Belief

About (The Belief Doctor)

Posted 23 September, 2016, 3.10pm

[Note: "About" (The Belief Doctor) was posted on the previous 'beliefdoctor.com' website and is reposted here, for consistency of links.]

My focus and passion as The Belief Doctor?1 is in analysing and improving 'bodies of belief' in all fields of human experience including science, religion, business, management, politics, new-age, health ... life.

I do so by a number of robust, effective means.

But in all my approaches, I apply one overarching rule that will stand the test of time, in all circumstances — that of accepting, and affirming the irreducible paradox of life of part and whole, of individual and community, of "trees and forests."

An example. Recently I was asked what did I think about Buddhism. Without going into too much detail, we need only review the beliefs of Buddhists, from that paradoxical perspective (using the reciprocal test).

Let's take a specific example: that of the ideal of non-attachment. Achieving non-attachment can only be gained by being attached (to some degree) with that outcome. If we're not attached to, or in some way consciously creating or desiring that outcome (of non-attachment) then we would have absolutely no (as in zero) conscious choice, volition or free will in achieving that outcome. We would be "pure" victims to some process or spiritual force that was in control of us. That might suit some, but it's hardly a prescription for effective living.

In the context of the "Paradox Rule", the goal of achieving non-attachment is an oxymoron. It's basically a waste of time (pun intended).

Another (parallel) approach is to work more effectively with time, from a forward-focused creating approach -- primarily, by focusing on what we want, and "letting go" what we don't want.

It is our addictions to the past that causes continual recurrence of old habits, ailments and problems. Fortunately the creative process enables us to move beyond old habits to gain (or regain) health and wellbeing. That is not to suggest we avoid, ignore or deny the past -- the past serves as a platform of stability and order that is crucial to life.

The Theory of One and AllThe art and science of health and wellbeing lies in balancing both past and future ... of balancing both

  • routine and creativity
  • stability and surprise
  • possible and actual
  • knowledge and imagination
  • logic and precognition2
  • individuality and community
  • one and all
  • finite and infinite
  • physical and "pre-physical"3

Project Manage Your ...

Recently I sat in a meeting of people who discussed all sorts of spiritual matters and ideas, including the law of attraction etc.

When discussing the law of attraction, I asked a simple question that caused a fair bit of upset. And it's an obvious question that is often ignored, or avoided when people talk about 'attracting abundance' into their lives.

The question is this: what value are you adding to your community, in order to reasonably expect abundance will be given you?

Category(s): 

Right the boss of left

There's an exceptionally insightful and wise article in today's Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, and it's precisely what I've been helping to explain for a number of years.

In our Australian political system, the (ostensibly) left-wing political party "Labor" has been exemplary in producing a strong economy, with low interest rates, AAA credit rating1 and low unemployment -- but none of that mattered sufficiently to keep them in government.

Today's article explains:

"At last. God's in his heaven and all's right with the world. The rightful rulers of this country are back in charge, so now things can only get better."

Ross Gittins (the author of the article) is alluding to our unconscious desire for a firm hierarchical order, with bosses in charge, and workers following orders. And this relates back to our childhood need for strong authority. In other words, we're still children at heart, in terms of our cultural maturity and world-view.

It would seem we're still in stage 3 of our cultural development. Or at least we've slid back, of late, to that stage.

Category(s): 

Points about points

I was recently contacted regarding my work -- primarily concerning materials on the Belief Institute website.

The person (supportive of my work) sent me a list of 'points' by another critic who argues good articles, or beliefs should comply to various conditions:

Here's my reply to those 'points'.

  1. should not contain tautologies;

    English is a rich language, and while tautologies are a useful concept, the fact that one can frame an idea or concept (there's one now) differently using different words/approaches, reveals greater nuance to the concept or idea. Pun intended. So I wouldn't get too concerned about grammatical correctness.

  2. should not contain notion-metaphor transmutations (e.g., "power" it is a concept in Physics, but being used in Psychology, say, as "power of imagination", it becomes a metaphor);

    Well, this is a poor point. We don't know what causes 'power' in physics.

    We know now with around 30 years of research data from Princeton's PEAR that our minds have the power (physical) to move objects.

    "The enormous databases produced by PEAR provide clear evidence that human thought and emotion can produce measureable influences on physical reality. The researchers have also developed several theoretical models that attempt to accommodate the empirical results, which cannot be explained by any currently recognized scientific model."

    So psychological power is related to physical power. To say otherwise would require certain (incorrect) assumptions to be correct. Which they aren't. E.g. the power to collapse the wave-function.

    Better that you don't get me started on this one ... :)

Category(s): 

Most superstitious era in history?

In view of my awkward question concerning the deeper nature of physical movement, in various forums I've received what appears to be unanimous negative responses. Some quite vitriolic and abusive.

It seems then that there is an argument to be made that we're living through one of, or perhaps THE most superstitious era in history.

Many scientists often lambaste the church for what they did to Galileo, and prior to him Giordano Bruno. Many argue the demonstrated 'closed-mindedness' of the church held back scientific advancement to a considerable degree.

Category(s): 

Leading God: Raw Individuality

At a dinner party recently I explained that "genuine creativity leads God", in that everyone else (including God1) is genuinely, gob-smackingly surprised by our raw originality.

One woman was deeply shocked and horrified by the idea. She said she completely "shut down" with regards to anything else I had to say. Golly.

Category(s): 

Believing is seeing

It is with some irony that skeptic Micheal Shermer should write a book on the "Believing Brain" -- that we see things not as they are, but through the lens of personal and cultural belief.

A review of his book (in the Boss Magazine supplement in the Financial Review) explains part of the irony:

A central theme is the purposeful formation of beliefs, emerging from subjective emotional and psychological roots nurtured in social environments and society.

Category(s): 

Giving God some giddy-up

I was communicating (emailing) back and forth with someone who I suspect is a fundamentalist Christian.

So I thought to use the Reciprocal Test, as previously explained in "The power of the Reciprocal Test", which basically turns belief-systems upside down to show their 'naughty bits' -- the bits that have hairs on them, and/or have holes in them :)

By doing so, the Reciprocal Test (aka The Paradox Rule) shows just how much we, as a childish culture, are subservient to, and frightened of perceived "higher authorities", which as explained in "Consider some stuff", are only there by dint of our cooperation and blessing.

Category(s): 

Pages