3 ms·

With practice, one can objectify and analyze their beliefs. You can start to identify what lens is active that you're filtering reality through. I highly reco

by orasis 10y ago

With practice, one can objectify and analyze their beliefs. You can start to identify what lens is active that you're filtering reality through. I highly recommend such a practice as it will allow you to hold multiple conflicting beliefs simultaneously. If you'd like a taste at some of the advanced stages that are available with belief objectification, I recommend this short PDF: http://newpossibilitiesassociates.com/uploads/9_levels_of_increasing_embrace_update_1_07.pdf http://newpossibilitiesassociates.com/uploads/9_levels_of_in...

zeveb 10y ago
> I highly recommend such a practice as it will allow you to hold multiple conflicting beliefs simultaneously. If two beliefs are mutually conflicting then at least one is wrong. If X^Y is false, then I don't want to believe that X^Y is true. That'd be insane!
- mcphage 10y ago
  > If two beliefs are mutually conflicting then at least one is wrong. Not necessarily. Since you try bringing math in, then there are other possibilities—both could be consistent with your axioms. The continuum hypothesis is neither "true" nor "false", but rather independent of the axioms of ZFC. You are free to adopt it, or its negation, and proceed from there.
- orasis 10y ago
  It may be insane to the typical person, but if you start to objectify the lens that is active, then you can see there are multiple conflicting truths. As an example: Belief 1: The floor I am standing on is real. Of course it is real. I can experience it right now. Belief 2: The floor I am standing on is not real. Of course it is not real. Most materials are empty space and our nervous system generates the experience of solidity. Besides, time doesn't exist as there is only this present experience so there is no container for material things to exist in. I regard both of these as true from different lenses. Is it insane? Maybe. But it also avoids a ton of existential angst.

by orasis 10y ago

zeveb 10y ago

> I highly recommend such a practice as it will allow you to hold multiple conflicting beliefs simultaneously. If two beliefs are mutually conflicting then at least one is wrong. If X^Y is false, then I don't want to believe that X^Y is true. That'd be insane!

mcphage 10y ago
> If two beliefs are mutually conflicting then at least one is wrong. Not necessarily. Since you try bringing math in, then there are other possibilities—both could be consistent with your axioms. The continuum hypothesis is neither "true" nor "false", but rather independent of the axioms of ZFC. You are free to adopt it, or its negation, and proceed from there.
orasis 10y ago
It may be insane to the typical person, but if you start to objectify the lens that is active, then you can see there are multiple conflicting truths. As an example: Belief 1: The floor I am standing on is real. Of course it is real. I can experience it right now. Belief 2: The floor I am standing on is not real. Of course it is not real. Most materials are empty space and our nervous system generates the experience of solidity. Besides, time doesn't exist as there is only this present experience so there is no container for material things to exist in. I regard both of these as true from different lenses. Is it insane? Maybe. But it also avoids a ton of existential angst.