BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Are beliefs 'optional'?

 
 
Smoothly
23:50 / 19.04.05
Following up on something from this thread, and latterly here, I wonder: are one's beliefs optional? And to what extent are we able to 'switch' them?

One's beliefs might change over time, new ones might emerge, old ones might be amended or retired. But at any given point, what option does a person have over what ze believes? Can I choose to rid myself of beliefs I wish I didn't have? Can I choose to adopt the belief I want? Do we make our beliefs or do they make us?
 
 
astrojax69
01:07 / 20.04.05
there's a lot of questions there, smoothly. need to think about them. well asked!

you're right, that beliefs do change over the course of time (sometimes years, sometimes moments!) so of course there must be a process to affect these changes. is this process something that we control, or does the process define us? i think a little of each.

we have free will. there, i said it, i am a free-willian [can i coin the term?] and don't hold much truck with determinists. that said, i also hold that non-conscious processes in the brain are responsible for about 99% of everything we are and do. the privileged access that conciousness seems to give us is over-rated, but it does still allow us to influence the outcomes of our behaviour to an extent. this thread had some good comments on, and an interesting link to measures of, our (necessarily nonconscious) prejudices.

it is through introspection that we can notice we have prejudices / beliefs / etc and so avowedly and rationally add to the data set that builds them up, so affect the final outcome. perhaps there is wiggle room in beliefs, but maybe not much.

as i said, much thinking to do on this matter - be interested to see what 'lithians have to add...
 
 
astrojax69
01:09 / 20.04.05
oh, and it will interesting to see if there is much thought about future technology playing a role in how our beliefs can be manipulated - re the welcome to geeks thread in the conversation board.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
08:35 / 20.04.05
[threadrot]
Sorry for interrupting, but how do you link to a specific position on a page the way you did with the first link in the opening post?

PM maybe to avoid further disruption. Cheers
[/endrot]
 
 
Not in the Face
08:09 / 21.04.05
I'd agree that we adjust our beliefs through introspection but only in comparison to our actions. As I understand it from my limited study in the subject, if we believe in something strongly and our actions contradict our belief we will modify our actions - if we have a weak belief in something and our actions are in contradiction, we are likely to amend our beliefs.

This link between action and belief is why people refuse to accept evidence presented to them that is counter to their beliefs, because their actions work to reinforce those beliefs rather than the information they receive (i.e. I going to church and praying reinforces belief in creationsim over any evidence that may be presented) - and arguably their actions serve to limit or control the information they receive that might lead to a change of views.

I do think it is possible to conciously change ones beliefs, but its not easy, if only because early beliefs can have such a strong hold on our minds. I suppose the question I would have is that if you conciously decide to alter your beliefs what promopted that change? Did you always have doubts about the prior belief? If beliefs are core to our identity why would we conciously change and are we often simply changing the form of expression rather than the underlying belief?

For me the biggest problem with technology today, and what I would like 'future technology' to address is our ability to handle information. While we have unprecendented access to information, much of it is available only in forms that take time and energy to digest and analyse. I think this is one reason why we see so many intranisgent positions being maintained - it simply requires less mental and physicial effort than constantly revising and reviewing ones own beliefs - while great from a philosophical view perhaps lousy from a achieving things point of view.

What would scare me is technology that was able to directly affect the physical processes by which beliefs are formed in the brain. Personalyl I think this is ultimately possible - we just don't know how yet. It scares me mostly because I wouldn't trust the people who would invariably have access and desire to use. However it could be useful in creating a Dice Man type environment, where people are able to switch between belief systems. Would that be a good thing? I realise that there is the tradition of fiction suits on the board, experimenting with different parts of personality, but to me that woulds be different to wholesale changes in character and personality that a Dice Man scenario would presume
 
 
Smoothly
16:02 / 21.04.05
Hmmm. There probably are too many questions here to start with. And do I wonder whether this is the question of free-will in disguise. (By the way, what definition of free-will are you subscribing to, astrojax? An action is a free one iff... what?) But perhaps we can skirt round that issue and address directly something that came up in the blasphemy thread.

Ganesh says:
If a homophobic comment is made within earshot of a gay man, I guess he might take offence because someone's insulted what he is - whereas if a "blasphemous" comment is made within earshot of a religious person, he might be perceived to have more choice in terms of 'offendedness' because someone's insulted what he chooses to believe.

That position is pretty orthodox, I think; beliefs are often described as being chosen.
But do we choose what we believe in? Dodging the question of whether we ultimately choose anything (in any sense freely), what kind of (apparent) choosing is choosing one's beliefs most like?

Sticking to the example at hand, I would like to believe in God. I think it would be a great comfort and give another layer of meaning to life. But I don't believe in God, and wanting to doesn't seem to make any difference. I assume that for those who do believe in God, merely *not* wanting to wouldn't change that either. What's more, the things I do believe in don't feel chosen; they feel more like facets of me that I've discovered - things that have developed, certainly, but no more chosen than the size of my feet or the lines on my face, part of who I am.

So, I am interested in the role of prejudice, denial, affirmation, learning and the impact of technology on belief, but I'd also like to cover some of the basics. Question 1: In what sense are beliefs *chosen*?
 
 
Warewullf
20:48 / 21.04.05
Question 1: In what sense are beliefs *chosen*?


If we stick with the God example, well, that belief isn't really chosen. It a decision made for us when we're kids. We're told God exists and we need to go to mass or whatever and blah blah balh fishcakes. As we grow older, we have the maturity to examine our beliefs and see if they are worthwhile. Are they useful beliefs to have? If not, they can be changed. A devout Catholic can become an Athesit overnight and vice versa.

When I first got into magick, I had to make a decision. If I was going to continue with it as anything other than an intellectual exercise, I had to choose to believe in it. If I wanted any of it to actually work, I really had to believe in it. Belief is the essence of Chaos Magick.

If you want, as per your example, to stop believing in God. Just do it. You'll soon be able to convince yourself he doesn't exist. (Fuck knows there's plenty of pain, horror and injustice in the world to back this new belief up!) I.e. shift your belief then find a way to re-inforce this new stance. It's surprisingly easy.

I believe in magick, but it would be incredibly easy for me, even with all I've seen and done, to convince myself that it was all rubbish. The question is, would I want to? Would I be better off with a different belief system?
 
 
astrojax69
22:27 / 21.04.05
By the way, what definition of free-will are you subscribing to, astrojax?

basically, i suspect free will is, by definition, consciousness (or a chunk thereof)

almost all of our existence in our environment is governed/co-ordinated etc by our nonconscious processes. i think free will is the instantiation of our awareness that we can manipulate our actions by design. but only within the range of possibilities provided by the various 'senses' through which we gain experiences. i take a spinozan view of the world, that it is simply what it is and we only have access to any portion of it that our faculties allow. that we cannot 'experience' more of it is no fault of the worlds! but we process masses of experience nonconsciously and have access to a minisucle portion of this in our consciousness - and hence our capacity to act 'freely'.

have always been a free-will adherent but only just very recently beginning to understand my ideas in these terms. so a discussion for a later thread, perhaps?


i think we come by our beliefs through a variety of means, so asking whether all our beliefs are optional or not seems too coarse a question.

but the interesting point is that we seem to be only able to see the world through our beliefs, our [pre-]conceptions of what we expect the world to be. once we incorporate an experience and account for it, we find it very hard to break that conception of the world when exposed to similar experiences. once you join up the dots in some way, as it were, it is very hard to see it differently.

but of course, breaking our mindsets is possible - one way is to accept in the first place many interpretations of the world, or at least accept that there may be many such interpretations. discovering the means to break mindsets is an hurculean task, but the point, i think, of mind sciences.
 
 
JOY NO WRY
07:23 / 22.04.05
their actions work to reinforce those beliefs rather than the information they receive (i.e. I going to church and praying reinforces belief in creationsim over any evidence that may be presented)

I was thinking something very similar: that it appears very difficult for people to change any of their beliefs, because their other beliefs get in the way. I think that generally beliefs exist within a system, with the majority of beliefs layered over the more fundamental ones.

If we compare a physicist who believes with a good deal of certainty that a certain star is 1000 light years away, and a fundamental Christian who believes with a good deal of certainty that the earth is only 6000 years old, and both are presented with pretty good evidence that their beliefs are incorrect, you're going to get some pretty different reactions. The physicist is likely to change his belief but the Christian is likely to say that he can't just change his beliefs just like that. This is because they've both just checked their more fundamental beliefs to see if the new one is backwards compliant. The physicist believes strongly in the scientific method, and that fits, so he accepts it. The Christian believes in the absolute truth of the Bible, and changing his beliefs wouldn't fit with that, so for him to accept the change he would then have to change his belief in the absolute truth in the Bible, which would challenge his belief in whichever sect he is a member of etc. etc.

I know that this doesn't address the entire problem of consciously changing belief, but I do think that it should be taken into account that changing any one is always going to be nigh on impossible unless you're willing to change all of them.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
12:10 / 22.04.05
Apropos of belief-change (or the ways in which we can resist belief-change), I've found Leon Festinger's work on Cognitive Dissonance to be quite a persuasive model. CD theory proposes that there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their 'cache' of beliefs (opinions, attitudes) and that when an inconsistency arises (i.e. 'dissonance') individuals attempt to eliminate it as it is psychologically uncomfortable. Festinger says that there are two factors which affect the degree of dissonance experienced - the number of dissonant beliefs and the importance attached to each belief. He describes three strategies for eliminating dissonance: reducing the importance of the dissonant beliefs; acquiring more consonant beliefs that outweigh the dissonant beliefs; and changing the dissonant beliefs so that they are no longer inconsistent.

The discomfort of dissonance is aroused when individuals are exposed to information that is inconsistent with their beliefs and responses include misperception or misinterpretation, rejection or refutation of the information as well as seeking support from those who agree with an individuals' belief or persuading others to accept one's belief. Festinger's classic study (described in When Prophecy Fails is of an American UFO group who believed in a prophecy - channeled by aliens to a woman in the group - that the USA would be flooded but that they would be evacuated by flying saucer. Needless to say, this event did not occurr and Festinger et al examined the behaviours of the members of the group attempting to deal with the non-event. Another example of belief-modification (or resistance to same) is that of the so-called "Great Disappointment" of the Millerite Movement when Jesus failed to show up on October 22nd, 1844, as had been predicted. As one might expect, thousands of people left the Movement, but a few went back to their bibles and generated alternative explanations for what had happened - modifying some of their beliefs but still maintaining their 'faith' as it were.

Magicians go through this process all the time, particularly if one confidently announces that by virtue of their magical action, "something" is definitely going to change (particularly if it's a major change like stopping Bush being elected). If the change occurrs, then this is seen as 'evidence' of one's individual or collective 'power/ability'. If it doesn't of course, this is rarely (in my experience) interpreted as evidence that one is a 'poor' magician, rather that the action was flawed in some other way.

Just as a side note, Benjamin Goertzel (author of "Chaotic Logic") has proposed that belief systems can be characterised as dialogical or monological. Dialogical belief systems engage in a dialogue with their context - seeking details, evidence etc., whilst monological belief systems 'speak only to themselves' and each component serves to reinforce the other beliefs.
 
 
Seth
20:37 / 22.04.05
I started a thread on this a while back. I'm hesitant to link to it because I think all my contributions are shallow, smug and flippant (and thus very irritating), but some interesting ground is covered despite the style I chose to take.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
20:59 / 22.04.05
Shit, there's little wprse than a reformed smoker is there? Apologies to anyone who's already tired of my smoking harp in the Temple, but I thought I'd add a much more obvious Cognitive Dissonance example following wotsitsface's post upthread (sorry, got carried away with the thread, have started my post, and didn't make a note of who who you were, CD person!)

Smoking.

Everybody who does it, just about, knows two, nay, three cognitively dissonant facts:

1. I smoke
2. Smoking is damaging to my health and liekly, if continued, to cataclysmically shorten my lifespan
3. I do not want to die / cataclysmically shorten my lifespan

OK, Holy Bible MSP fans apart, this is a fair suggestion of CD factoids.

I think these are far more common than the examples given upthread, since they are so 'everyday'. The (sorry, I forget the technical term, I'll improvise) Explanatory Reasoning of smokers is so inventive it's actually a study discipline all of its own. i should know, I'm studying my own, right now. Creative doesn't nearly cover it.
 
 
Seth
21:40 / 22.04.05
Reading that link back, my stance back then is quite different to what I believe now.

These days I can’t see beliefs as being separate from the body. We absorb information through our senses, and so at root all our beliefs have their basis in our bodies.

This is illustrated in much of the NLP work I’ve done with people. If you manage to elicit a belief during an exercise and then ask the person to track back to where that belief came from, and if you’ve done enough to establish trust, rapport and a decent enough trance, they’ll almost invariably have a specific memory resurface as the source (often an experience they won’t have thought of for years, or maybe even something they’ll have repressed). They may not understand the memory at first, because the sensory modalities will surface from their unconscious before their consciousness has had time to track how the train of their own idiosyncratic logic has abstracted from that sensory bundle into a belief that has become deeply held.

Nevertheless, the belief is rooted in this mixture of what is usually visual and auditory memory (although sometimes powerfully olfactory and/or gustatory – the two are linked in may ways) with a strong kinaesthetic hook (in other words the attachment of value to the memory by means of the emotional response). From this source experience all further thinking is abstracted. To change the belief is to change the relationship to that experience, which will change the kinaesthetic relationship to it.

We don’t experience the world, we experience the effect the world has on our bodies. Because the root of belief is physical there’ll be physiological states that go along with them, which you’ll also elicit if the person you’re working with relives the memory that is its source. Their breathing and posture will change, they’ll exhibit the same muscular tension, the kinaesthetic sensation of the source experience will return.

Now imagine the effect this has on our physiology from when we’re born. A huge amount of our belief building happens in the first few years of life, when our body is developing. Patterns of experiences will produce specific muscular tensions, and we’ll build a repertoire of belief-associated physiological states based on what we have perceived has worked for us in the past. At this crucial stage of our development our bodies are altered as a result of these habitual patterns we fall into, and as a result some ways of being become built-in.

Any successful belief change systems have to take this into account. I’ll give you an example based on my own life.

My body type is quite top heavy; I have a very well built upper body that has nothing really to do with the amount I exercise. I have broad shoulders and strong arms. By contrast my legs - while not being exactly underdeveloped - are not accustomed to taking the strain of my upper body without locking at the knees for extra support. As a result I’m not hugely well balanced unless I put effort into bending at the knees and relaxing, which makes me feel more grounded. I put effort into becoming a better dancer by working on my legs, my footwork, but I still find my legs starting to vibrate and become energised when I relax my knees and become more flexible.

This is born out by some of the ways I talk about myself: “I have a lot on my shoulders right now.” Previous girlfriends have said they feel “safe” in my arms. I have a strong and protecting body.

The other side of this is that my physiology seems key to the fact that I project myself as something I’m not (or at least projects an idealised version of me), which is linked into many of my unconscious beliefs about myself (my body is my mind and my mind is my body. I am my body). I can have a charisma or persona that is at odds with my deeper, inner needs. Psychologists of the Reichian school (specifically Alexander Lowen and Sandy Cotter) would say that I developed physically in that manner because at some point I felt it wasn’t right to be myself, and so my entire body pulls upwards from its basic nature. Some of the memories that these beliefs are rooted in are accessible to my conscious mind, others are not and may never be. It’s probably that the earlier belief is the more crucial it is in the formation of this pattern and the less likely I am of experiencing that memory in consciousness at this point in my life.

Now over the last couple of years many of my friends have told me I’ve changed beyond recognition. I’ve changed jobs twice, started and finished two NLP courses, finished my marriage and started a new relationship, ceased self-defining as Christian. Two grandparents have died, my parents broke up, I’ve moved house three times, and my current girlfriend has a young son. I’ve just started driving, and have a brilliant band that I’m proud to drum for. My circumstances have changed hugely, and so have my beliefs about myself and what I’m capable of. My attitudes towards relationships, sex, life goals, spirituality – all these things are drastically different.

All these are what I’d refer to as surface beliefs (apart from maybe the stuff about sex). That’s not to belittle them – they’re powerful and important and they have resonance throughout my whole life. My physicality and the effects it has are still current, however. My tendency to try to hold the world’s problems on my shoulders is still there. My projection of my own problems until they reach cosmic proportions is still there. My ignorance of my own inner needs from my less developed inner core self are still there. My tendency to hide my flaws is still there.

These are things that will be with me for a while, because they’re built into my body. I can try exercises to build my lower body and its ability to support me, and I can try to stay diligent and notice expressions of this habitual behaviour as and when they occur, and try to do something different instead. It’s going to take time and work, whereas often surface beliefs can change in an instant when conditions are right and the right lever is used.

The physiological beliefs tend to be much more pernicious, because they’re physical and habitual and exist outside of consciousness for the most part. You tend to think you’re on top of them, when you’re only really on top of a tiny proportion of how they manifest in your behaviour. All of a sudden you experience a breakthrough when you’ve been feeling stuck for a while, and you realise it’s because the same old habits are manifesting in new ways. It keeps you on your toes.

It’s worth also noting that I love my body, and I love the traits that I have as a result of having my body. It’s not something that I want to fight against necessarily. A teacher who I respect once told me that the masterstroke with my type of personality/physiology is to turn the natural strength, protectiveness and kindness of my projected persona inwards on my inner self, so that I am the recipient of my own love and support. The reason I developed in this way is because I learned coping strategies for difficult experiences, and that’s something to be grateful for. But learning and growth demands that new strategies are found, and if I am to change and develop significantly as a person I have to turn a significant proportion of my attention to my body.

Because I am my body.
 
 
Seth
21:47 / 22.04.05
If any NLPers who may be reading this reckon I've extended the issue of belief to include identity (as in capital B for belief and capital I for identity, as per Bateson's logical levels), then my response is, "Yes, I have." The two levels mix hugely, they're only separated for the purposes of that specific model. IMHO the model needs another level for physiology (and maybe a few other new levels as well).
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
14:51 / 25.04.05
Because I am my body.

Yes.
 
 
Smoothly
15:28 / 25.04.05
I am utterly out of my depth when it comes to Madjick and NLP, but in a threadrotty way I'm fascinated by the mechanism by which you have to believe in magick before magick can happen (is there anything else like this? You don't need to believe the earth is round before you can circumnavigate it; flat-earthers go round just the same. Atheists have had religious experiences, and so on. Am I being thick?). More to the point, I'm interested in what Warewullf says about being able to believe (or not believe) whatever he wants? W - could you believe in Father Christmas? I don't mean to sound facetious, I'm just intrigued. You say, 'Just do it!' - I don't think I'd find it so easy. But that might just be a difference between you and me.

The role of Cognitive Dissonance seems pretty useful here, and Denial - in the psychiatric sense - would also be relevant I suppose. The waters become muddied though when one considers how we are psychologically 'bound' to beliefs about ourselves (or our own beliefs, in fact) that are false, misrepresentative or contradictory. Even when we do change our beliefs, the process seems so subconscious and inaccessible that it threatens to beg the question. I'll have to give it some more thought though.
 
 
Warewullf
20:46 / 25.04.05
could you believe in Father Christmas?

It's all in how you look at it. Check out this short piece on The Santa Egregore.
 
 
Warewullf
20:49 / 25.04.05
But that aside, it boils down to why you would want to believe in Santa.

Coming from the Chaos side of things (and I apologise for the threadrottery), it's all about the results. You believe in X for the express purpose of achieving Y. You can believe in it for as long as it takes and ditch the belief after you get what you want or you can hang on to it if you find said belief useful.
 
 
Seth
13:48 / 27.04.05
I'm fascinated by the mechanism by which you have to believe in magick before magick can happen (is there anything else like this? You don't need to believe the earth is round before you can circumnavigate it; flat-earthers go round just the same. Atheists have had religious experiences, and so on. Am I being thick?).

Your beliefs play a crucial role in creating the type of world that you're capable of experiencing. For example, you can only have a fulfilling and rewarding relationship if you believe it's possible to have fulfilling and rewarding relationship. A lot of magic and NLP plays in this area of the individual's subjective experience.
 
 
Smoothly
14:59 / 27.04.05
But that's not true, is it, Seth? Lots of people manage to have fulfilling and rewarding relationships despite a prior belief that they couldn't (*cough* me for one). You start to believe it because of your experiences, not the other way around. Or am I missing your point?
 
 
trouser the trouserian
15:19 / 27.04.05
I'm fascinated by the mechanism by which you have to believe in magick before magick can happen

Well that's not quite how it works in my experience - it's more that you have to stop actively disbelieving it. I'd suggest that it is a similar process to the act of suspending disbelief in a b-movie and becoming engaged with it - to the point where you blub a bit when the cute animal hero gets flattened by a truck, or the scary after-effects of a bad horror movie when, despite knowing that the monsters are all cgi and rubber suits, you're still a bit jumpy when next door's cat bangs on your window. Does that make sense?
 
 
Seth
15:43 / 27.04.05
You've answered your own question, Smoothly. Your belief that you couldn't was prior to the relationship - you've done well in that you allowed your belief to change based on evidence. If your belief hadn't changed the relationship could have been very different. I've noticed many people who didn't change their belief based on evidence, and created an unfulfilling relationship out of something that could have worked. The belief effects what you are capable of experiencing.
 
 
Smoothly
16:09 / 27.04.05
I think I get what you're saying, Seth, but I don't think my relationship could have been different because my experience of it was *bound* to change my belief (because my belief was wrong, or over-generalised, or not sophisticated enough). Maybe the relationship *hadn't* been enough to change that belief, and would now be over. But I'd interpret that as evidence that my belief was right, applicable, plenty sophisticated enough... That's how I see my beliefs changing - by the introduction of contradictory evidence; I don't get new evidence by changing my belief. I might believe my car is totally fucked, but it might turn out to be the starter motor. But believing it's just a faulty starter motor won't *make* it a faulty starter motor. See what I'm getting at? ('Yeeehhhssss', Seth sighs)

T the T, that makes more sense to me, although that's more of an absence of a belief (one way or the other), isn't it?
I guess the relationship between *doubt* and belief is relevant here. After all, not many beliefs are absolute, beyond doubt, matters of faith. And the extent to which beliefs can be modified by doubt gives me a bit of a finger-hold onto how beliefs can be chosen - or opted in and out of - by dint of one's will.
So we might have the power to doubt our beliefs. I don't believe in God, but I can force myself to doubt my sureness - I might dwell on the counter-arguments, try to recall some experiences which might qualify as religious ones, questions my reasons for concluding that it's a load of old hooey. I could do the same with my belief that the earth orbits the sun or that George W Bush is an irresponsible leader. In fact, we do this all the time (and is probably much of the motivation for coming to somewhere like Barbelith where we can argue about such things). However, while my wilful doubting will sometimes lead me to consider new evidence that might change that belief, that change of belief is not willed by me. It's just a consequence of the totality of the relevant experiences. I might find myself no longer believing something that I found useful or comforting; I might find myself with a new belief that is painful or awkward. Point is, it's a bit like looking under a rock. You can choose to look, or choose not to - but what you find there if you do is outside your control.
That's how it seems to me anyway. Perhaps I lack a certain kind of will-power.
 
 
Seth
17:18 / 27.04.05
I see what you're saying. What I'm saying is that the ideal situation is that you allow your beliefs to change based on evidence, which is what you've done. Your beliefs have changed in the light of new experience, and are in constant change to become more accurate to how you perceive the world. That's what to aim for.

I'm also saying that many people do not do this. Indeed, everyone is likely to not do this at some stage and in some way. People disregard evidence, create evidence to fit their beliefs, and poorly interpret evidence. They delete, generalise and distort what they receive through their senses. They do not allow themselves access to huge areas of their experience because they do not change their beliefs in the light of new experience (I’ll add that I do this too. It’s impossible not to do it in many ways. You just have to be vigilant and aware of yourself and the way you do it).

To site your example, you didn't believe you could have a decent relationship, were brave enough to try it anyway, found that you could have a decent relationship and used the experience to change and grow. That's brilliant. On the converse side, I know a girl who is so cripplingly insecure with such a fixed negative self image that she soon brings most other people around her to seeing her as she sees herself. She actively works in an unconscious manner to bring about instances that confirm her beliefs about herself. For further examples of this think of people who stay in abusive relationships because it's a validation of their self-image.

You’ll also know how to assess evidence so that your beliefs do not necessarily ping pong around based on every new bit of evidence that arrives. I might get narky with my girlfriend and pick a pointless argument with her because I’m cross and want to vent. It’s not something I tend to do often, and I’ll feel bad about doing it. However, isolated instances of acting like a prick are unlikely to make me dislike myself or think that I am bad at relationships. I consider them to be a blip – a blip that needs addressing, but not one that characterises me. If a pattern emerges that’s another matter, and one of the great things about our friends is the way in which they act as external pattern recognisers, which is one of the reasons it’s always good to surround yourself with honest people.

Again, there are people who do not have this filter. I know someone who generally has very positive beliefs but has a tendency of swinging back into negative beliefs about herself when she gets the slightest bit of contrary evidence. Both set of beliefs exist, yet there is no bedrock of certainty about herself to allow her beliefs to be more stable.

Now, what's interesting is if beliefs can work to create confirming instances of themselves, you can choose to use positive beliefs to create specific effects. If you believe as I do, that I will live my life happy, healthy and whole, you'll look for and create confirming instances of that hypothesis. You create a virtuous circle as opposed to a vicious circle. Going back to my post about where I talk about the lie of separation between mind and body, believing that I will live healthily is to create the increased likelihood that I will be healthy. I could be a lot fitter and better exercised that I am now, nevertheless I am probably only ill once every few years (and never seriously).

You’ll also be likely to create new behaviours to fulfil the prophecy. I’m currently going through a huge amount of belief change work concerning smoking. It’s pretty hard, because smoking beliefs become built into the body through habitual stances and breathing patterns, not to mention the effect of the tobacco and all the mythologizing that goes with it. I believe that I’m capable of doing it, and whenever I find it particularly hard (as I have done today) I remind myself that I built up realistic beliefs about it being occasionally hard before I chose to do it, which at least makes the confirming instances of that something I’d prepared for. Believing that it won’t always be hard to quit also allows me to notice and enjoy the times when it’s easier than anticipated.

The next idea is to work on my beliefs about wealth and money, along with further health related belief work. I'd like to encourage as much happy experience to come my way as possible (meaning of course, experience that I choose to use to increase my happiness). Of course, belief change is not often as easy as simply making a choice between one set of beliefs and another – there are some important techniques to use to elicit your current belief set and another set of techniques to change it. Some people are naturally good at change. Others aren’t.

Still others are good with some change but not other types. Back to the point about the root of belief being physical, some people are good with what I termed as surface beliefs but not the ones that are built into their bodies through breathing, posture and muscular tension. It’s rare that you’ll find someone who notices who they are in their bodies and knows how to work with it. I’ve only just started, and it’s hugely challenging. There are times when I simply shut down and don’t engage with people, particularly when I’m frightened of being hurt or shown to be wrong. It’s like a block, I feel unable to move or speak. It can take a huge effort on my part to overcome, because I suddenly feel cut off from my body and means of expressing myself.

To illustrate some of how this works… let’s say hypothetically that an imaginary someone is terrified of being in a relationship, yet really want to be intimate with someone. Each time they see someone who they find attractive their chest moves upward, their shoulders and brows raise. They exhibit a frightened physiology, but it’s so habitual that they may not consciously experience the fear. Now realise what effect that has on the people they’re interacting with, an effect that they may not even realise consciously that they’re causing. A belief manifesting physically is observable by other people who are likely to interpret what they see as fear, whether they consciously realise this or not.

Now imagine what kind of people they’re likely to attract based on these encounters. They could strike it lucky and build an instant rapport with someone as frightened as they are, who is exhibiting similar physiology, and find a wonderful relationship (this is a wonderful possibility but unlikely, as it’s more probable that they’ll keep the other person at arms length). They’re more likely to find someone who sees their weakness and either consciously or unconsciously manipulates them, thus perpetuating the cycle of fear of relationships, which creates more instances in which their fears are shown to be well founded…
 
 
Seth
17:30 / 27.04.05
Thinking about it, Smoothly: in your case it may well have been your belief that all your beliefs should be as accurate as possible - with the attendant questioning and testing of existing beliefs - that allowed you to update your beliefs about relationships in the light of new experience. People have beliefs that govern sets of other beliefs. In this case the changing of one's theories in the light of new evidence is common with people who are used to using scientific methodologies in which every idea is tested to establish its veracity. Applied to your example, I reckon your existing belief that your beliefs are open to doubt and change allowed your to pay attention to evidence that contradicted your beliefs about the kind of relationships you were capable of having.

That might also explain any hesitancy you have regarding magic, a realm of ideas and techniques in which things are not always easily tested or measured, the benefits and effects of which are not always readily apparent. A suspension of disbelief and willingness to be open to what seems at first inexplicable, along with a love of unfettered experience is what's required for magic. It's much more akin to the artistic experience, a loss of conscious control in the opening of what's unconscious. It involves attributions of significance and the deliberate placing of faith in operations that have a symbolic meaning.

Both disciplines of thought are useful and healthy when they're held in balance with each other.
 
 
Chaos is relative
04:58 / 28.04.05
I guess my question is, what exactly do you consider a belief? These sound like scientific and moral judgements to me. I consider a belief to be, as a classmate in Texas so eloquently imposed upon my young but resistant mind; "If you don't believe in Satan, you're gonna burn in hell." I moved back to Colorado soon after.

What I'm saying is that the ideal situation is that you allow your beliefs to change based on evidence, which is what you've done. Your beliefs have changed in the light of new experience, and are in constant change to become more accurate to how you perceive the world. That's what to aim for.

This is an example of the kind of scientific approach that is suggested by some schools of magick. Belief becomes completely irrelevant and actions are determined by tested scientific theory. I guess in this case one has to believe that science has some value, another belief. A question that came to mind while reading this was whether we are talking pure metaphysics such as, if I believe a boiling pot of water is safe for my hand, will it still burn it? This borders on zen and seems to transcend logical discussion, but studies of people who have lived out the first 10 years of their lives in isolation, as abused victims of cruel parents, have shown that they are insensitive to temperature. The one I learned about recently was a girl named Genie from California. She could bathe in extremely hot or cold water without reacting to the temperatures. (Please don't try this at home.) Tibetan monks have also been known to sit in meditation in snowstorms without shelter, set wet towels on their bare backs, and make them dry. The steam clouds created in these experiments/displays of disbelief are legendary.

And another thought that attracted my ctrl c;
Well that's not quite how it works in my experience - it's more that you have to stop actively disbelieving it.
This has been my experience with magick as well. I have opened myself up to innumerable possibilities by not disbelieving anything and yet not really believing anything either. A belief implies that one is without experience on which to base this judgement. There are things that can be relied on with some consistency, but as science has proven by its historic fallibility, nothing is true all of the time. This allows the will to remain flexible. Choices seem to be based on moral character more than what I interpret as belief. This is just another way of saying;

A suspension of disbelief and willingness to be open to what seems at first inexplicable, along with a love of unfettered experience is what's required for magic. It's much more akin to the artistic experience, a loss of conscious control in the opening of what's unconscious. It involves attributions of significance and the deliberate placing of faith in operations that have a symbolic meaning.

One thing that seems vital to my personal operation is to align the symbols properly. To interpret experience in relation to my personal consciousness as if the outside world is communicating the results of my choices back to me. This extends to choice of action, thought, and speech. I was hoping to dispute it from the NLP angle citing General Semantics and Korzybski. When I eliminate identification and any term that implies an absolute, beliefs seem to disappear naturally giving way to creative interpretation. This interpretation is then combined with recorded experience to make choices based on what I am trying to get at in that particular moment. This is what I would consider free will.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
08:13 / 28.04.05
Another point I feel is worth mentioning is that some of the beliefs we have are likely to be 'stronger' than others - and that the degree of commitment we have to a belief obviously changes over time. To give a recent example I've been mulling over of late: When I studied sociology at college I decided that I hated Marx and all things Marxist - and with the typical assurance of a 21-year old convinced of his "rightness" took every opportunity to express this. And for some time later, had a knee-jerk reaction of "not liking Marx" every time I encountered anything to do with him or his theories. Last year, idly skimming through some Baudrillard and noting some references to Marxist theory - and wanting have as complete a grasp of the paper as possible - I thought I'd give the old walrus another go and started reading Marx on commodity fetish. It wasn't until I was half-way through the text that it struck me that I was not only enjoying the reading (which I didn't do the first time round) but finding his arguments persuasive, and I thought "Hang on, I thought I didn't like Marx?" The way I think of this is that in the 20-odd year gap between my initial self-belief that "I don't like Marx" a lot has changed and in particular, I haven't been around a lot of Marxists, so there hasn't been many opportunities for me to reinforce (i.e. defend) the belief - and consequently its weakened to the point where I'm no longer constrained by it.

This, for me, brings up something about how we 'decide' (or not) to change beliefs - or at least modify them. It's often held to be a rational, evidence-directed process, but given that we don't stop and critically examine every belief we encounter prior to taking it on board (at least I know I haven't) or commiting to it, I can't help but wondering how conscious the process of modifying beliefs is? I sometimes feel that when chaos magicians go on about merrily changing/discarding beliefs - how many of these 'beliefs' are 'weak' - in the sense that the individual doesn't have any strong feelings about them either way?
 
 
Seth
10:10 / 28.04.05
I guess in this case one has to believe that science has some value, another belief.

Thanks, that’s what I was aiming for. And thank you also for mentioning fakiristic/shamanic phenomena, being impervious to pain and extremes of temperature and having seemingly limitless endurance.

I’ve experienced some of this myself. There have been several times in my life that I have felt the need to dance to stay alive. That’s an odd thing to write, and it looks odd as soon as I’ve typed it. I guess it’s further along the lines of the beliefs as physiological experiences. It’s very hard to feel depressed when you’re doing star jumps, and when you dance you have access to vast areas of your physicality that you don’t usually move. As I said earlier, I dance with my whole body, and in the above mentioned “survival dance” situations I dance very physically and often violently, throwing myself into club walls at times. My centre of gravity becomes much lower, I dance from my legs and my hips, my whole posture becomes more sexualised.

Ain’t nothing wrong with a little bump and grind.

Anyway, the relevance of this is that my endurance goes through the roof under these circumstances. I go ecstatic and I dance like a nut for hours straight without getting tired. I’ve tried to will myself into the same state and it’s never really worked, which is a shame because on the presuppositions of NLP you’re supposed to be able to enter any state at will (not that the presuppositions are supposed to be *true* in the first place, but never mind). It felt much more like my conscious mind realised that dancing was what I needed to do, but that the need came from somewhere else in me – my unconscious. If you’re determined to try to think of body and mind as separate then the unconscious would be the link between the two (I’m of the opinion that they’re both properties of the body). Think about the number of unwilled actions we perform when, for example, we’re crossing the road only to see a speeding car that we hadn’t expected. Our typical response when someone throws something to us is to catch it, and it’s often in our hand before we fully realise it.

It’s been my contention throughout this thread that mind and body are one. Beliefs originate in the body and are stored in the body. State dependent memory is just one example of this: in order to retrieve certain memories you must adopt the physiological state in which you first had the experience. It’s wholly appropriate to talk about the breathing state that goes along with a particular belief… or the dance moves that may go along with empowering beliefs, in which possibilities are tested and creativity become manifest and sexual charge released. I’ve already mentioned how I use my legs and hips while I dance to make me feel more grounded and rooted, to feel more connected to my inner nature.

I hope I’m communicating well enough here. I don’t want to seem as though I’m shoehorning my favourite new theory to fit the thread: I think this is really important stuff to the whole area of belief. I think it’s vital.

I’m increasingly dissatisfied with talk of beliefs that only addresses them in terms of the abstractions that we’re capable of verbalising. In my experience there are many layers of abstraction that accumulate between a significant sensory learning experience and the ability to draw the resulting belief into consciousness via a convenient linguistic slogan, “I believe/disbelieve in X.” This is why people often don’t tend to change as a result of conversations in which their opinions may be disproved in debate. The beliefs on which their opinions are built are in their body, and chances are you’ll have trodden on defence mechanisms that will have caused changes in physiology that grind the beliefs in further. You know, hackles raised, tension in the shoulders and arms, narrowed eyes, constricted breathing in the chest… indeed, if a person is going to change as a result of new information coming to light in conversation it can usually happens when the defence mechanisms subside, the new material is absorbed physiologically/in the unconscious (I increasingly think the two terms are synonyms), and consciousness is usually last to know. In agreement with trouser the trouserian, if you can change beliefs by using the linguistic abstraction alone then usually they’re not that significant a belief, or the person may be ready to hear it and change anyway.

The reason so much of this is so difficult to communicate is that if a belief is in consciousness it’ll have been through the layers of abstraction in order to put it there. Therefore the chain of abstractions back to the original learning experience and associated physiology is out of consciousness. It’s therefore probably quite hard for people reading this who have no experience in the area to think of correlates from their own experience, because they’re not aware of the process taking place. Their consciousness is not grounded in their body.

There are all sorts of beliefs that operate like this outside of awareness. Too much NLP fails because the practitioner only deals with what is said verbally, not what is demonstrated in physiology. There are good techniques to draw this into awareness and these involve establishing rapport, trance, and the accompanied mobilising of the unconscious and physicality of the person wanting the changes to take place. If you’re doing it right the person won’t necessarily have an immediate conscious understanding of what is happening during the change technique, and you then help them to understand the changes that have happened through analytic technique.
 
 
Smoothly
10:56 / 28.04.05
Seth: What you say about evidence and belief makes absolute sense, and I can relate most of your examples to personal experiences of my own. And your intuitions about where I'm coming from are spot on (which also helps to make your point).

There are lots of things here that I'd like to pick up, but I'm going to have to restrain myself from rotting this thread hugely. I might indulge a little though...

First, it's becoming less clear to me what counts as a belief. In an everyday sense, I won't say I believe something unless it feels like some kind of conclusion. For me, entertaining the possibility of something, doesn't qualify as something I believe. Do I believe there will be a third world war within my lifetime? No. Do I believe there won't? No. And I don't think I could just choose to believe one proposition or the other. I could *pretend* to - quite possibly very convincingly - but I'd know I didn't really believe it. I might find myself defending one view over another more often than the reverse, but that would largely depend on the positions of people I found myself discussing it with. So, in trouser's terms, most of my beliefs are weak, weak to the extent that I don't really consider them beliefs. These are at best 'positions' or 'postures' and I have no problem at all seeing how one might freely choose to shed or adopt one of those.

There seems to be a distinction here between mutable, easily adaptable, weak beliefs (eg. I'm not the sort of person who can have fulfilling, rewarding, long-term relationships) and then there are 'core' beliefs that enable us to modify the former (eg. I should change my theories in the light of new evidence). Not only are individuals' weak beliefs different, as Seth outlines, so are their core beliefs. This now makes me wonder how these beliefs relates to responsibility.

One of the things that struck me reading your comments, Seth, is that it's the people with the destructively immutable beliefs who really own them (or you might say, 'owned by them') in a way that the liberated, adaptable people don't. And its tempting to feel that if beliefs can be picked up and dropped with ease, those beliefs don't really matter. If I thought that I could just as easily believe something else, I'd find that troubling. But what I wonder is whether it would soften or harden my feelings towards people whose beliefs are antithetical to mine. If my belief could just as easily be reversed, I think I could only feel more forgiving of those whose beliefs *are* that reverse. But on the other hand, if we have no power over what we believe, to what extent can we be *blamed* for holding them?

It seems to me that if we are to avoid trying to lift ourselves up by our own bootstraps, we must have some core beliefs that determine all the others (are these the kind of beliefs you think of as being stored in your body, Seth. I can't claim to really understand what you're getting at in your last post. Are you being metaphorical, or do you really think of yourself as having beliefs in your legs?). But I might be wrong. Perhaps my next question is: Are there immutable core beliefs that determine what you choose to believe? If so, to what extent are we responsible for them and to what extent do they define us?


[rot] There are lots of things I'd like to address in the last few posts, but they're probably best done elsewhere. However, briefly, I don't really understand how an evidence-based approach is antithetical to majickal practice - or would account for my hesitance. From what I have read in the Temple, there does seem to be plenty of talk about results, consequences, effects and so on. In what way is a belief in majick in contention with scientific methodology? Science, as a rule - as I see it - isn't really concerned about whether an observed phenomenon fits in with existing models or methods for measuring things. Quite the opposite - it's the observation of contradictory evidence that refines those models and tools, and drives science forwards. I suppose what I'm saying is that majick looks (from a distance at least) a lot like science. [/rot]
 
 
trouser the trouserian
13:09 / 28.04.05
...if a person is going to change as a result of new information coming to light in conversation it can usually happens when the defence mechanisms subside, the new material is absorbed physiologically/in the unconscious (I increasingly think the two terms are synonyms), and consciousness is usually last to know.

The more I reflect on this, the more I agree with you, Seth. Over the past couple of years I've become increasingly aware of when I'm really uncomfortable in a situation, just how physical the experience is. I was at a workshop last year where those present started just opening up to each other about deeply painful experiences - the kind of stuff you just can't let out often due to the overwhelming agony it triggers. One thing that really struck home for me was that I experienced this massive panic reaction (teeth chattering, muscle rigity, sweating etc.) that I had to fight through in order to give voice what I wanted to say. Even writing about it now is taking me back there, so I'm going to stop.

Smoothly. It's relevant, if only 'cos IMO there is a difference between how magic is described and how it is experienced. You say Science, as a rule - as I see it - isn't really concerned about whether an observed phenomenon fits in with existing models or methods for measuring things. ... - but that's often (not always) how magic proceeds. "I believe in x theory. I have an experience that seems to fit in with my understanding of x theory. Therefore my experience 'proves' x theory is true (either personally, or totally, depending on how fervent one is about one's magical beliefs).
For example, when I first started becoming interested in the occult, I was already interested in Jung's theory of the collective consciousness. The stuff I was reading in occult books (and having early experiences) all seemed to "fit" what I already believed to be true about the world from reading Jung. So I accepted Jung's theory - and occult notions that seemed to fit in them as 'true' (i.e. self-evident) and interpreted experiences I had within that framework. So I'd say I was very much looking to confirm existing beliefs rather than refute or test them.
Witness the argument triggered on a recent thread in the Temple by Seth's highly articulate (and funny!) critique of the common trope regarding metaprogramming. The notion that, as Seth put it ...that beliefs are plug-in and play modules that you can switch at will What interests me here, is trying to figure out why that notion was so attractive to me when I first encountered it. That turns out to be a much trickier proposition.
 
 
Seth
14:10 / 28.04.05
Are you being metaphorical, or do you really think of yourself as having beliefs in your legs?

Heh. I'm actually being alarmingly literal! S’ok though, I remember how bizarre it all sounded to me when I first heard it.

Although the belief is in my entire body, not just my legs. Because if I change the position and tension of my legs my breathing is lower, my belly sticks out a little more, my spine relaxes and my shoulders drop, my entire balance and centre of gravity change.

I also notice the change in that part of my body that I sometimes choose to call my *mind.*
 
 
· N · E · T ·
18:55 / 25.05.05
Witness the argument triggered on a recent thread in the Temple by Seth's highly articulate (and funny!) critique of the common trope regarding metaprogramming.

Would you supply a link for that?

The notion that some beliefs are plug and play that you can change at will lines up fairly well with most people's experiences that I've run into. . . Problems crop up when (especially) beliefs get overgeneralized.

Also, physiological/unconscious beliefs have a spectrum of plasticity as well. Much of these physiologically coded beliefs can get altered more easily than some like to make them out. Naturally, some will present a greater difficulty in changing, though I view it as important to keep in mind how some unconscious changes will flow with great ease.
 
 
astrojax69
01:12 / 26.05.05
Your beliefs play a crucial role in creating the type of world that you're capable of experiencing

well yes, but so do many nonconscious factors... for instance, if a person was say blind from birth and given sight when an adolescent, or older, even though they can now *see* objects in the room, they can't navigate around them using sight! they have to *learn to see things - you only see what you know and they don't know how to see yet.

so having a belief play a crucial role in the type of world you experience is perhaps better articulated as having your past experiences play a crucial role in being able to understand the experiences you are now having.

smoothly's point about nomenclature is a good one - what is a belief; and what is an intuition, or merely an expectation? - oops, have to fly now. will come back to this thread later...
 
 
Seth
13:30 / 26.05.05
Understood, astrojax. And I can think of many instances in which a person's beliefs are divorced from their past experience and still have an effect on what they're capable of experiencing in the present.
 
  
Add Your Reply