Jiddu Krishnamurti and Bruce Lee

[ecamd1025]

hey

I have some questions which I am not looking an answer for. lets think about it.
What is a belief?
What needs to be there in order for a belief to become?
what is that that becomes a belief?
Where is its origin?
What is its origin have that affects everything around?

What is Authority?

Lets start with 1
I dont know and you dont know so lets find out together, shall we?

[ecamd1025]

Hello

Before I get started, let me address a few points for the sake of clearer communication. Otherwise, I don't feel we'll understand each other at all.

1. You say that you are not interested in opinions, theories, concepts, or beliefs. What, then, are you interested in?
2. You say that you do not feel that "truth" can be realized by following another, nor by reading about it, nor by hearing it described by another. How, then, does one go about discovering it?
3. You do not feel as though truth can be experienced from one's biased point of view, and so therefore the absolution of self must first occur for Truth to be understood. Without "self," how does "one" ever understand truth?
4. You keep insisting that I need proof of a thing for me to believe it, and you seem to think that I believe that I make all of my decisions based on logic and reason. You haven't listened. I don't feel a need to prove my beliefs to anyone - including you. They are mine alone.
5. You have a habit of contradiction. First you say "Prove it" and then you say it doesn't matter anyway because my description of "it" here would simply be "words, and not the thing." Next you say you want to ask questions but don't care about answers - only to say "let's find the answers together."

With these things considered, I don't see how it's even possible to discuss these things with you. I mean no offense by that at all - I just mean that you don't even understand what YOU are saying, so how can you possibly understand me? And unlike your "questions," I would very much like for you to answer mine. In the mean time, let me offer up some food for thought.

I do, in fact, know what a belief is - at least as far as my own concern me. I know where my beliefs come from. Some are from personal experiences, some are from faith. I accept both as equally meaningful, and I feel no need whatsoever to justify them to outsiders, nor do I feel a need to further prove them to myself. Regarding my beliefs, I DO feel a need to remain open to change, and I have experienced many things in my life that changed the way I formerly believed. I welcome that in the future, and I do not see the change as "proof" that my former beliefs were in any way wrong. On the contrary, I do not think that personal beliefs are a zero-sum equation. They do not have to be either right or wrong. They simply need to be "appropriate" to one's own circumstances,and in line with one's own existence. You seem to like to talk about others (meaning me) "showing you." Seems that you're making me the teacher, the guide, before you even know where I will lead you, despite your caution against such things. I do not need or wish to show you any of my own beliefs, nor do I want you to accept them. Indeed, I prefer to keep most of them private, since it is only my life that my beliefs govern. It is at least partly because of that that I cannot understand your insistance that I try and prove something to you when I admittedly feel no need whatsoever to prove it at all. My experiences - not logic or reason or emotion alone, but my interpretation of the things I have seen and lived through - are at the heart of most of my beliefs, and those are things that you are utterly incapable of understanding. That in no way speaks of any failing on your part, but the inadequacy of description to convey experience.

I know what you're saying, and I understand what you're looking for - or at least I think I do. But I do not believe there is any such thing as Universal Truth, at least in the pragmatic sense. It may be out there, but without the individual to interpret the lessons, without the personal experiences to make the knowledge useful, I just don't see any point in searching for it. What good would it do? Functional truth is, to me, a far more noble goal. Some philosophies teach that a cup is only useful because it is empty, and that it is the void which gives it its utility, but it the sides that give the void a useful form. Without them, a cup would serve no purpose, and would cease to be. Function, then, is a matter of useful boundaries and their relationship to other things of substance - not of void. I know, I know. You're still willing to argue that a cup with no void would be equally useless. I submit to you that there are no voids whatsoever in this world. The cup is always full, whether you choose to see only liquid, or whether you acknowledge the air that fills the remainder makes no difference. Again, without pragmatism, the search for truth becomes pretty meaningless.

(Didn't Jerry say something like that earlier in this thread?)

Thus far, you have made it a habit to call into question my beliefs, along with the beliefs of others who may not see things the same way as you do. You sarcastically insinuated that your "way" must be more enlightened than mine or anyone else's here when you began a response with "Oh, now how did you seem to know so much?" You have demanded that I prove things to you that are, to me, intimately personal and beyond criticism by you or anyone else in this world. And in so doing, you have said that no matter what justification or proof I provided, you'd dismiss it as nothing because it would (by necessity of the media we're talking over) be "words and not the thing." So in one sweeping gesture, you've managed to tell me that you neither care for nor regard my beliefs with any credibility, that you would not even accept proof if it was offered to you (never mind that I have absolutely no desire to justify what I believe to some wannabe PC Guru), that you don't feel anyone is capable of leading another to truth (but that you'd like me to show you my way), and that you are yourself a confused and deluded person that doesn't understand the meaning of what he himself speaks (I don't want an answer to this question, but let's find the answer together?).

What, pray tell, is supposed to inspire me to give you the answers you're not seeking? The fact that you've already dismissed everything I have to say out of hand? The fact that you have done nothing to contribute to this discussion except offer up excuses about all the things you're not interested in hearing about? Maybe the fact that you've yet to say word one about what it is that YOU believe? Wanna hear my theory?

I think you stumbled on a topic that hit pretty close to home - one that you thought you had a pretty good grip on - and you thought you could pop in and sound impressive. You chose to pick on Demi for a statement that he wrote, and then you chose to pick on me, thinking that I was someone like you; someone who hadn't done enough living to understand what he believes and why he believes it. And when you discovered that you were dealing with someone who not only understands himself but feels no need to justify it to anyone, you didn't know what to do. So instead of backing up your own Philosophy 101 textbook nonsense, you tried to keep on picking. So it's to you to prove: What do you believe, since you've listed all the things you're not interested in? How do you find the answers? And what good are those answers in real terms? It's obvious that in the whole of the existence of your philosophy, no one has succeeded in discovering Universal Truth, or it would be common knowledge now, and the world's problems would be solved. So how do you justify following a path that has proven never once to have led a single person to be successful in their search? You asked me for proof of God? How about proof of Truth? Where's that? And why is pursuing it any more noble than pursuing deceit or falsehood?

Face it. You haven't got the foggiest idea. And it's as easy to shoot holes in your answers as it would be to try and tear down anyone's beliefs. The fact is, you're taking your own path as much on faith as anyone else in the world. You don't know where it will lead, and you have not a scrap of proof that what you're looking for even exists. For all of your condemnation of others for taking things on faith, all your demanding of proof, you're probably the most guilty here. At least the rest of us know ourselves and accept faith as simply that - Faith. You use your own labels to justify why others shouldn't trust labels - giving Truth some intrinsic nobility and making it a worthy goal when in fact, "truth" itself is just another human word, another human definition. So how about it, Grandmaster? What do you believe?

Ok you seem to know me very well. So there is nothing for me to say.

[Garland]

No, no. Don't take the easy way out and just back down. By all means, explain your own beliefs. You asked me for proof of my own beliefs over and over again. Are you so insecure in your own that you'll just fold when asked for proof of yours? You asked me for proof seven times in a single post, and yet you don't have the courage of your own convictions when challenged on what you stand for?

You insult me, talk down to me, call my belief system into question, and ask me to prove my belief structure to you as if you're some kind of moral judge - and you lack the willingness to even answer for your own contradictions. I think that if you're going to be as insulting as you were with your broken record "Prove it! Prove it!" attitude, then you should at least make an effort to explain your own views.

Wow...Mr. Brewer...I suggest public speaking as a fall back career whenever you're done with the military, because...that fool got BUUUURRRRRNNNNNEEDDDD. Damn...now THAT people ain't verbal jiu jitsu with soft and flowing de-escalation...that there is a whole different beast! Ever take debate man?...could've been fun to watch you ream some fools.

[Garland]

Hello. To answer your question (rhetorical as it may have been) ego, to me, is the mind's way of assessing where a person stands in relation to his/her surroundings. It is the tool that gauges a person's capabilities, confidence level, and overall capacity within a given environment. Since it is a purely subjective tool, it is always subject to error - sometimes on a huge scale.

Mike...that isn't just a belief, what you're observing is a psychological phenomena called the fundamental attribution error...it's been rigorously studied, and even out of all the classes I've taken (still intro, but whatever..) yours is probably my favorite description.

Ever take any psych courses?

[ecamd1025]

Hi

Hi Mike
The one on bottom youl find what your looking for.

[ecamd1025]

Hi

Ecamd
What is the ego? What is My way your Way?
Mike
I have to respectfully disagree. I hear arguments like your all the time about the word not being the truth. In my humble opinion, that's an escape - anexcuse for ignorance and a lack of clarity. It may indeed be true that the
word isn't the truth any more than a book is the subject itself, [Bbut the definition of a thing, and the expression of that definition is what gives it substance in the human experience.

[/B][/B] If you in fact strip away all titles, definitions, descriptors, and words, then whatever truth you find has no meaning anyway since you have no way to define or express the experience, and no way to relate it to anything else you "know." To your way of thinking, then, truth is nothing (and not even that, since "nothing" is too much a descriptor in itself). I still maintain that it is a plain and simple crock to say that "the way cannot be found through others, but only by finding your own path." Any path you walk is your own path, by simple virtue of the fact that you are the one walking it! It doesn't make any difference that someone else might have blazed the trail before you, or that others might be walking it behind you. The experience will still be your alone.
ecamd

Interesting, "relate it to anything else you know". But you use knowledge.
Mike
The same flaw exists in the advice for people to "follow their own path and not look for answers through teachers or guides" as exists in the theory that whatever someone sees as God is omnipotent, and yet people somehow have the power to act outside His influence.
Mike
But like your theories on Krishnamurti, people bend the doctrine, the ideas, the words to suit their own meanings. For you, truth exists beyond all definitions, words, books, teachers, paths, etc. For me, it's worthless in that state.
ecamd1025
Philosphy has changed, so have words and their meanings.
Humans have grown accustomed to believing whta satisfies them,

Mike
You don't follow Krishnamurti's teachings because they explain the world to you. You follow them because they justify the world you created in your own mind long before your decision was made. krishna, to you, explains life better than some other options, just like Christianity explains it better to others. In the end, man really did create God in his own image. But as long as whatever teachings you follow lead to a better life for you and those around you, so be it. Call that my pragmatic nature if you choose...

Ecamd
Find out for yourself not from me or some guru, teacher, organized religion. Because the truth is not that. And I or any other entity can not make you see that. Take care

Mike
I don't bother trying to find proof. Nor do I need it to justify my beliefs.
Emir-So what Is truth?

Mike
In fact, I might also point out that in your demands for such proof, you've exposed the lie within your own philosophy. You're asking me to show you the truth, which means you are seeking truth from another.
Ecamd
I have some questions which I am not looking an answer for. lets think about it.


MIKE
I still maintain that it is a plain and simple crock to say that "the way cannot be found through others, but only by finding your own path." Any path you walk is your own path, by simple virtue of the fact that you are the one walking it!
Ecamd
Is it really your path if it is Guidance?

Mike
Contrieve-To invent or fabricate, especially by improvisation

I guess that was a pretty contrived way to say any path we choose is indeed "Our Path." Any decision we make and any ideal we choose to embody becomes our truth. So maybe the real question involves asking whether or not "Truth" is a separate thing from "Personal Truth." And if it isn't, and one must let go of "self" in order to realize truth, then what good is it? With no "self" to utilize it (there's that pragmatism again), truth itself has no purpose whatever.ECAMD_ Is the personal truth the truth? what is a Belief? What is the self? i dont need an answer, think to youself?

Mike
You make a discovery that truth can only be discovered by the individual in his own time and in his own way.

Not what I said

Mike
You don't know where it will lead, and you have not a scrap of proof that what you're looking for even exists. For all of your condemnation of others for taking things on faith, all your demanding of proof, you're probably the most guilty here.
Ecamd -What does it mean to look?


You chose to pick on Demi for a statement that he wrote, and then you chose to pick on me, thinking that I was someone like you; someone who hadn't done enough living to understand what he believes and why he believes it. And when you discovered that you were dealing with someone who not only understands himself but feels no need to justify it to anyone, you didn't know what to do. So instead of backing up your own Philosophy 101 textbook nonsense, you tried to keep on picking. So it's to you to prove: What do you believe, since you've listed all the things you're not interested in? How do you find the answers? And what good are those answers in real terms? It's obvious that in the whole of the existence of your philosophy, no one has succeeded in discovering Universal Truth, or it would be common knowledge now, and the world's problems would be solved. So how do you justify following a path that has proven never once to have led a single person to be successful in their search? You asked me for proof of God? How about proof of Truth? Where's that? And why is pursuing it any more noble than pursuing deceit or falsehood?

Ecamd- How did I pick on Demi?
And then you, if you responded to me.

Ecamd
Thus far, you have made it a habit to call into question my beliefs, along with the beliefs of others who may not see things the same way as you do. You sarcastically insinuated that your "way" must be more enlightened than mine or anyone else's here when you began a response with "Oh, now how did you seem to know so much?" You have demanded that I prove things to you that are, to me, intimately personal and beyond criticism by you or anyone else in this world. And in so doing, you have said that no matter what justification or proof I provided, you'd dismiss it as nothing because it would (by necessity of the media we're talking over) be "words and not the thing." So in one sweeping gesture, you've managed to tell me that you neither care for nor regard my beliefs with any credibility

Ecamd- I dont recall, im sorry?

Is the belief truth?
Mike
So while you search for a way around the fact that truth exists absent of the "self" that is benefits, and cannot possibly be expressed or defined, and cannot possibly be pointed out by another and retain its full intrinsic truth,

Ecamd-I wont stick to that. i thought I pointed that out because here is what I said. Because the truth is not that. And I or any other entity can not make you see that. Take care

Mike
I merely pointed out the flaws in the argument you made.

Ecamd
So you must knew the truth in order to know I dont.


What is teh self? what is selflessness. Having, exhibiting, or motivated by no concern for oneself; interestin that means putting aside your beliefs as well. Interesting
Mike
God is omnipotent, and yet people somehow have the power to act outside His influence.Because "proof" of God will make no difference to me in how I relate to my God,
Ecamd
for someone who doesnt need proof you sure seem to give many proofs.
Mike
I don't bother trying to find proof. Nor do I need it to justify my beliefs.
I'll go on about my own life, content in the idea that I neither have nor need all the answers in order to live a full and prosperous life. Seek your own path, search for your own definitions. But don't step on other people and act like you're above them - handing out the directions for true enlightenment - when you haven't even got your own belief system worked out yet.

What is a belief seriously, what is it?

Mike
I know that an enlightened one such as yourself would never seek the answers from some teacher or guide...

I dont recall?

Take care, the discussion is over you seem to know so much about me so I dont have to write anymore. i dont need your response on these question,
Take care

[GQchris]

I think he might be one of those "New Age" liberal types... that don't believe in anything, asks circular bullshit arguments like "what is belief"; and bashes everyone else for their beliefs...

it's like those scenester type Emo kids where if you name them a famous band that rocks, they'll say that they suck because they're a recognized name, meanwhile if you ask them who rocks, then they'll come up with some crappy ass no name band who's music sucks, and band name no one's ever heard of, LOL. the fucking bay area is full of people like this, I need to get the **** outta here, LOL.

[ecamd1025]

Did any of that make any sense to anyone else? I couldn't tell what were attempts at quoting me and what were more examples of mental vomit from ecamd.

Let me try and decipher that message. Please, anyone, feel free to help me because I'm not sure I understood what our resident Guru was getting at. I think the first point ecamd tried to make was that I used the term "knowledge" to decribe "what you know." Was that the wrong way to describe a personal interpretation of a personal experience? It seems like your whole game, ecamd, is to simply come up with a word or two that you think isn't defined correctly enough to fit your picture of life. Once again - you can't even decide what you are saying or hearing, so how can you hope to understand anyone else?

In your next bid at avoiding telling us what it is that you yourself believe, I think you tried to make a point that words and philosophies have changed. So what? Are you trying to say that communication is impossible, and so is the pursuit of ideals? What are you trying to say?

In your next snippet, you mention that I should try to "find out for myself, not from some guru, teacher, or organized religion." What if I specifically choose to follow some organized religion, because it fulfills a need for me? Is that not what you are doing by following the principles laid forth by Krishnamurti? Since plenty of people before you have also said "Find out for yourself," are you not following in the footsteps of others by suggesting what they suggested? And is it really that difficult for you to admit that all of your advocacy for following one's own way is exactly the same advice (one might even call it the exact same "way") suggested by hundreds and thousands before you? I am not pointing that out because I know what Universal Truth is - rather, I am pointing out that your own philosophy contradicts itself.

Next, you asked me "So, what is truth?" My point exactly. Truth, functionally, is no different than God. It is an idea - a human concept that you must take on faith. Its inherent nobility and "goodness" is assigned by humankind, and the notion that pursuing it will lead you to positive results is a matter of faith in those human ideas and definitions. It may turn out that your faith is well-founded, and it may not. But that is the essence of faith, isn't it? To follow an ideal not based on the proof that it is what you think it is, or proof that it will lead where you think it leads - but on the faith that your pursuit alone makes you a better person than you would be in its absence. See, your pusruit of Truth is important to you because you feel like a more complete person for it. The same can be said for others in their following of religious doctrines. It's just not for you to say that they are wrong in choosing to follow others, because it may well be that their choice to follow does exactly the same thing for them that your choice not to follow does for you.

Then, you stunned me with the question "Is it a path if it is guidance?" In a word, yes. That's actually what differentiates a "path" from a "field." The path is the defined part that goes through the field (or the woods, or over themountain...you get my meaning). A path, one might say, is what "guides" a person through some other kind of terrain - whether it be over a montain range or through a vast desert. It shows the way, and following it can, at times, be the best choice one can make. But in any case, a "path" exists because someone has walked it before. That's how it got there. Choosing to walk it, and experiencing it through your ow awareness, your own senses, and within your own soul can be deeply personal. In a sense, I'd say that makes your experience along that path uniquely yours, does it not?



Not to put too fine a point on things, but what, exactly, have you said?

I think maybe a part of the problem here (aside from an obvious language barrier) is that you do things like ask questions without wanting to find answers. You ask for proof and then deny you've seen any. You assume that your own conclusions are correct, even when others show that the presumtions they were founded on were wrong. And you refuse to answer even the simplest of questions about your own belief structures, while expecting others to go out of their way to prove their own to you. Tell you what. When you can prove to me that your own path is leading you to Ultimate Truth when no one else before you has attained it, I will prove to you how my path is leading me to my God.

Failing that, how about we just go back to the simplest question yet asked: What is it that you believe in?

No more discussion all that is said Was in the last message now buzz off . If you knew what a belief is than you would know why I dont answer you?

[frankenbeans]

hey Mike that is some pretty deep stuff

Hey Mike, you got into some deep conversations here. Even me, who's getting a PhD in Political Science, is baffled by the intensity of the philosophical arguments displayed in these posts. Did you major in philosophy? You don't sound like just the usual physical brute who wants to fight or train all the time. You must obviously read alot or have some kind of academic background because it's just too incredibly sophisticated of the ordinary JKD guy to be analyzing various phenomena the way you do here. Impressive; you should be a professor, especially the way you handled these guys in this Krishnamurti stuff.

[Tom Yum]

I think he might be one of those "New Age" liberal types... that don't believe in anything, asks circular bullshit arguments like "what is belief"; and bashes everyone else for their beliefs...

it's like those scenester type Emo kids where if you name them a famous band that rocks, they'll say that they suck because they're a recognized name, meanwhile if you ask them who rocks, then they'll come up with some crappy ass no name band who's music sucks, and band name no one's ever heard of, LOL. the fucking bay area is full of people like this, I need to get the **** outta here, LOL.

Chris, you remember Faith No More?

I love their stuff.

[Tom Yum]

Hey Mike, you got into some deep conversations here. Even me, who's getting a PhD in Political Science, is baffled by the intensity of the philosophical arguments displayed in these posts. Did you major in philosophy? You don't sound like just the usual physical brute who wants to fight or train all the time. You must obviously read alot or have some kind of academic background because it's just too incredibly sophisticated of the ordinary JKD guy to be analyzing various phenomena the way you do here. Impressive; you should be a professor, especially the way you handled these guys in this Krishnamurti stuff.

I'm kinda glad you brought this up, frankenbeans.

Mike Brewer ain't a one-dimensional character; he knows his shit through and through whether it be anti-terror tactics or philosophy. People who take the time to diversify their talents to contribute to society deserve praise.

Mike is one of those persons!

[GQchris]

Chris, you remember Faith No More?

I love their stuff.

Vaguely familiar, I probably have heard of some songs of their's that I liked, I'm going to have to check them out again... I like a whole different type of range of music...

[GQchris]

I'm kinda glad you brought this up, frankenbeans.

Mike Brewer ain't a one-dimensional character; he knows his shit through and through whether it be anti-terror tactics or philosophy. People who take the time to diversify their talents to contribute to society deserve praise.

Mike is one of those persons!

This is why I enjoy Mike's posts as well, I can see this man has been around the block much like myself(not sayin I think I am above anybody else), and like Mike, I also love the subject of Philosophy, but I am not one of those types that start reading too much into it and start asking questions like, "well if that's truth", how true is it.. and how do we really know what the word true means.. how can you be so sure.. how can anyone be so sure..." phucking can't stand people like this, there is a cutoff for me, and I believe if you spend all your time obsessing and complexing your life because you're trying to find the meaning of life, you're going to lose out on the opportunities to live your life.. in layman's terms I like to live my life, have a good time, eat, drink, and be merry, hopefully one day meet that woman I can trust with my soul.. until then I walk on, fight the battles I choose to fight, and hopefully along the way I can help others, make their lives better and blessed, and one day when I have left the confines of time, be with my Creator in Glory...

[Tom Yum]

in layman's terms I like to live my life, have a good time, eat, drink, and be merry, hopefully one day meet that woman I can trust with my soul.. until then I walk on, fight the battles I choose to fight, and hopefully along the way I can help others, make their lives better and blessed, and one day when I have left the confines of time, be with my Creator in Glory...

Sounds good!

I'm a nerd, but I don't spend alot of time in the social sciences.

Just the hard sciences - you know, like 5 mile runs, 3-4 minute rounds of sparring, divebombers, women, physics, calculus, women, reading, women etc..

I read the Bible daily, put in my prayer requests and often find myself accidentally or subconsciously doing something in alignment with God's word.

[GQchris]

Sounds good!

I'm a nerd, but I don't spend alot of time in the social sciences.

Just the hard sciences - you know, like 5 mile runs, 3-4 minute rounds of sparring, divebombers, women, physics, calculus, women, reading, women etc..

I read the Bible daily, put in my prayer requests and often find myself accidentally or subconsciously doing something in alignment with God's word.

I agree, we need to learn as much as we can about women for the advancement of humanity as well as to advance our interpersonal skills with them