be a thought.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Faith is poison in the mind.

- It may help to look at the assertion as if the assertion is Absolute. As if it is carved in stone. It may as well be, since it was presented that way.
- So, how could this be so? How can this assertion be Truth? What supports the assertion that faith is poison?

How about:

- Faith is based on a moment of past clarity.
- This clarity is then used to interpret the present situation.
- Faith thus becomes the measure.

- Because each dualistic situation is unique, faith has a blindspot.

- The blindspot is, faith is not unique.
- For the faithful, each situation is seen by the light of the faith.

- In terms of venn diagram, the faithful risk cramming the larger circle of reality into the smaller circle of faith. This defies known laws that limit two-dimensional circles. The totality circle doesn’t fit into the faith circle. This is because, unless faith is synonymous with all that is, then the smaller faith circle cannot encompass the larger totality circle.

- As a result of the cramming to make reality fit into faith, some of reality gets left behind when fitting into the smaller venn circle, forgotten until again added to the mix for the next venn squeeze job. The former forgotten can then be used to interpret the next situation according to the faith, although this will require forsaking some other aspect of reality that doesn’t fit into the faith circle.

- Fracturing the totality in this figurative way hinges reality upon conceptual duality. If inherent survival triggers did not cause dualistic differentiation, then folks would walk around bumping into things.

- On the other hand, can anyone actually think that the body produces its own poison?

- Perhaps.

- The poison is to be found generated in the alchemy of the clinging/attachment/ignorance/desire/and so on, not in the object of the clinging.

- Faith is the object of the clinging.

- Faith itself, as a third-entity, independent principle, is impartial to any particular ego’s tendency to cling to it.

- For this reason, do not underestimate faith. Folklore says that faith can move mountains. Mountains get moved when faith is master of ego.

- Ego brews the poisonous alchemy that enslaves faith for ego’s survival purposes.

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Faith is poison in the mind.

- It may help to look at the assertion as if the assertion is Absolute. As if it is carved in stone. It may as well be, since it was presented that way.
- So, how could this be so? How can this assertion be Truth? What supports the assertion that faith is poison?

How about:

- Faith is based on a moment of past clarity.
- This clarity is then used to interpret the present situation.
- Faith thus becomes the measure..

DUH NO.
Faith is what you do when you wash your hands of reason.
I agree that we tend to have to rely on trust; when based on some evidence.
We might trust the judgement of a doctor whose learning as informed him that due to certain symptoms you have a particular disease. But this should not stop you investigating for yourself, other treatments or alternative diagnoses.
We might be stupid enough to trust another car on the motorway to behave in a predictable way; but it would be stupid to rely on that, and one should always be aware of unexpected things happening.

What role is there for faith with a capital "F"; none whatever. If god exists, he does not give a shit.

So you’re saying that if you do not know the purpose, then the purpose does not exist.

Dontaskme wrote:There's an innate knowing that knows itself, but it's not conceptual. All infants share that innate knowing of beingness without any knowledge of themselves, otherwise they wouldn't be functioning as they are.. I think that's what the faith part means in that beingness is faithful to itself only...faith being a natural function where it is confident in it's essential capacity for being which babies are. However, mind being dual in it's very nature can function either to serve as itself alone without the filter of what's wrong or right, or to serve the illusory world of concepts. But this is all probably just more metaphysical mumbo jumbo that seems to comes out of my thought stream.

Amplification:

"Mind can serve as itself alone …"
"Mind can serve the illusory world of concepts …"

Without saying no, I know what you mean.


- The mind itself is still, like pooled water untouched by any thing.

- The touching of any thing to the surface of the water (mind) sends a wave throughout the entire body of water (mind).

- What touches the mind is the object.

- The object is either sensory stimulation, or thought.

- The senses are stimulated and the mind interprets the stimulation.

- The stimulation can disconnect from the mind reception.

- The disconnect can be intentional, as with the yoga practice of pratyahara.

- The appearance of thoughts, which can be described as thinking or the movement of mind, ceases with meditation.

- In this way the mind simply is ... Without thought and without sensory stimulation, the mind simply is.

- This is a non-functional state of non-dual existence, which is really not a state of mind. It is no-mind, which is not a state.

- It is not a never mind. When mind again begins to move, it orients with memory and quickly gains the momentum to again serve its function of dualistic relationship, for the purpose of survival, and to function in the associated activities called daily living.

- Minus the capacity for subject/object reference in communication of no subject/object, further description become ineffable, and attempts begin to sound nonsensical.

Dontaskme wrote:The gap between two thoughts is what you are not the thoughts themselves. The thoughts are the only poison here depending on whether you the gap between thoughts are going to identify with them as being you or not.

I know what you mean.

Feedback:

The space between two thoughts
Where no thought exists
Is what you are.


You are not the thoughts themselves.


The thoughts are the only poison here.

However, thoughts are only poison in this way:
- If you identify as the thought, then the thought is poison.

The thoughts are not poison if:
- You correctly identify as the space between two thoughts, where no thoughts exist.


*

This is the feedback, and I agree with you.

However I will tell you, there is more to it.

Which you know.

There is always more to it.

Impenitent wrote:the constant conjunction of events does not necessitate cause

-Imp

Upon consideration, I’d have to say that interrupting the continuity of big inertia (constant conjunction of events) requires big force, but little force interrupts little inertia. Little force is multiplied by timing, and big force should rarely be. However, force is relative to inertia itself, which requires more force to shift than to maintain and like concrete, invariably becomes too impenetrable after a lifetime of hardening for an effective cost/benefit ratio for energy to influence.