From: oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Belief Systems
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:39:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug20.001016.7585@samba.oit.unc.edu>, eddie@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Edward M. Averett) writes...
>In article <Bt8r5y.K4F@acsu.buffalo.edu> oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown) writes:
Eddy:
>I think that this could be an interesting discussion, but only if we keep 
>it off the higher levels of *what* we believe for the most part, and Try 
>to discuss how what we believe about our belief systems relates to magick.

Agreed.  

Part of *my* everchanging belief system:

I see belief systems as part of human cognition.  The 
human brain is the hardware, and belief systems are part of the 
software.  The belief systems are either programmed by us or 
programmed by authority figures, or both.  Another part of the 
software I call macros, which enable humans to quickly make 
decisions.  More on this later.  Leo's outline of 3 belief system 
types, at the end of this post, I find useful for classifying 
belief systems and relating them to people

What is a macro?
In order to process information in a useful way, people 
use "macros" in their brain that are built up over time depending 
on the frequency, and relevance of experience.  (In cognitive 
science lingo, which doesn't strike me as very consistent, these 
are referred to as all kinds of things, but I call them macros.)

People receive different types of sensory data, and each type is 
received through a different sense, then data processing 
takes place on different levels and probably combinations of 
levels in the brain.  Sensory data is turned into information by 
the brain (No idea how.  Probably using both hardware & software.) 
Then macros determine how the information will be used, and if the 
frequency and relevance of similar experiences are high, 
sometimes knowledge results.  

Example of a Macro:
   From: The Mind's New Science  A History of the Cognitive 
         Revolution, by Howard Gardner
"Asked to say which sequence of heads and tails is less common, 
HHHTTT or HTHHTT, most individuals will choose the former.  
Apparently individuals judge frequency of samples on the basis of 
their similarity to the features of the '"parent"' population.  
Since irregularity is an essential feature of randomness, 
irregular samples are judged more likely than regular samples, 
even though both series are equally likely to occur."

This is just one example of human illogic in reasoning, but there 
are many.  Human decision-making is not what we like to think 
it is, and it makes interesting reading.  The point is, we use 
macros in order to help us quickly and efficiently process 
data, turn it into information, then into knowledge.  Often the 
macros we rely on are incorrect.

Where do Belief Systems Come In?
As explained earlier, belief systems are the software that we 
program, or authority figures program us with, or both.  I see 5 
functions of belief systems: 1.) help us process information 
quickly, like macros; 2.) keep us comfortable and secure 3.) help 
us be more effective 4.) help us keep mentally balanced and in 
tune with our environment 5.) keep us under control

Eddy:
>No matter what you believe, even if you believe that you change all your
>beliefs every moment of time, eventually, everything you know comes down to
>the non-rational position of "I believe it because I do."

No way.  "I believe because I *have* to believe something, 
otherwise I'd be dysfunctional."  (The distance between 
psychologically fit humans and psychologically challenged humans 
is not as great as I would like it to be, sorry to say.)  But 
the minute I find something I like better, I'll switch.  Why do I 
like some things better than others?  I don't know.  Maybe its in 
my hardware, maybe in my software and I don't know about it yet, 
maybe both.  But I tend not to take belief systems very 
seriously, because I see them as completely arbitrary.  A minimum 
amount of belief system is necessary for effective functioning, 
but I don't think they are worth the amount of trouble they 
cause, in human squabbles alone.  Another part of my belief 
system, for what its worth, is that I'm more interested in high 
levels of intuition or gnosis than belief.  Another part, that is 
not a really a part yet, but might be eventually - is 
experiencing experience and *not* rationalizing it.  (This is 
something Leo and someone else (who may not wish to be mentioned) 
talk about.  I find it interesting, but don't really understand 
the point of it yet.)

Oh yeah, I used to have some beliefs that I kept around because 
they were cozy and comfortable, and kept things orderly, and I 
was used to them, but Joshua trashed those quite some time ago.  

Eddy:  
>I feel that one of the basics of magick, (and this is where talk about 
>religion is relevant to magic) is an understanding of and ability to 
>deal with the aspects of not only your own belief system, but those of 
>beings around you. Anyone who understands the basis of *Debbie's* rather
>consistent belief system will be able to communicate with her or even 
>manipulate her environment accordingly.  This is equally true for when 
>dealing with spirits.

This is where Leo's 3 categories of belief systems come in.  My 
friend Debby is clearly in type A.  I mean "IN" type A.  When 
you're in a belief system and do not have the ability to step 
back and take an objective look, then you see the entire world in 
terms of only your belief system.  To Debby, she and other 
fundamental christians (of her same type) are *right* and 
everyone else is wrong.  Period.  End of discussion.  Another 
interesting thing about those in type A, which relates to your 
comment about manipulation.  It is very difficult (read 
impossible) for an outsider to influence them, but it is very 
easy for an insider to influence them.  Hence Jonestown, and all 
the other totally amazing f*ck*ps that go on in fundamentalist 
camps.

Eddy: 
>NOBODY can question your basic belief system, except me and thee, and I'm 
>not sure that thee has the hardward and/or software to do it.  This is 
>one of the reasons behind why this list typically tries to discourage talk
>of religion, because 99.9% of that talk just boils down to specific "I 
>believe it" claims about upper level tenets of those religions.  This is, 
>of course, equally valid about every other topic.  Except for where you 
>are willing to artificially limit the structure of your discussion to 
>certain references, assumptions, etc.  

I can see why religion should be kept out of the discussion.  But 
deprogramming oneself is commonly mentioned in magick.  Also, a 
lot of the spiritual development seems (IMO) to depend on not 
identifying oneself with one's body, belief system, rational mind 
- in order to reach the Higher "I".  Discussing belief systems, 
which is a subject people rarely can deal with talking about,
(IMO) will help people decide how they can better use or improve 
their belief systems.  Raja yoga has the best description of this 
I've seen, and here's a plug for the book Raja Yoga or Mental 
Development by Yogi Ramacharaka.  (Thanks, W!)

Leo: (From another discussion, but relevant to this one.  Please 
      excuse the (little bit of) cut & paste.)
>I find that the above three models are VERY useful tools to
>judge people: Ask yourself which of the three ways of looking at the
>world they have.

>In the field of occultism and metaphysics I equate the first [A] with
>closed mindedness and dogmatism, the second [B] with cautious
>openmindedness, and the third [C] with (often) self indulgent fantasies.

>IF proposition (c) is correct, then the act of adopting a
>proposition (a) type outlook, leads to an increase in security and a
>loss of power and freedom: Or rather the power of the individual is
>invested in upholding external reality worldview, not in creating new
>belief systems etc. This also may have some bearing on the degree of
>defensiveness exhibited by type (a) people.

>        (a) Reality is out there and we just have to find out exactly
>        what it is: I.e. one should strive for a universal, fixed,
>        perfect description of Life the Universe and Everything.

>        (b) Reality is out there, but we simply (and possibly
>        demonstrably i.e. Goedel etc) will never come up with one
>        'true' description, so we judge descriptions (i.e.
>        science/models etc) in terms of their UTILITY and ELEGANCE,
>        not their 'truth'.

>        (c) Reality is in here, is mental, and in the ultimate is so
>        connected to the process of perception, that not only are our
>        attempts to come up with a description doomed to failure, but
>        in fact the reality and the description are so linked that
>        any attempt to describe changes the reality....

>Science can cope with the first two models: but barfs completeley on
>the third.

>VERY few people can cope with anything except the first...

>I am hovering somewhere between the second and the third.

I'm in B most of the time, but now and then I think I visit C 
(but I'm not sure if what I'm thinking about fits your 
description).  I dabble in fiction writing and when I do then I'm 
not in my usual belief system or state of awareness.  In fact, 
the more "delusional" I can get, often, the better the results.
Also, I think I'm in C when I do raja yoga or other meditations.

It would be interesting to hear where other people are coming 
from.

- Peggy -
Newsgroups: alt.magick