RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-Belief

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I think that this approach that Len describes is more along the lines 
of Belief System than belief as an atomic element. I think we need to 
be careful about that.

One can have a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, regardless of 
what cultural or social belief system one adheres to or whether one 
adheres to any particular belief system. The fact that the sun will 
not rise tomorrow, but the earth will continue to rotate about its 
axis is actually irrelevent to my belief because my belief is not 
necessarily based on the science of physics as we have come to 
understand and accept it.

Why or how something actually happens is the truth to which Ranjeeth 
refers and which most reasonably rational people, as I understand 
THAT set of concepts, agree is independent of any belief or belief 
system. The idea that the truth might NOT actually be independent of 
our perceptions and beliefs could also be true, but we will probably 
not be able to verify it.

So what I think we should do is to consider that when we get back 
around to the new elements we need to consider...

I am in fact going to hold off on sending this until I have posted my 
first entry for the next element. Sigh.

It is gonna get real busy real quick.

Ciao,
Rex

At 10:19 AM -0500 9/6/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>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>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


-- 
Rex Brooks
Starbourne Communications Design
1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309
http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com