The Word “Belief” Is Problematic

[AtmanIsBrahman]

I want to address a simple problem with this post, having to do with the language we use on this forum and Leo uses in his work. The word I want to focus on is “belief.”
There are two ways in which the word is used, and conflating them becomes problematic.

1. Layman’s definition- trusting that something is true without evidence/justification/direct experience (substitute in whatever fits your epistemology)

2. Philosophical definition- to think/hold that something is true

The problem is that we use the word belief to refer to the layman’s definition exclusively, leaving no room for the philosophical definition. Using the word “belief” is treated as a revelation that the person using it has a poor epistemology.

The layman’s definition is fine when we’re talking about religion or limiting beliefs, but for more serious intellectual topics there ends up being no proper word. If we want to say “Leo thinks X is true about politics,” we are forced to say “Leo has X political awakening” or “X political insights.” The problem is those terms come loaded with a lot of baggage—such as that what Leo is saying is true.

We could use other words like “think” or “hold-to-be-true,” but they would be clunky or imprecise. I suggest we bite the bullet and use the word “belief.”

I know that part of the reason for using the word “belief” in the standard way is the distinction between direct experience and concept. But consider this example— when someone awakens, before they didn’t hold-to-be-true that God exists, but now they do. We can just call this belief. Yes, what they hold to be true exists in an entirely different context than before, but they still hold it to be true.

This all comes down to the inability of language to grasp ultimate reality, but we can still be careful with how we use language. Using the word "belief" correctly is one attempt to do so.




 

[YIDIRYIDIR]

great distinction.

relying on beliefs is strategic if one is conscious and can deal with the risk that comes with that. sometimes you even have no choice, you just can't afford to not believe in something.

[Osaid]

Is it true that you're trusting that something is true?

Is it true that you're holding or thinking that something is true?

No, those would be beliefs.

[Joseph Maynor]

We can see what people loop on and then a second question would be whether it is a belief or not.  

[AtmanIsBrahman]

10 hours ago, Osaid said:

Is it true that you're trusting that something is true?

Is it true that you're holding or thinking that something is true?

No, those would be beliefs.

It seems like you’re implying that truly knowing something is different from having to “think” or “hold” it. I get what you mean when it comes to mystical experience.

But still—you can self-deceive with mystical experiences. And for more everyday topics like personal development or politics, you do have to believe (keep in mind I’m using definition 2).

I’m just making the simple point that you should have a word to say that you think (believe) something is true.

[gettoefl]

Belief in perception is false by default. You believe you see. You don't. Real eyes realize real lies. Belief needs dropping. Correct your perception. Fix your eyes. Specsavers can't cut it.

[UnbornTao]

If you recognize and then set aside everything you think is true (believe), you might be left with a deep sense of uncertainty or openness, so go do that.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

It seems like you guys are misinterpreting me. I’m aware of the whole belief vs direct experience thing. 

But I don’t think it’s as much of a hard-and-fast distinction as many of you think. Keep in mind, by belief I just mean what you consider true about the world. Regardless of how spiritually advanced you are, you have beliefs about politics, predictions of the future, etc.

We need to have the vocabulary to talk about these things, rather than considering anything that’s not direct experience a definition (1) belief. 

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

rather than considering anything that’s not direct experience a definition (1) belief. 

That is certainly too sloppy.

A distinction also needs to be made between belief and just thinking. Belief implies a conviction that some thought you have corresponds to reality. Belief has a mental attachment component.

Edited June 4 by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

The presumed realness or validity is implicit in your having it (thinking it).

This is not the same as a frivolous activity that's commonly thought of as thinking, like talking to oneself internally, or intellectualizing.

At a very basic level you don't seriously "think" that what you "think" is false, because, among other things, you don't recognize your beliefs, particularly the deep-seated ones, as beliefs.

"I'm already experiencing and perceiving reality as it is. What else?"

Edited June 6 by UnbornTao

[Joseph Maynor]

Belief seems heavier than just looping on something.  Belief seems like an investment or a hunkering down on something you loop on.  Not always.  I am contemplating this.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

21 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Belief seems like an investment or a hunkering down on something you loop on.  Not always.  I am contemplating this.

I’m also contemplating this. 

The complication is that it’s simultaneously a language issue and something having to do with the actual substance of “belief.” I might come back to the thread if I think of something.

 

[SOUL]

Your philosophical definition is the actual definition, I'm not sure why the definition derived from a religious text has become the default definition for the common understanding of it. Why would I want to use a 2 thousand-year-old uneducated zealot's definition that is really a distorted version of it to begin with? If someone else chooses the weak definition and assumes it also is what I'm using this is their distorted belief, not my problem.

Belief is when we place trust or confidence in something that it is true or comports with reality. Everyone has beliefs, we cannot move in the world without them or we'd be a psychological wreck not trusting anything. Even using language posting on this internet forum is a network of beliefs that layer upon each other to be able to do it.

Even the word faith, as defined by the religious text is problematic, not the actual definition of it. The primary definition is a loyalty or fidelity to something so it is an action that is in accordance with something one believes in. If someone doesn't behave in accordance to what they believe or behaves contrary to what they believe it creates a divide in consciousness.

If we behave with harmony between our beliefs and faith it creates a unity in our conscious experience and it doesn't even matter if it is actually true or based on evidence, the psychological resolve can be just as strong as if it was true with evidence to support it. This is where the layman's definition comes in, it isn't the only or primary definition, it's a facet of how belief and faith works in our minds that allows it to be powerful in us.

I know the religious text version has become a common definition of it and there is a facet of the belief/faith dynamic that correlates to it but I'm not going to let someone else's mistaken belief in their version influence my trust and behavior. If they express to me they believe I'm using their distorted version I will simply clarify the one I am using and then move on, they can believe anything they want.

Belief and faith isn't problematic on their own, again it's how we move in the world, it's natural mechanism of our psychology. Even animals with less awareness than ours have trust and behavior that reflects a semblance of belief and faith in something or someone. Yes, an issue can arise when it's not actually comporting with reality or is a limiting one which is why it's a beneficial exercise to examine the ones we have.

Keeping our belief/faith system to a concise one is often helpful to creating our consciousness as clear minded and free from conflict, one that is bloated and complicated with tendrils and tangents everywhere creates much more opportunity for a conflict to arise. Having a light belief/faith system also provides less source for self suffering, the more beliefs the more attachment.

Can we rescue back the word from the distorted version of the laymen? I won't place much trust in that happening.

[oOo]

Great topic.

In the past I have partially dismissed belief as a concern due to seeing it purely through the lens of mechanical emergence that altered with perception. In retrospect, despite this having truth about this, it was the incorrect appraisal, or belief, about belief.

I have, interestingly, as I didnt imagine spending my evening this way for nearly the last hour, arrived at a new perception, that to me seems to hold greater weight than previous estimations. Feel free to be entertained as follows.

A belief is a co-observed meaning-pattern.

Our condciousness shapes that perception in real time, then experiences itself and the objectified, so the belief, through it. 

I arrived at this, what for me was a breakthrough at the time, now about 15 minutes ago, by registering the co-interaction between a belief, or the assigned meaning pattern that comprises that space we call a belief that holds a perception, and our consciousness. The co-observation is not in the belief perceiving direct consciousness in return in some way, although my mind did arrive at the double slit experiment momentarily for this connection, its in the observation of the observation of holding the pattern of meaning we call a belief itself in real time. 

For me this built emotional closure with respect to how I used to previously conceive of beliefs, because I was in part right, while st the same time, it revealed to me that even though yes, belief formation has a multidimensional structure that arises emergency, in hindsight it was a little bit of a cheap way to characterise something that captures so much of our collective imagination on how we think, feel about and navigate our personal lives and our views about it.

So I still have some phenomenological work to do to fully integrate this new perspectivesed appraisal because you have to work with your awareness a bit to fully grasp you cant just read a definition and immediately understand if you haven't understood it this way before, but that seems like an adequate new cementation I am to go with from now on.

Belief is a pattern of meaning.

A pattern of meaning occurs through observation of the seeking, the path found through the seeking, and the answers arising through that pattern of action. This pattern of action can be described as a behaviour of co-observation. 

That is the gestalt right now, where the behaviour of meta-aware objectification is like the place-holder of that. Degrees of meta-consciousness on a belief to me kind of seems like a good way to peg the pendulum between healthy co-observation of the process that forms a belief versus say, extreme absolutism, and somewhere in the middle that described the neutrality of being that allows experience to arise and fall as it suits itself.

Co-observation has some assumptions that at first glance may seem hidden, but the extra observation is a part of the organic recognition, acknowledgement and act of identifying perceptions, which give a belief, the heart of its meaning.  

I am open minded regarding other ideas shared here, I will integrate further perspectives privately. Thank you.