|
Post by paul on May 30, 2013 7:49:01 GMT 9.5
One of our posters is very committed to credibility and it is perhaps worth considering what it means.
Credo - I believe (Latin)
Thus credibility may be measured by the number of people that believe in a particular statement or concept.
If someone is not good at believing then they will not put much credibility in any belief. If this occurred on a large scale would it lead to anarchy?
Thus willingness to believe may be an important attribute in human society. Certainly political and religious institutions depend upon it.
And of course society trains us to believe in a wide variety of concepts.
So does credibility have role in Masonry?
Would it be any different if Masonry were a science?
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on May 30, 2013 10:32:38 GMT 9.5
It would be interesting to see how many of our greatest discoveries were considered credible when first presented. Flying to the moon
|
|
|
Post by paul on May 30, 2013 10:45:38 GMT 9.5
So is credibility an issue for those brethren wishing to explore the hidden mysteries of nature and science?
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on May 30, 2013 10:51:13 GMT 9.5
Credo - I believe (Latin) So does credibility have role in Masonry? Would it be any different if Masonry were a science? Symbols ? ?? The common foundation for both modern science and ancient metaphysics is the use of symbols. Although both have the same goal of affecting or changing physical reality, they applied their symbols differently. The scientists and engineers seek to understand and modify the world through their use of (mathematical) symbols -- a process external to their own person. The mystics and shamen seek to understand and modify the world through their use of (sacred) symbols -- a process internal to their own person. Thus, the scientist/engineer/doctor performs the change at the physical pattern level -- within space-time . Whereas, the mystic/shaman/healer performs the change at the archetypal pattern level -- beyond space-time.
The lowest common denominator in the physical world agreed to by all the sciences resides in "pattern" and in the change of "pattern." It is the patterns of nature that both modern science and ancient metaphysics study. Both accomplish this study by the application of special patterns, called symbols, that have meaning for the individuals using them. This meaning can differ depending upon the cultural and personal environment experienced by the individuals during their life. Thus, the meaning of symbols can change over time -- but not the symbol itself.
www.fmbr.org/papers/sci-and-symb.php
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on May 30, 2013 11:05:59 GMT 9.5
From that which is written below it would seem that 'our credibility' is far less important than what we think credible. We can only Build if we believe we are builders. We can only Build if our plan of the work is credible (to us). Habits and beliefs are highly individualized patterns which regulate much of our behavior and thought. These are represented on the physical plane as structural constraints in the form of well-worn neural pathways in the central nervous system. This set of constraints has almost as much importance as body structure itself. These constraints form the interface between our mental attitude and physical emotion, and thus play a causal role in the hormonal chemistry of the body. An individual's belief system can therefore be regarded as a key factor in the body's state of health and its ability to recover from dis-ease.
Beliefs, because they do represent thought patterns which have become more or less rigid, determine to a large degree how flexible the brain is in its ability to tune in to a wide variety of archetypal patterns beyond space-time. This ability is the doorway to the paranormal, to healing, to shamanic practice, to otherwise "impossible" phenomena. The mind can activate non-local connections that operate beyond space-time. Thus, an individual can focus "attention" and "intention" on a distant target (i.e., outside one's own body) and superimpose a new pattern on that target, with its corresponding new constraint system. A new Least Action "pathway" is the result, and the state of the target is altered. The physicist, Fred Alan Wolf, discusses the concept of least action pathways extensively in his book on physics and shamanic practices, The Eagle's Quest (Wolf, 1991).
The concept of "letting go," which teaches that the achievement of a desired paranormal result is more likely if only the result is specified in mind, not the intermediate steps, can also be understood through least action and constraints. Physical processes usually involve the exchange of energy between a target system and its environment. If the constraints for a process are set in such a way that the necessary energy is not available, then the process will not go. If, however, only the end result is specified in mind and the limiting constraints relaxed (by "letting go"), a least action path to the goal will be found. We would speculate that this is accomplished through consciousness operating at levels higher than the individual mind.
www.fmbr.org/papers/sci-and-symb.php
Serendipity - mentioned 'letting go' on an earlier post and here it explains why it might be an important process.
|
|
|
Post by credible on May 30, 2013 18:54:43 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by paul on May 30, 2013 19:02:33 GMT 9.5
Is believability possible without a believer?
Is there special training to become a believer?
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on May 31, 2013 10:10:36 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by paul on May 31, 2013 10:22:23 GMT 9.5
That is a list of conspiracies that have partially failed - in that they have become known.
The most successful conspiracies are those that are not known.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 1, 2013 16:25:05 GMT 9.5
Is belief then the essence of credibility?
I was trained as a believer for 2 decades but then I started to have more direct experiences and to think independently of my training.
Is that a basis for being sceptical about the value of credibility?
|
|
|
Post by evidence on Jun 1, 2013 18:37:09 GMT 9.5
Is belief then the essence of credibility? Not belief as such but rational believability.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 1, 2013 20:17:54 GMT 9.5
I recall reading about an eminent scientist in the 18th century who explained that human life could not exist at 60 mph. He was completely rational. His rational belief did not survive experimental testing but the humans did.
|
|
|
Post by scientific method on Jun 1, 2013 20:57:17 GMT 9.5
I recall reading about an eminent scientist in the 18th century who explained that human life could not exist at 60 mph. He was completely rational. His rational belief did not survive experimental testing but the humans did. The point being that even if your anecdote is true the theory was subjected to experimental testing.
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Jun 1, 2013 21:04:35 GMT 9.5
I recall reading about an eminent scientist in the 18th century who explained that human life could not exist at 60 mph. He was completely rational. His rational belief did not survive experimental testing but the humans did. The point being that even if your anecdote is true the theory was subjected to experimental testing. The Soviets allegedly did that with ufos. They tested it by moving large quantaties of nuclear weapons about and **** behold like clockwork they were visited. Now as we know from American whistleblowers credible military people) visitors have poked around at Minuteman nuke sites (the credible testimony to that is verifiable and easily finadable). So it is dead easy for scientists to test and prove or disprove this - simply convince a nuclear power to move weapons about and see what happens like the Soviets did. yet science still says no evidence. OK getting a government to do that might be tricky, but it is testable. Which brings force two related issues:- 1. You can bet that all nuclear powers have experienced this, and some like the Soviets have tested it - so there is already knowledge in the scientific community - but it is highly restricted. The Soviet stuff went on the web after the collapse of the old union, and the American stuff is now coming out due to legal action by some involved, and a heavy ongoing freedom of info and disclosure pressure by Americans. The point there is already scientific evidence, tested. 2. How would skeptics cope when their beliefs are shattered by such evidence? Now ufos are but one issue, but as science progresses more is understood and what seems ludicrous often becomes accepted wisdom. Ask Galileo.
|
|
|
Post by source on Jun 1, 2013 21:11:02 GMT 9.5
Source?
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Jun 1, 2013 21:19:22 GMT 9.5
1. The soviet stuff is difficult to prove as it is googled. 2. The American stuff easy - look at the legal action against the US Government being prepared by at the moment (Rendlesham incident - Jim penniston and John Burroghs etc are doing it) - its on facebook. If you cant find it let me know. They have got a big publsiher St Martins Press (they do Dan Brown etc) publishing their first hand accounts in March and they are very open about the legal proccedings that they and others are taking against their government (Jim touched the craft on one of the 3 nights it was there - Jim was a trained sgt in base security and he had to know all aircraft by sight so he knows a ufo when he saw one - after all he was at a nuclear base - you cant get much more credible especially when combined with so many other officers and servicemen over 3 nights with lots of physical, radar track, photo, recording,inprint, radiation evidience - some which sadly the military has "misplaced"). You might also want to consider the testimonies of the Minnuitemen officers etc at the recent disclosure events at the Presss Club in Washington. It is easily findable. The testing bit is easy I have told you how to do it above. Not easy to test as you would need a nuclear power to do it- but it is testable. The only rael variable is how much nukes are required and over what distance to get the interest of visitors. As the Soviets tested it intent of movement seems less relevant. But any nuclear power could test this with external scientists present. Not sure moving nukes around is agood idea for safety reasons - but it is testable.
|
|
|
Post by source on Jun 1, 2013 21:22:44 GMT 9.5
Source?
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Jun 1, 2013 21:26:30 GMT 9.5
I 've told you where to look. Look, it really is not hard to find. And with even more policemen etc now coming forward in separate incidents (eg Cosford which also had beams of light etc) it is only a matter of time before the scientific paradigm changes.
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Jun 1, 2013 21:28:01 GMT 9.5
www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Justice-for-the-Bentwaters-81st-Security-Police-at-Rendlesham-Forest-1980/158308077540276?fref=ts This is the public page (the group is closed and has very interesting papers attached) www.citizenhearing.org/ all of the testimonies are available for download on that site - all highly credible people - defense ministers - military men - astronauts etc.
|
|
|
Post by Rendlesham on Jun 1, 2013 21:28:42 GMT 9.5
|
|