i would like to discuss the concept of a (i dont know) god…i personally believe in a god not defined…
there are so many useless problems with defining god…it turns into my god is better than your god…or my no-god is better than your god…all these different gods are human constructs…including the i dont know god…
the IDK god
I don’t know, enshrining “I don’t know” seems like a waste of time, and kind of useless to me. Why not just “know” things more lightly, more fluidly - in a more relaxed manner?
I like this, except I wouldn’t have said “relaxed.” I think conceptual fluidity and lightness can bear an intensity of its own, a healthy intensity, like experiencing great insight or freedom and wanting to honor and understand the experience by appreciating its full complexity uncapped by utility and definition.
Yeah, by relaxed I meant without fixation. What do you think?
Maybe. Overall, I think I feel similarly when it comes to certain areas of life and experience.
Anyway, I like what you wrote.
SO you believe in a thing you don’t know what. Is that it?
If you don’t know what you believe in, then what is it that you in fact believe in?
So if I say…
I believe there is something under the bed.
What?
I don’t know, just something I can’t define.
Give me a clue
Something indefinable; it can’t be described.
Oh, you mean like nothing, can’t be described because it doesn’t exist?
I think the trouble with the “i don’t know god” is that it does not even conform to the “just a human construct” definition.
I think they call that sort of knowledge 'belief". Not so much 'knowledge" as such.
hc that is a good reply----i need to explain further…i think the idea of the tao/dao is similar to the idk
Likewise.
I think anon is aiming at complicating knowledge as such and looking towards a more sophisticated model of what “knowledge” is or can be.
I think it might need a lot more work if that is the case. What he has at the moment is belief I think.
Hmm, complicating it in a way, but I think simplifying it ultimately by changing paradigms completely. I don’t think there is a gap between mind and reality; therefore, belief, knowledge, etc. are actions. Believing is doing. So is knowing. Knowing “incorrectly” is still knowing. There is no magic “justified, true” belief.
Fuse is right, I’m not talking about belief in a simplistic sense.
Maybe I’ll start a thread on this topic someday.
No fuse is not right. Fuse agrees with you. That does not mean that what you are after is either possible of meaningful in the sense, of conforming to any kind of sense in which we tend to separate belief and knowledge.
As far as I can see, what you are offering as this modified species of knowledge is exactly what people mean when they say belief.
People who believe a thing do not normally accept that the thing is not the case, but they hold it as a pseudo-knowledge.
In fact they hold a belief in the same way you seem to be making the plea for a special type of knowledge. This just seems like obfuscating.
How doe this wooly knowledge of your DIFFER from belief?
If you truly know nothing of a proposed something, why even think about it at all?
“I sense an XYZ in the room.”
"What’s an XYZ?
“I don’t know.”
“Okay, what should we do about it?”
“I don’t know.”
“So why did you bring it up?”
“I don’t know.”
“Why am I talking to you?”
“I don’t know.”
“I know what to do about that.”
“I don’t know”
“You’re about to find out.”
I’m puzzled why you ask this.
When I was 4yo I knew nothing about this thing called reading and writing. I suppose I could have not thought about it. But I’m glad I gave it some effort.
What you knew about it was that other people were proposing it as something to learn.
Turtle, know yourself before knowing anything pertaining to spiritual beliefs. You can’t find what you need until you know what you truly need. There is far more than one way.