>
> Kenneth Boyd wrote:
> > 2) Of course it's confusing! Having experienced 'believing that
> > I believe something without actually believing it', I regret to
> > say that it *is* possible.
>
> I haven't experienced this.... (I don't think so, anyway...)
>
> > The problem is that one's metaknowledge can be subject to
> > inaccuracy as well.
>
> My meta-belief is that there are no absolute truths, which
> passes as my only pseudo-absolute-truth. Given this 'belief',
> then, I have no other beliefs. Would it be the case if I, in
> the future, have a 'religious experience', and start to believe
> in God, that what I am currently doing is 'believing that I
> believe something even though I don't believe it'? (I'm just
> trying to understand the concept via example here.)
>
>
> Eva wrote:
> > Yup. And one's conscious mind can be going in one direction,
> > and thinking one thing, while one's unconscious can be working
> > in another direction with purposes that are opaque to the
> > conscious mind and contrary to its goals and stated beliefs.
>
> This sounds to me like a theory of the relationship between the
> conscious and unconscious mind. In order for it to be proven
> 'true', one would need to become consciously aware of the
> unconscious mind, in order to consciously know which way it's
> going... but if one is consciously aware of the unconscious,
> well, then the unconscious is no longer unconscious... this
> leads me to think we're just working with a different level
> of consciousness, but not at the level of UNconsciousness,
> which is, by definition, outside of consciousness.
Not necessarily--it is possible to see evidence of what's going on in the
subconscious without being directly aware of those thoughts. For
instance, through dreams, physical symptoms without known medical origin,
slips of the tongue (or fingers), doing things you 'didn't mean to', etc.
It is also possible to become conscious of such conflicting thoughts after
the fact, and only then realize why you weren't achieving your goals.
Eva