This reminds me of Douglas Adams' electric monk, a device which would believe things on your behalf :) Very thought-provoking. I guess it's a consequence of our mirror neuron system.

In a nutshell: A certain belief can function objectively without anyone in the first person believing in it. =] (the Santa example)

@goncalocartaxana

3 жыл бұрын

for it to function they have to believe, but they can believe they don't believe (a unknown known)

@andreeawade

3 жыл бұрын

@@goncalocartaxana wow, a comment to a comment from 8 years ago, totally forgot I posted this, can literally remember 0 and thus I'll just believe you're correct, haha.

@goncalocartaxana

3 жыл бұрын

@@andreeawade ahahah

It's nice to hear the whole Hyacinth Bucket series explained so :)

Great bit of empiricism there, thx!

Or..., more to the point: we are hypocritical enough that all we need is another person/group who through their believes covers/justifies our own

excellent

@HardHouseMusic4Me I know what you mean. I'm scratching my nose as I write this.

Maybe religions need believers and non-believers. Non-believers keep them safe and the believers keep them honest. But that's never going to happen. Why work together when you can dominate the other.

11.58 when he says you need the big other who doesn't believe, I thought the whole point was that the big other IS the one with the belief, which creates the space for the trangression? (eg the belief in society in the innocence of children which is then transgressed by the sexual revolution)

World's slushiest Ss, rolling Rs and ululating Ls, a wide array of nervous tics and un-heard-of pronunciations - the exoticness is not to be surpassed, but the depth and sincerity and dancing intellect make Mr. Z a definite new member on my must-read list!

They postponed / hid under a carpet the crysis in Yugoslavia... Do States follow that same paradigm now?

I have no idea what his point is.

No, I mean, are you serious? Are you serious in what you are saying? Are seriously claiming that something is not a belief because it is ritual, resp. that a ritual is not a belief "at work"? or are you just hating? or do you simply not understand him? If so, ask me anything.

12:21 I don't think it's chicken, SZ. It's Sheeps, acting Ostriches. Horny ones too. NamasTE.

@zarkoasenov Not bad with Svedka either.

haters gonna hate.

I don't believe in God, others can do it for me????

“You can see in this very simple example how a certain belief can function objectively without anyone in the first person believing in it.” It is called tradition and ritual, not belief. A belief cannot exist without a subject who believes and the thing believed. To try to claim anything else is pure mental masturbation, a philosopher’s specialty. Let's call each thing by its right name, please.