Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 1 Jan 1993 13:04:25 -0700
From:         Ed Ford <ATEDF@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Beliefs and Imagination

from Ed Ford (930101:1305)

Rick Marken 921230:1320

>A belief and a system concept are not the same thing.  A belief in
>PCT (I think) is an imagined perception.....I think it is
>interesting that when the "filling in" done by belief gets to be a
>bigger part of perception than the part constrained by Boss
>Reality, we call that insanity.  But when the "filling in" is
>total - so that there is no constraint of Boss Reality - just
>belief (such as the Bible), we (some of us) call that wisdom.  I
>suggest that we call it what it is - "total insanity"

I agree with your definition as one of the definitions of the word
belief.  However, there are other meanings to this word.  To quote
Webster: belief is 1) a state or habit of mind in which trust or
confidence is placed in some person or thing and 2) conviction of
the truth of some statement or reality of a fact esp. when well
grounded.

When I first heard Powers speak over 10 years ago, I had no idea
what PCT was but after hearing him, I placed sufficient confidence
in him to begin a long study of PCT.  I might not have understood
what he was saying a first but I had that confidence in his person
and conviction in the few truths (that I understood) to build an
understanding of PCT.  Thus, I set a course of action based on a
belief in what someone was saying and based on the integrity of
that person and the appeal of what he said to my own mind.  I
recently read a book by Harry E. Figgie, Jr. (cochair of the Grace
Commission) titled Bankruptcy 1995.  According to the Grace
Commissions projections of the growth rate of the federal budget
deficit, by 1995, interest on our federal debt alone will reach 103
percent of all personal income taxes collected.  For the last seven
years, those projections have been right on target.  Both Powers'
PCT and Figgie's book are imagined perceptions but they are
certainly real perceptions, and ignoring real perceptions is as
much of insanity as relying on "the filling in" part of
perceptions.  When it comes to religious beliefs, it is obvious
where your bias is concerning the Christian tradition (and other
traditions as well).  I respect that opinion (bias).  I try to
respect what comes out of any living control system.   But, what
you claim to be total insanity, I claim to be in large part, boss
reality.  And that Boss Reality has been and continues to be very
much a part of my systems concept level.  Obviously, I've set
standards based on that Boss Reality and have made choices based on
those standards.  To see as total insanity something you don't
perceive as I is doing the same thing that your readers of articles
you've written have been doing to you.  Because they've no idea
what is going on in your world and the basis upon which you've
based your strongly (very strongly, I might add) held boss reality
perception in PCT, they hold what you are doing as total insanity.
I would suggest that when you don't understand someone else's
world, and believe me you have no idea of both my experiences and
the concepts I've created from them, at the very least, you should
give it the respect due it and not show the contempt you seem to
have for those of us who hold to what we believe to be mostly a
solid Boss Reality perception.

Bruce Nevin 921230

Loved the Gandhi quote.  Also, appreciate the corrected version of
the Chesterton quote.

>They were eating roughly twice as much as they recorded themselves
>eating....Is it simply a matter of not attending?  Or attending to
>imagined perceptions at the expense of actual ones?

In plan making, all desired goals should be measurable and be
accompanied by some type of feedback tied to the measurable goal.
Driving a safe speed is less efficient than driving 55 MPH and even
making the goal specific and measurable doesn't help unless its
compared to a properly functioning speedometer.

>All religious practices that seem to be serious...have at their
>heart some form of individual practice that could be called
>meditation.  Coming to one's senses, in place of customary
>fantasies.

Coming to one's senses is a rather interesting phrase.  If by
meditation you mean attempting to establish some kind of contact or
dialoque or closer relationship with what AA people call a higher
power, I'll agree.

>The distinction between religious experience and religious
>institutions is fundamental.

I agree!

>Ideally, the latter support the former.

How about using the words teach and foster instead of support.

>But given the former, you don't need any of the latter.

I would say that a function of the institution is to preserve, hand
down, teach, and foster meditation (or prayer).  Without the
institution, meditation will no longer have teachers and a
tradition on which to rely.

>And in the absence of the former, the latter are worse than empty
>shells.

Agree!  That could be said for any institution that doesn't fullfil
its charter.  Again, meditation and the institution both have their
proper function within the entity they represent.  If PCT teaches
anything, it is that the whole system should work as an intigrated
entity such that it will ultimately achieve harmony within itself
and, at the same time, satisfy all of its intended goals.  The CSG
as an organization is vital to the life of PCT but it will soon
become an empty shell and the ideas of PCT will soon be forgotten
if each of us fails to assume the responsibility toward maintaining
the life of the CSG.

Best to all, Ed

Ed Ford ATEDF@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
10209 N. 56th St., Scottsdale, Arizona 85253  Ph.602 991-4860
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU