"knowing" and "believing"

[jbseth]

Hi All,

Recently, at another location on this site, we were talking about atheism and agnosticism. This discussion led me to think about what it is that we actually "know" and what it is that we "believe".


Whenever, I'm being completely honest with myself, I think that there's "knowing" and there's also "believing"; and these two things aren't necessarily the same thing. It also seems to me that there's very little that I actually "know".


Do I "know" that Seth is correct when he tells us, for example, we continue to exist after we die? No, I don't "know" it.  Do I "know" that he is wrong when he says this? No I don't actually "know" that either. When, I'm being completely honest with myself, I have to admit, I don't really "know" what is going to happen to me after I die.




Then along with "knowing" there also seems to be "believing". I think that "belief" or "believing" may be some sort of subset of "knowing".




Do I "believe", for example, that Seth is correct when he tells us that we continue to exist after we die? Yes, for me personally, I do "believe" this, but I also recognize that I don't "know" it for a fact.


Using this line of reasoning, is there anything that we do or can actually "know"? Is everything that we claim to "know" really just a "belief" or perhaps in some cases just a strong "belief"?  Here I'm thinking about gravity for example.


What do you think?



-jbseth

[LarryH]

I know that I exist. But I'm open to being challenged.

[jbseth]

Hi LarryH,

That's a really great point, LarryH.  Thanks for that. 


That's like the, "I am" statement. I know that "I am".


Playing around with this idea just a bit, do I actually know that "I am" or do I just "believe" that "I am"?

Is it possible that I could believe that "I am" and yet not actually exist?  Maybe? Maybe not?


Maybe this was part of the dilemma that All That Is had to solve for itself, in those parts of the Seth literature where Seth talks about the beginning and All That Is.

- jbseth

[LarryH]

Is it possible that I could believe that "I am" and yet not actually exist?  Maybe? Maybe not?

If you don't exist, who is the "I" in your question that could believe that you do?

[Michael Sternbach]

jbseth,

At some stage, I have come to accept that pretty much all my knowledge is essentially of a makeshift nature. It really only exists as energetic patterns in my brain cells and subtle bodies, respectively! Any aspect of it may or may not correspond with the reality "out there" - should I say, the "unknown reality"? 

So I now try regard my "known facts" as working hypotheses, basically. And while that loss of certainty may seem to be regrettable at times, it does helps me keep my mind open to new insights and ever expanding views.

Take a look at the history of science... Many of its most cherished insights had to be dismissed or revised as humanity's knowledge grew. Nonetheless, they were a necessary step in our pursuit of the truth and served as a needed framework for the practical application of knowledge.

And every so often, even assumptions that had to be done away with at some stage, turned out to not be totally amiss in due course. Let's take the geocentric model of the cosmos as an example. For many centuries, it was nothing less than a universally accepted truth. It did serve its purpose, e.g., enabling our ancestors to calculate the movements of celestial bodies. Vice versa, over the centuries, it was diligently refined by many great scientific minds in order to better match their observations.

Then came Copernicus and introduced a new model that set the Sun into the centre. What a shock!  But like it or not, the new model was able to explain observed astronomical reality more accurately and most of all more simply. Few people doubted its truthfulness after awhile, even though eventually it had to be admitted that even the Sun was not at the centre of the cosmos, but just of that miniscule part of it that we call our solar system today.

But the story didn't end there. Because one day that dude Einstein came along and showed that, in fact, the assumption that Earth was at the centre of the universe is as valid as any other. Even the tensor equations of special relativity can be solved for an Earth that is resting right in the middle of it all! There is actually quite a bit more to this topic than what I can summarize here, but I am sure you get the idea...

Well, this reminds me of something Georg Christoph Lichtenberg once said: "There is a great difference between still believing something and believing it again. To still believe that the Moon has an effect on plants is a sign of dumbness and superstition, but to believe it again indicates philosophy and thoughtfulness."

I guess what this leads to could be called the Relativity Theory of Knowledge! 

[jbseth]

If you don't exist, who is the "I" in your question that could believe that you do?
         

Hi LarryH, Hi All,

I've been trying to think of a way that I could explain what I mean by this.

I don't know that there is an "I" who exists, if I don't exist, but I'm trying to remain open to the possibility that there could be such an "I".



When talking about consciousness (awareness), Seth kept emphasizing that consciousness (awareness) created form (matter) and not the other way around.  Does this imply that consciousness (awareness) can and does exist, without form (matter)?  Maybe.

If so, then it seems to me that maybe "I" "consciousness" can exist without form (matter).



In SS, Ch 14, S560, Seth also says:

In a reality that is inconceivably multidimensional, the old concepts of God are relatively meaningless. Even the term, a supreme being, is in itself distortive, for you naturally project the qualities of human nature upon it. If I told you that God was an idea, you would not understand what I meant, for you do not understand the dimensions in which an idea has its reality, or the energy that it can originate and propel. You do not believe in ideas in the same way that you believe in physical objects, so if I tell you that God is an idea, you will misinterpret this to mean that God is less than real — nebulous, without reality, without purpose, and without motive action.



If God is an idea, then does this mean that God exist, independent of form?

Again, I'm not saying that any of this is true, I'm just keeping open to the possibility that it could be.

-jbseth

[chasman]

thank you for posting all of this everyone.
all very interesting.

thank you extra special jbseth. I especially enjoyed your first post.

my understanding is:
there's faith, and there's certainty.

thats pretty much it.   

[Michael Sternbach]

If you don't exist, who is the "I" in your question that could believe that you do?
         

Hi LarryH, Hi All,

I've been trying to think of a way that I could explain what I mean by this.

I don't know that there is an "I" who exists, if I don't exist, but I'm trying to remain open to the possibility that there could be such an "I".



When talking about consciousness (awareness), Seth kept emphasizing that consciousness (awareness) created form (matter) and not the other way around.  Does this imply that consciousness (awareness) can and does exist, without form (matter)?  Maybe.

If so, then it seems to me that maybe "I" "consciousness" can exist without form (matter).



In SS, Ch 14, S560, Seth also says:

In a reality that is inconceivably multidimensional, the old concepts of God are relatively meaningless. Even the term, a supreme being, is in itself distortive, for you naturally project the qualities of human nature upon it. If I told you that God was an idea, you would not understand what I meant, for you do not understand the dimensions in which an idea has its reality, or the energy that it can originate and propel. You do not believe in ideas in the same way that you believe in physical objects, so if I tell you that God is an idea, you will misinterpret this to mean that God is less than real — nebulous, without reality, without purpose, and without motive action.



If God is an idea, then does this mean that God exist, independent of form?

Again, I'm not saying that any of this is true, I'm just keeping open to the possibility that it could be.

-jbseth

.

If God is an idea, then whose idea is He? 

[LarryH]

If God is an idea, then whose idea is He?

A thought cannot arise without a thinker. My act of thinking cannot exist without me. This goes as well for sensing and emoting. An idea cannot arise without consciousness.

[jbseth]

Hi LarryH, Hi Michael, Hi All,

In TES3, Seth says quite a bit about thoughts.

He tells us how they are transmitted and changed from by "A" and received by "B".
He also tells us that "thoughts and emotions are actualities in themselves "

https://findingseth.com/q/book:tes3+thought/

In essense, I think that he's telling us here that a thought can and does exist independent of us.

My thinking here is this, if a thought can exist independent of us, then "maybe" an idea can too.

This all get pretty esoteric. I'm not saying that all of this "does" work this way, I'm just trying to keep open to the possibility that it might.


-jbseth

[LarryH]

He also tells us that "thoughts and emotions are actualities in themselves "

I agree with that, though I doubt that there is any power to thoughts or emotions without a consciousness that thinks or feels. A thought or emotion can be recorded, whereupon it waits for a consciousness to come along and reactivate or change the thought or emotion. A thought or emotion has no influence until it either originates in, or intersects with, consciousness.

In my "automatic typing", which I believe I shared in another thread started by you, jbseth, whoever was typing said, "Consciousness, therefore existence." I found this interesting because as opposed to "I think, therefore I am" or "I feel, therefore I am", it eliminated "I", that sense of self-awareness. I don't know for sure that there are consciousnesses that are non-self-aware, but I do know for sure that "I" am self-aware. My sense of self is incomplete, but that does not contradict that I am aware of a current identity. "I" consciousness likely can exist without form, and non-self-aware consciousness may be able to exist with or without form. But nothing can prove to me that "I" don't exist. On the other hand, nothing can prove to the reader that I do exist. I may be an AI without self-awareness, a Russian bot, a figment of your imagination, or a hallucination.

[jbseth]

Hi LarryH, Hi All,

Here's a true story that happened to me, that I've mentioned here previously in this forum under a different topic.



Back in the 1980's, I went to see a dermatologist to have some moles removed. After getting several shots of a novocaine type pain blocker, I passed out.  While in this passed out state, I could see what appeared to be several white blobs, all standing around me, which it turned out, were the nurse, my wife and the doctor as I recall, all were standing at the same locations, when I came too.

While in this passed out state, I mentally "thought" what are these white things, and "something" responded back to me, "that's the nurse, that's your wife and that's" the doctor". In this state, the "I" who "I" was at that time, didn't know or realize that "I", jbseth, was married. In fact, this "I" was really quite shocked, to discover that jbseth was married.



A moment later I came to and the nurse, my wife and the doctor, were standing where they were, when I was in this passed out state.


I have no idea who this other "I" was, nor do I have any idea who was responding to my  mental questions.  In that state, I didn't perceive anyone but the nurse, my wife and the doctor, in the form of these white blob.

While "I", jbseth, would definitely say that I, jbseth, am me.  This other "I", the one who didn't know that the jbseth "I" was married, and was really shocked by this, definitely felt like "me" too.

When I was passed out, I definitely felt that I was this other I, the I who was shocked to discover that he was married.


That was a strange experience.

I, jbseth, have no idea who or where this other I exists or how it exists.

Having had this experience, I try to not close myself off to the possibility that things may work differently than we think they do.



-jbseth

[Deb]

the assumption that Earth was at the centre of the universe is as valid as any other. Even the tensor equations of special relativity can be solved for an Earth that is resting right in the middle of it all!

Wow! I suppose technically the Earth is the center of the universe, from the Earthly point of reference. The same goes for me, as everything that I observe expands outward from me (from my perspective). As it does for each of us.

If I told you that God was an idea, you would not understand what I meant, for you do not understand the dimensions in which an idea has its reality, or the energy that it can originate and propel. You do not believe in ideas in the same way that you believe in physical objects, so if I tell you that God is an idea, you will misinterpret this to mean that God is less than real — nebulous, without reality, without purpose, and without motive action.

Seth was right, I don't understand. Thoughts and ideas are not physical in our system, different laws are at work outside of our dimension. I thought I'd look up the definition of idea, and got more than I expected from Miriam-Webster, especially 4c:

Definition of idea
1: a formulated thought or opinion
2: whatever is known or supposed about something
//a child's idea of time
3: the central meaning or chief end of a particular action or situation
4a: a plan for action : DESIGN
b: a standard of perfection : IDEAL
c: a transcendent entity that is a real pattern of which existing things are imperfect representations
5a: an entity (such as a thought, concept, sensation, or image) actually or potentially present to consciousness
b: an indefinite or unformed conception
c obsolete : an image recalled by memory
6 Christian Science : an image in Mind
7 archaic : a visible representation of a conception : a replica of a pattern

If God is an idea, then whose idea is He? 

Ours? Such as the example given for 2 above, "a child's idea of time."

My thinking here is this, if a thought can exist independent of us, then "maybe" an idea can too.

Your thoughts change worlds, worlds of which you are aware and worlds of which you are not aware.

Having had this experience, I try to not close myself off to the possibility that things may work differently than we think they do.

Yep. I remember your story. My first thought was temporary amnesia, but I've conked out twice (once knocked out, once just passed out from standing up too fast) and when I came to, quickly both times, my memory was intact. And you had not been hit in the head.

I think that would be another great topic, how different thoughts are outside of our system, compared to our concept of thoughts and ideas of what they are here.

[Deb]

Well of course as soon as I posted above, I saw the FB post from Lynda Dahl in my Inbox.

"Mental associations are living things. They are formations of energy assembled into invisible structures, through processes quite as valid and complicated as the organization of any group of cells.

"Comparing them with cells, they are of briefer duration, generally speaking... But your thoughts form structures as real as the cells. Their composition is different in that no solidity is involved in your terms.

"As living cells have a structure, react to stimuli and organize according to their own classification, so do thoughts. Thoughts thrive on association. They magnetically attract others like themselves, and like some strange microscopic animals they repel their 'enemies,' or other thoughts that are threatening to their own survival.

"Using this analogy, your mental and emotional life forms a framework composed of such structures, and these act directly upon the cells of your physical body."

The Nature of Personal Reality, Session 633

[LarryH]

the assumption that Earth was at the centre of the universe is as valid as any other. Even the tensor equations of special relativity can be solved for an Earth that is resting right in the middle of it all! There is actually quite a bit more to this topic than what I can summarize here, but I am sure you get the idea...

I have actually been thinking about this for years. Some day, I may start a related thread.

[Michael Sternbach]

LarryH, jbseth, and Deb

Meanwhile it occurred to me that in the Platonic view (which so much of Western esoteric tradition is based on), ideas are akin to archetypes. They are not limited to human consciousness at all, rather, they are the very prototypes for Creation that exist in the mind of the Divine.

In this sense, perhaps God could be seen as the ultimate idea that encompasses all the others. There are gods within God, as Seth shared somewhere...

[Michael Sternbach]

the assumption that Earth was at the centre of the universe is as valid as any other. Even the tensor equations of special relativity can be solved for an Earth that is resting right in the middle of it all!

Wow! I suppose technically the Earth is the center of the universe, from the Earthly point of reference. The same goes for me, as everything that I observe expands outward from me (from my perspective). As it does for each of us.

Yes, everyone resides at the centre of their world. The same would naturally apply to an entire planet. But what I hinted at actually goes beyond that.

Now I am not saying that Copernicus and those after him who followed in his wake got it all wrong. I am not suggesting that, literally, everything revolves around our planet, and that that is the only valid perspective. Nor do I agree that Earth is a flat disk, for that matter.

However, there are reasons to assume that Earth is indeed a priviledged place. There is something very special about its location, and maybe that's why some sources insist that what happens here plays such a crucial role for the entire universe.

I have actually been thinking about this for years. Some day, I may start a related thread.

I am looking forward to that!