]]>http://www.metahistory.org/HowMetahistoryWorks.php
Belief Change
Belief-change is the single most revolutionary action leading to a sane and sustainable future for human life on earth. We examine beliefs to discover what guides the human animal, for better or worse. Belief-change enables us to make personal and social commitments freed of blind conformity to received stories, imposed rules, and unexamined agendas.
Beliefs inherent to science, religion and culture (the three formats) can drive human behavior in blind and harmful ways. Metahistory assesses the hidden dynamics of motivation to determine what is insane and inhumane in human belief-systems. The insights so gained applied in a direct way to personal release and realignment. The most potent way to change behavior is to change the beliefs that drive it, but to do so one must courageously and honestly investigate and evaluate our innermost convictions.
Metahistory poses the question: If our faith were invested in lies and delusions, how would we know? The very nature of faith blinds us to the veracity of what we embrace on faith–unless it can be personally tested. We affirm that the authenticity of individual experience is superior to any faith, except faith in humanity itself. Thus, Metahistory encourages faith in the species, in human potential, but not excluding the spiritual and supernatural dimension of human experience, either. It is not a form of secular humanism, but it addresses the key problems that humanism fails to solve.
Going beyond history means initiating a different story, the adventure of our shared liberation from imposed scripts. As the process unfolds, all our beliefs are brought into focus in the single and ultimate issue: our belief in humanity itself, in the potential of the human species to realize its mysterious role in the cosmos. Gnostics taught that human life is this adventure in learning, an experiment in novelty. Guided by faith in human potential and a Gaian story for all species, metahistory provides a visionary path toward all that is truly excellent, and truly humane, in the ageless striving of the human spirit.
That phrase has been in my head since I first heard it on fave radio station triple j http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/ about a year ago. It was a time when I was getting v.definite impression that said (federal government subsidised national youth network) radio station was pumping out "truth" and wake up calls pretty much constantly. That was before I met Noble Realms, or war in heaven. It comes from song by Lady Sovereign, and always pops into my head since then as the "answer to everything for right here and now". Funny thing, so glad it clicked with you guys too, but Starcat summed it up, why that would click.
Thanks Star Cat. Right On.
]]> ]]>edit: z3n, you too, cheers. wanna dance? 
Every body get random....:cool:
I think of EM as a structural force. It holds things in patterns. It binds things. I don't think thought is to be disposed of completely though. It can be open. The mind can be open. It doesn't need to hold onto patterns. That is not a requirement. I see a marriage of the heart and mind to be the optimal configuration. If the mind can know unconditional love it can think without judgement, without blockages. So by the marriage of (I hate to say it) ... unconditional "love" and open-ended "light" (knowledge) we can create what we want. The love providing the energy, the motivation, for creation and the thought providing an infinite assortment of structural dynamics for the purpose of infinite experience.
At the current stage, seeing that we are all still typing away, the structure is not needed as far as the external beliefs. It needs to be shattered, as you say. I do feel that the work on self is needed, at least for me. It is a re-membering as SiriArc has put it. But, again for me, it has required effort (work) to remember even what I've remembered thus far.
]]>titmouse wrote:Challenging the beliefs of another person or group is usually met with resistence ie. being ignored is passive resistence. Measuring principles is a more subjective and therefore internal challenge.
Right. And thus the rigidity of the beliefs would still need to be addressed by the person/group that holds them. Each challenge can either be used to reinforce the defense mechanism or give them the opportunity to look more closely at what they hold on to.
titmouse wrote:I would be careful with the use of "obvious" here. It is not easy for anyone to look outside of familiar meme structure. Actually, quite common for a person to defend the meme they share with peers, and to discount and attack other memes.
Thinking about it more I can see that it's not that obvious in the context you describe. However, if someone can transcend the belief/disbelief paradigm then it can be more obvious to that person. Or maybe not. I guess in the end it's best to show allowance, while offering our own viewpoints in an open-ended fashion. We trully can't know the inner workings of another, even by their own words.
-=-=-=-=-=-
In the end, I do think it's the wise choice to build the 'castle of self' on principles and leave the beliefs in their own space for further exploration. It maintains focus on what I consider the important inner work and leaves the rest open so as not to cut anything off.
Often others have deluded themselves--their words are spoken, yet their meaning undefined, leaving escape room for the ego. We see this in politics, consistently.
Your concept is admirable. If a person can see a bit of truth in every point of view they are integrating information without cementing it into 'principles'. A wise way to view the world. No 20 year old can really know how 'it should be', or 'how it is'--this discernment would require experience and wisdom born of adversity. The greater knowledge is gained through experience, intuition, and self-reflection; these things cannot be taught in learning institutions or books. Truth seems difficult to comprehend by theory alone; and not all people have shared experiences; truth falls out onto the table of discernement only for the most perceptive to recognize--academia is a path to higher knowledge, yet a bridge over greater wisdom.
"Blinded by self-importance... the visionaries of society haven't the vision of a blind musician nor the perception of a churchmouse_"
~~carefulcarpenter
Challenging the beliefs of another person or group is usually met with resistence ie. being ignored is passive resistence. Measuring principles is a more subjective and therefore internal challenge.
Right. And thus the rigidity of the beliefs would still need to be addressed by the person/group that holds them. Each challenge can either be used to reinforce the defense mechanism or give them the opportunity to look more closely at what they hold on to.
I would be careful with the use of "obvious" here. It is not easy for anyone to look outside of familiar meme structure. Actually, quite common for a person to defend the meme they share with peers, and to discount and attack other memes.
Thinking about it more I can see that it's not that obvious in the context you describe. However, if someone can transcend the belief/disbelief paradigm then it can be more obvious to that person. Or maybe not. I guess in the end it's best to show allowance, while offering our own viewpoints in an open-ended fashion. We trully can't know the inner workings of another, even by their own words.
-=-=-=-=-=-
In the end, I do think it's the wise choice to build the 'castle of self' on principles and leave the beliefs in their own space for further exploration. It maintains focus on what I consider the important inner work and leaves the rest open so as not to cut anything off.
]]>Yea beliefs, at a personal level, can be thought of by the individual as principles until they meet challeges.
Challenging the beliefs of another person or group is usually met with resistence ie. being ignored is passive resistence. Measuring principles is a more subjective and therefore internal challenge.
Exactly. And it's usually obvious when someone is exploring a belief (meme) or defending one.... A good example of exploration would be feritciva's new thread "Near Death Experiences: What About War In Heaven?" here link. All the angles that can be thought of are explored and the understanding of those angles explained. Options are kept wide open and no firm conclusions are drawn because none can be drawn seeing that we can't trully know from our present level.
I would be careful with the use of "obvious" here. It is not easy for anyone to look outside of familiar meme structure. Actually, quite common for a person to defend the meme they share with peers, and to discount and attack other memes. 'Out of the box' thinking has never been popular. One who attempts to challenge the meme will be excluded. All great thinkers have been disregarded by the society they were surrounded by ie.Rousseau; he believed man was basically good and corrupted by civilization. He died a rejected and discarded genius of the Enlightenment Era. Much of the American Dream was developed from his thinking. Today, he would be discarded and rejected again by the mainstream.
]]>Wouldn't beliefs start out as principles until you meet that which challenges it.
part of what I was trying to do was to show how principles can be more fluid and beliefs a little more concrete.
I gotcha. Yea beliefs, at a personal level, can be thought of by the individual as principles until they meet challeges.
I can't recall if it was stated as such in the meme thread but to me a meme is an irrational, erroneous belief.
Exactly. And it's usually obvious when someone is exploring a belief (meme) or defending one. A good example of exploration would be feritciva's new thread "Near Death Experiences: What About War In Heaven?" here link. All the angles that can be thought of are explored and the understanding of those angles explained. Options are kept wide open and no firm conclusions are drawn because none can be drawn seeing that we can't trully know from our present level.
]]>I'm looking at principles as something personal and unchallengable.
I agree That's why when you go back to the definitions you posted in post 1 I said I try to operate out of 3&4 mostly because they are personal. Part of what I was trying to do was to show how principles can be more fluid and beliefs a little more concrete.
I think it's also important to note that there is a big difference between exploring beliefs and defending them. I like to accept all beliefs not as being truth but as being something to explore further.
I agree. I can't recall if it was stated as such in the meme thread but to me a meme is an irrational, erroneous belief.
memeplex.
nice.
]]>Yes, "principle transcends memes". That's what I was trying to express.
I think it's also important to note that there is a big difference between exploring beliefs and defending them. I like to accept all beliefs not as being truth but as being something to explore further. Also, in the exploration of beliefs, explaining your understanding of it may be construed as defending. Since I can't know if someone firmly believes something or not unless they specifically say so, I tend to allow for all levels of exploration without jumping to conclusions.
]]>