Saturday, October 20, 2007

Belief: A Psychological View

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...the Best Knower.


What is "Belief"?

In one sense, “belief” is the acceptance of an idea or proposition as “true”, based on examination of related evidence, but without direct experience or knowledge: the more factual the evidence, the more valid the “belief”.

When the “I” accepts an idea or concept as “true”, whether by direct knowledge or by indirect conclusion (belief), that idea or concept becomes a basis (“stable data”) for evaluation, comparison, conclusion, decision and action.

Therefore, to “believe” something is to accept it as a basis for action, whether a mental action or a physical action.

Thus, to get a fair idea of a person’s basic or core beliefs, it is well to observe that person’s actions. No matter what beliefs a person “professes”, it is what a person routinely does that describes his or her basic, core beliefs.

A person who espouses a belief in lofty ideals, but is satisfied to live a baser life, believes more in the baser life than he does the ideals he promotes. His core beliefs undermine and nullify his “stated” beliefs, even though he may be “unaware” of such core beliefs.

How much can we discern of a person’s core beliefs by simply observing that person?
It seems that much can be discerned by observation, particularly when the subject is unaware of being observed, because what people choose to do of their own free will directly reflects their thinking at that moment.
(Learn to observe people.)

What is the effect on a person, whose attempts to live up to his “stated” beliefs are thwarted by opposing core beliefs?
Conflict?
Confusion?
Frustration?
Depression?

How can these unpleasant effects be alleviated?
By identifying the core beliefs, and questioning them scientifically to determine whether to enhance them or to deconstruct them.

How are “core beliefs” de-constructed?
By examining the fundamental assumptions that contribute to the formation of the core beliefs, and then correcting those assumptions, as needed.

What are “fundamental assumptions”?
They are conclusions drawn based on past experience. They are things held to be “true”, but are often hidden from the awareness of the one holding them.
Fundamental Assumptions can distort our “view” of reality, including God and Self, to a greater or lesser degree.

How does one identify one’s own fundamental assumptions?
One way is by effective use of the question, “Why...?”

“Why do I believe...?”
“Why do I react...?”
“Why do I...?”

...and then, by being as honest as possible with the answers. It may prove more effective, however, to have a trusted second person ask these questions, i.e., "Why do YOU believe...?", so that one can be "free" to focus on the answers.

What goes into forming one’s fundamental assumptions?
I would say, how one interprets one’s experiences goes a long way toward forming one’s fundamental assumptions.

What determines, or affects, how one interprets one’s experiences?
One factor could be the “meaning” assigned to previous experiences.

So, one’s previous experiences contribute to the formation of one’s fundamental assumptions?
Yes.

And, one’s fundamental assumptions contribute to the formation of one’s core beliefs?
Yes.

And, one’s core beliefs are visible in one’s routine behavior (response to stimuli)?
Yes.

What is the process by which these assumptions and experiences can be identified, analyzed and corrected (if necessary)?
Lawful Dialogue?
Auditing?

Can a person’s “core” beliefs be changed by helping him/her to better understand his/her experiences?
This seems to be the case.

This can be a challenge, since all "core" beliefs seem to carry some perceived survival value for the person holding them. To ask someone to examine, critically, his or her own "core" beliefs can easily cause that person to feel as if their survival and security are being threatened.

How are "core" beliefs formed?
“What happened?” - Experience
“What does it mean?” - Interpretation/Assumption
“How does one feel about it?” - Attitude
“How should one act in response to it?” - Belief (Core)


EXPERIENCE

Living Things retain the effects of their experiences. What one experiences becomes part of one's consciousness (or sub-consciousness). The "data" from one's experiences is stored in the Mind for interpretation (to determine "meaning") and for future use.


INTERPRETAION

A Being is attracted to “pleasure” => suggests “survival”
A Being is repelled by “pain” => suggests a “threat” to survival


Pain-Pleasure Scale

<--Pain-----------------------------------------0------------------------------------Pleasure-->
Death-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Survival
Repel-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Attract


Therefore, it is conceivable that a Being will tend to assign meaning to experience based on where it falls on the “pain-pleasure” scale, particularly where the Being’s powers of Reason are not sufficiently developed to consider that pain is necessary for growth; such as with young infants and children, or with underdeveloped adults.

Does a Being ever “equate” pain with survival?
Or, is it that a Being merely accepts pain as part of the struggle for survival?

Did the ORIGINATOR have any "painful experiences" in His own Self-Creation?
If so, HOW did the Originator interpret HIS “painful experiences”?

Did He tend to “shy away” from pain in search of some “easier” way?
It is possible that He may have had that tendency. If He did have such tendency, apparently He eventually accepted there was no “getting around” it...so He Pushed through it!

Therefore, it seems that it is how we interpret (assume meaning for) our experiences which determines how we ACT in response to them (belief); and it appears that we will always respond to experience (stimuli) in a manner which we believe will promote our survival.

What are some elements that can influence how one interprets one's experience?
1) The "pain-pleasure" dynamic?
2) The impulse to survive?
3) Perceived "authority", whether of Divine Guidance, of force, of peer pressure, or of social custom?
4) All of the above?
5) _________ ???

More to follow, soon...God Willing.

RM

Monday, October 08, 2007

Stanley Crouch: "Chief of Scouts"


This is Mr. Stanley Crouch:

I just finished reading his recent "Opinion" article titled "Wake Up and Smell the Thuggery".

It brought to my mind the movie, "Geronimo", starring Wes Studi in the title role. In this movie, the U.S. Army was depicted as going to war with the Apache People for conquest of their lands, and enlisted the help of some poor, misguided Apaches, as "scouts" and "trackers", to help the army invaders track down and "neutralize" the so-called "hostile" Indians.

There was one scout, in particular, who was of the same tribe as Geronimo; who, bless his heart, really thought he was acting in the best interest of his people by helping the invaders and oppressors of his people.

Long story short, this scout, "Chato", was very proud of his position in the white man's army, and thought that by helping the white man, he would secure some benefit for himself and for his family. That is, until they actually caught up with Geronimo.

Upon Geronimo's surrender, the white man had no more use for Chato and the other scouts, and so arrested them -- despite their loyal service to the invaders -- and exiled them to distant reservations along with Geronimo and the rest of the "hostiles".

It was at this moment when Chato realized he had been deceived by his "employers", and was actually being used "against" his people, while being made to believe he was "helping" his people.

In the last scene, Chato had to face the disgust of his brethren, whom he betrayed, and who no longer trusted him for his demonstration of disloyalty in siding with the enemies of his people.

Why am I recalling this? Well, if it isn't obvious by now, it is to set the context for a question or two I'd like to ask regarding Mr. Crouch.

For whom does he really speak? Does he speak for [the interests of] Black People? Or does he speak for [the interests of] White People?

What does he think his white "employers" will do with him, when they have no more need for his services?

As his people become more aware and more dissatisfied with the socio-political climate in this country, and he continues to speak from the platform of the enemies and oppressors of his people, how will he face them when his "employers" cut him loose, and leave him to face the people whose interests he has betrayed?

His apparent disdain for the Nation of Islam and the Hon. Louis Farrakhan is of little consequence, in truth; as he has not the power to stop him from what God has Appointed him to do; so I am not really concerned about that. But I am concerned about him (Mr. Crouch), and the people he infects with his bias.

This article was just more confirmation for me that "intellect" and "responsibility" don't necessarily go hand-in-hand.
Shame.
RM