RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-Belief

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

One approach may be to treat belief in terms of 
commitment by the individual to the belief.  We 
would need an element model that names the belief, 
describes the belief, and points to signs that would 
be expressed as a result of holding the belief.  This 
would include a quantifier for commitment that has 
at least two components:  how strongly the individual 
states that the belief is held, and the sign set the 
observer can look for as proof of commitment.  This is 
not different from the ontological commitment concept. 
The belief itself has to stand alone so that we can 
have a code set for beliefs that can then be members of 
cultural sets (what one can assert and individual may 
hold by being a member of a culture) vs personal beliefs 
(that which the individual asserts they hold.  For 
example, I share certain beliefs with Hindus but I 
am not Hindu by birth or culture.)

Beliefs would need a discriminator so that holding an 
assertion of a fact (the sun will rise tomorrow) and 
the assertion of a belief (God loves children) can be 
differentiated.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga [mailto:rkthunga@interposting.com]

After reading Len and Rex's comments from yesterday, I started to think
that we may want to add 'belief' as a Base Schema element.  It is
tempting to include this within Secondary Schema within culture perhaps,
but I realize that belief is an aspect of ourselves that lead us to use
the signs we communicate with fundamentally, just like emotion, and
intention (which I would like to continue to explore as well).

No one argues that there is something fundamentally "True" in the
highest sense, although different means of getting there and
perspectives: through scientific method, philosophy, meditation or
religion.  Belief is our best approximation of the fundamental Truth.
Some people may equate their 'belief' as being 100% equal to Truth, and
that is where all the problems we are having come from--i.e.
fundamentalism.  The big danger, as both Rex and Len alluded to, is this
fundamentalism.  By strictly defining our 'beliefs', we may hinder our
ability to let ourselves probe further, and may discourage us from
casting healthy doubts.

Thus, in a sense, I feel we are also missing a unifer "ultimateTruth"
within our definition, but can't think of where it might belong.  After
all, that is what a belief is ultimately for--to describe an
'ultimateTruth' that we have yet to form a unified, verifiable,
complete, and mutually acceptable definition of.  Even though some
persons in the history of man may have achieved this state of awareness
through subjective experience, we as a human race have not reached this
level through objective descriptions.

I'm starting a new thread to be consistent with our naming scheme,
although I am cutting and pasting some of the earlier content.  

If we can describe belief in some way, while also being able to exactly
and specifically point out where the distinctions may lie, and make it
clear that beliefs are not absolute within themselves, then we have a
better shot at helping dissolve the conflicts between beliefs.  Rigidly
held beliefs can be more dangerous if strictly defined without such an
allowance.  That may be the function of Secondary Schema definition, but
just wanted to keep that in mind.

--------
Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga



I have a female co-worker who looked at afghanistan 
and said, "The hippies had it right; free love.  If 
those guys had more sex, they'd be too tired to fight."
Amusing and maybe there is some truth to it.  Whatever, 
I suspect Jihad fever has an analogue in net flame 
wars:  endorphin addiction.   

To modify the cultural disease, the signs that induce 
absolutism have to have alternative interpretations and 
these alternatives must have cultural value that rewards 
members who espouse and practice the behaviors that 
signify them.   This is a subject that requires deep 
study because simply going to relativism won't work.

The way of the east that teaches compassion, tolerance, 
and self-restraint is one way.   I like it because it 
easy to understand even if difficult to practice 24X7X365.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]


Yes, it can get better. I agree on that and on working on HumanML as one
means.

Neither am I in serious or deep despair, just a little on the gloomy 
side at the moment as I maneuver myself back to the work at hand. The 
short term manipulation of the Islamic world by al Quaeda and the 
jihad merchants, such as Sheik Mohammed was in the Taliban, is 
worrisome. But both the Islamic world and our world both need to 
start listening and hearing each other, rather than talking past each 
other or shouting "evil" at each other as we have been treated to 
from both sides.

We have the right and duty to defend ourselves and right now that 
means taking measured military and diplomatic actions. When we sink 
to "demonizing" our opponents, no matter how richly we FEEL they 
deserve it, we fall into that monkey trap right alongside the 
Israelis and the Palestinians and al Quaeda.

The problem is the appeal to raw, unthinking emotionalism. Yet when 
our communications fail to take the emotions into account, we also 
fall into a trap of a different kind, but that is another discussion.

One wishes the Islamic women were as powerful as the southern white 
women, and in time, I am reasonably sure they will be, though they 
have a much tougher male-dominated, testosterone-driven culture to 
contend with than women from our western culture. I wish them the 
best in overcoming that domination.

Ciao,
Rex

P.S. Thanks for the chance to continue relieving myself of these 
burdensome thoughts. Soon I will have no excuses left but to get back 
to work, eh?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

My guess is that by the time they embrace terrorism, 
it is a little late to modify their behaviors.  At 
that point, they live is a self-organizing and 
possibly closed world.  That is one reason they 
are deuce difficult to penetrate.  Yet I believe 
it necessary to distinguish the urban terrorist 
from the jungle guerilla, and to distinguish between 
the religious activists such as the Saudis who 
formed Al Quaeda from the Palestinian suicide 
bomber and both from the Viet Cong.  I do believe 
that different personal and cultural forces are 
at work even if there are overlapping and similar 
behaviors expressed.

The problems of the Vietnamese and the US were 
on our side of the equation; our fears of communism, 
our arrogance about the rightness of our own systems, 
etc.  The VC were fighting for their own homes.  We 
lost there because we had nothing to win and they 
had everything to lose.  30 years later, we are 
trading partnets.  It can get better.

The Palestinians and Israelis are in a classic 
monkey trap where until each side lets go of the prize, 
they are held fast by what the prize in their hands. 
They will eventually find a way out.  Last weekend 
at the concert we held here in Alabama, in the final 
jam, a dreadlocked black, a jewish princess, a rock 
longhair, three bluegrass rednecks, and so on were 
all playing together under an American flag.  It 
may not seem like much and it doesn't happen as 
often as it should, but my friend, it was proof that 
this is 2002 and not 1950 in Alabama.  Take that from 
one who lived through the civil rights movement up 
front and personal.  It can get better but because 
people work on it and have time.  No, this is not as 
severe as the Middle East, but ask why it didn't get 
that way.  One reason is that when the firehoses and 
the dogs came out, the blacks stood there and took it 
while the world watched.  On their side was a shared 
set of beliefs, a common religion, and frankly, the 
white women of the American South would not put up 
with what they saw on those screens and in the streets 
of our neighborhoods.  Eventually,we took the hands 
of our neighbors and walked together away from the precipice 
of hell, for the sake of their beliefs and the future 
of their children.   It can get better.

The al Quaeda are a different problem.  They have 
jihad fever.   That has to be changed from within their 
own culture; that is, the adherents to Islamic tenets 
have to modify this because this is the dark side 
of religion: a belief in absolutes.   The only recourse 
the west has to deal with them is to identify them, 
hunt them, and kill them.  I wish it were otherwise 
but unless the Islamic community comes to grips with 
its culpability and modifies its support behaviors, 
that is, raising and providing funds, shelter, arms, 
etc, that is how it is.   What we can do 
is work out how our relationships with these cultures 
are enabling them to perceive us as enemies, and that 
I am afraid, will force us to confront what in our 
own systems produces behaviors which they perceive 
as antithetical to their interests.   They say very 
loudly what they think these are.  We don't like 
what we hear and because we have our own share 
of religious fundamentalism, we don't hear it. 
We also have let our economic interests collude 
with these religious interests to justify who and 
what we support.  For example, do you think we 
could modify our unilateral support for Israel and 
pull our forces off the Saudi peninsula?

Again, a monkey trap.  What is the prize in our 
hand that we hold so tightly that keeps us in the trap?

Question:  do you believe that a confrontation of these 
forces is the beginning of Armageddon, the end of the 
world?  If so, then a myth has you by the mental tail. 

BTW:  your sculpting is probably your sign competency 
to express some of what you are feeling just as music 
is for me.   As Gudwin posits, competence over multiple 
sign sets is a measure of intelligence.  You are doing 
the right thing.  To feel more positively, you can find 
or create more contexts for that expression.  Everyone 
has a job to discover, a way to express their feelings 
about these events.  Some only raise flags; others 
do their art and work on HumanML.  Lots of simple signs 
can amount to something much larger, but to go there, we
have to start.  It can get better.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] [humanmarkup-comment]
Thoughts on Cultural Blinders and 9/11


I am glad you were able to endure long enough to see these larger 
issues. They didn't get there quickly enough for my own personal 
human limits. I appreciate you taking the time to respond this 
thoroughly. My own sense of despair and anger in the face of seeing 
faith portrayed even briefly (and through my own lack of patience) as 
one-dimensional is lessened. I'm less concerned with the terrorists 
as much as I am with our own ability to understand their expressions, 
their signs, and respond to them appropriately. I don't have much 
clue what that response ought to be to successfully reach into their 
cultural context and persuade them to a different course.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 8/21/2002
 


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>