"What you must recognize is that when you do not share a thought system, you are weakening it. Those who believe in it therefore perceive this as an attack on them. This is because everyone identifies himself with his thought system, and every thought system centers on what you believe you are."
- A Course In Miracles
TTL said:
I gotta say, I don't understand what this quote is trying to say no matter how many times I read it through. Maybe some more context is needed, or Eo needs to explain it to us.
Does 'share' mean agree or communicate?
What does 'weakening' mean here? Weakening the thought system's popularity, validity/truthfulness, or applicability?
Why would every thought system center on what I believe I am? Buddhism? Political ideologies? The system of beliefs associated with being a good mother? F. C. Inter Milan offensive play strategies?
As you can see, I really don't understand this.
Fair enough. ACIM is a very f***ing abstract philosophy. Really. It takes a lot of time, study, and context to get, if at all. (I've been studying it for a year, and I feel I'm still a beginner.) So it might be dumb to even quote it.
But, "share" here is surely meant as in "agree with", not communicate.
"Weakening": understanding it depends on knowing that the course sees the world as being built from a belief system.
I think it's talking about more basic thought systems than football strategies.
If you believe you are a meat machine in competition with the rest of the world, your thought system and the way you deal with the world will be very different than if you believe you are an Energy Being, which will be different from if you believe you are a complete non-physical immortal spirit. And so on.
It was that last thought that struck me the most. You can't have a belief system without at the center of it having a concept of What You Are, and this fuels how the rest of it works.
11 comments:
So, if I don't think like you do, I'm attacking you?
Listen, if your "thought system" can't make it without me, it can't make it, period.
So, if I don't think like you do, I'm attacking you?
Probably not, but it is so perceived by the other.
I gotta say, I don't understand what this quote is trying to say no matter how many times I read it through. Maybe some more context is needed, or Eo needs to explain it to us.
Does 'share' mean agree or communicate?
What does 'weakening' mean here? Weakening the thought system's popularity, validity/truthfulness, or applicability?
Why would every thought system center on what I believe I am? Buddhism? Political ideologies? The system of beliefs associated with being a good mother? F. C. Inter Milan offensive play strategies?
As you can see, I really don't understand this.
I get this quote implicitly. No problems in interpretation at all. I think if you reconsider the vocabulary, and put it in less new-agey terms, it's pretty clear. You come up with something like this:
Every theory about the "right" and "wrong" ways to live a life or make choices requires a community of believers. When you choose something other than their version of "right," they don't just scoff at your evident doom and obvious path to perfidy. Instead, they scoff AND take offense that you've implied that everything they've invested SO MUCH energy in, might actually not be worth a farthing.
Example. The free market economy. Among stridently anti-communist right-wing Americans, if you even so much as SUGGEST that arrangements tending toward a more socialist system in some fields might work sometimes, you end up not only disagreeing with their point of view, but also occasioning their anger. If a person is a sensible economist he can see that there are some advantages to some methods of arranging a society that might not be doggedly free-market laissez-faire 100% of the time. But if you talk to a Goldwater Republican types with something about national health plans or public education spending, they go haywire with unrelated things. "What are you, a comm'nist? You godless heathen!"
Their instant ability to equate mild disagreement with ONE SMALL PORTION of their belief system, to total disagreement with ALL aspects of their belief system, is intrinsic to the nature of belief systems. The Goldwater types (if they're extrmee, as in the example above) can't just talk about economic policy when economic policy is the issue at hand. They have to relate it to hate, religion, and all things that imply right or wrong. They gather their whole view of the world, and of what OTHER people ought to be doing in order for them to approve, into one big nexus or "belief system" ("thought system" in the original example) which must (according to them) either be accepted or rejected wholesale.
Another example. Try disagreeing with young, attractive women, about the true nature of love. Tell a girl you want to date, that you just want to have a few nights of exciting sex first, and then see whether or not the two of you get along, before deciding whether you want a long-term relationship or not. She likely won't just tell you that you have to buy expensive dinner. She'll probably also tell you that you should "get to know the real me" and not be "so shallow." If you suggest to her that you like sex without much commitment, she says you don't know how to be a responsible adult.
The construct, or "thought system," of the idea that relationships have to be based on something other than initial feelings of lust, runs deep through our society. Generally, questioning that idea among open-minded people can stimulate an interesting discussion of the nature of sexuality and the appropriate foundation for long-term relationships. But questioning that idea more generally, and threatening to ENACT the questioning rather than merely DISCUSS it? Hoooh boy, people get antsy REAL fast! :)
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief
Michael Burton said...
Listen, if your "thought system" can't make it without me, it can't make it, period.
Methinks this was precisely the intended idea in the quote. I may not have "gotten" it immediately the way Eolakes explains it, but I definitely understood the general idea. "Implicitly", to quote Final Identity commenting on the quote Eolake posted about the Course (um... you still with me?).
BTW, Final, my thought system about relationships disagrees with your own proposed approach at dating, but yet I don't feel the urge to murder you. (Not too intensely, at any rate.) Tell me the truth, Doc, am I hopelessly, terminally... (gasp!) tolerant???
On second thought, don't tell me the truth. I can't handle the truth. Tell me what I want to hear. But make it sound sincere. Humour me, okay? Thanks, you're a dear.
Ok, after Eo's explanation I now at least understand the terminology better.
So, "share" means agree with.
"Weakening" means weakening the belief of.
Apparently "thought system" is what is commonly known as world view. This also makes better sense when it talks about you being the centre of it. Rewritten with these changes the quote reads:
"What you must recognize is that when you do not agree with a world view, you are weakening the belief of it. Those who believe in it therefore perceive this as an attack on them. This is because everyone identifies himself with his world view, and every world view centers on what you believe you are."
Rewritten in normal english this would be:
When you do not agree with another person's world view, you are weakening her belief in it, and she will perceive this as an attack. This is because we identify ourselves with our world views, all of which are centered around a concept of self.
Correct?
No, it goes further than just disagreeing with another person's world view. It's more (to me) about disagreeing with a GROUP of people's COMMUNAL world view. They all get together and convince one another of their own mutual lies, invest a lot of "saving face" energy in it, and thus have more to lose when they're blatantly told that the emperor has no clothes.
But (to address an earlier point) isn't it in the very nature of belief systems that they require compliance? To be (as Pascal suggests) "tolerant" is, in itself, to abandon systems in favor of ... what? Something less structured, certainly.
TTL, you're pretty close, but the reason for the language and so on is that in the view of ACIM, the whole world *comes* from your Thought System.
Literally.
The world (including your body and your mind) is an illusion created by your belief in it.
So you could say that "thought system" is rather more embrasive than World View.
Eolake said: "The world (including your body and your mind) is an illusion created by your belief in it."
I am well aware of this aspect of ACIM. But I still think that World View is not a bad choice of word (in everyday parlance) for this. For example Solipsism is referred to as a world view. And Solipsism is an even more embrasive idea than ACIM's model of reality. (Solipsism says nothing else exists than I. Not even a God. Everything is the result of my imagination.)
Google gives 585 hits for "solipsistic world view".
Now, in philosophy there are other ways to refer to this. For example "metaphysical position", but I specifically wanted to find a popular word for it. Not philosophers' jargon.
Now, it is true that "world view" is also used in lesser meanings. (Google gives 519 hits for "positive world view").
"So you could say that "thought system" is rather more embrasive than World View."
I have to disagree. For thought as a faculty of the mind is independent of our adopted set of beliefs. Or to put it another way: Our beliefs exist and manifest even if we don't think about them. (Proof: Our subconsciousness responds to our beliefs, and the workings of the subconsciousness is not based on thought.) Therefore "thought system" would be a lesser concept than "belief system". And things like religions, philosophies, social constructs, and codes of ethics are referred to as belief systems.
The concept "thought system" is used in contexts where it refers specifically to the faculty of thought, for example in the field of AI, or here in the context of mathematics.
So, if anything, ACIMs model of reality is a Belief System. But I chose World View because it is a more common and understandable word.
But, of course, words mean what you define them to mean. It is just a matter of agreement.
TTL said...
Apparently "thought system" is what is commonly known as world view.
In tech talk, a paradigm.
To be (as Pascal suggests) "tolerant" is, in itself, to abandon systems in favor of ... what? Something less structured, certainly."
I'd say that, to be "tolerant" means to accept that your "world view" might not have self-enlightened in the absolute and unique Truth.
And therefore, people thinking more or less differently from you are not a threat, but an occasion to learn more. You accept that you don't know it all, that nobody does, so you open up and look around.
Being tolerant and being humble are closely linked.
So, in a way, it's not asmuch about "abandoning" so much as "letting go", not clinging more than you need.
I think I'm starting to "get" the Course. :-)
Google gives 585 hits for "solipsistic world view".
Compared to how many millions for "Pamela Anderson's big fake boobies"? :-P
My, people are so shallow...
"So, if anything, ACIMs model of reality is a Belief System."
Heh... talk about an amusing paradox. :-)
"But, of course, words mean what you define them to mean. It is just a matter of agreement."
And what if I happened to disagree with you on THAT? Hunh? Hunh?
Pascal.
("Hey, Ma, look! I've got me a navatar!")
Post a Comment