About believe systems and their life -cycle.

About believe systems and their life -cycle.

I had some thoughts about the power of believe systems.
Thinking about justice, government power, religion and the value of money., democracy etc etc.
These are all institutions that can only function if if a major part of the people believes in them.
They usually believe these institutions to be ; the best, inevitable, at the basis of society and such.

First question: how many of the systems exist? Which ones can you add to my short list?
How many of these systems were faded out during history and was this an active process or passive?

What is the best way to get rid of a no longer functioning believe system? Revolution is usually very messy so I prefer milder methods.

If you want to git rid of one of the believe systems that we have now, what would you like to be put in place.

Good thread OP!
I like the belief system of genetic diversity. All those racist closed minded views about purity and what not are counter intuitive in that a genetically diverse organism is stronger, healthier, and probably smarter than one from a smaller gene pool. When this one catches on in the future the world will be a golden brown better place to be.

The belief system of ownership and amassing wealth and a multitude of possessions is one we could do without. This kind of belief system makes us so much more of a destructive force and consumptive; like a virus. The "needs" versus "wants" debate mucks up the waters for many of the less advantaged folk on the earth.

Just look at Star Trek. They have addressed many of these philosophical beliefs you mentioned.

Originally posted by sparrowstail
Good thread OP!
I like the belief system of genetic diversity. All those racist closed minded views about purity and what not are counter intuitive in that a genetically diverse organism is stronger, healthier, and probably smarter than one from a smaller gene pool. When this one catches on in the future the world will be a golden brown better place to be.

The belief system of ownership and amassing wealth and a multitude of possessions is one we could do without. This kind of belief system makes us so much more of a destructive force and consumptive; like a virus. The "needs" versus "wants" debate mucks up the waters for many of the less advantaged folk on the earth.

Just look at Star Trek. They have addressed many of these philosophical beliefs you mentioned.

You were right with your remark about Star Trek, that's one of the main reasons I liked it so much. I was not the great acting that did it.

Let's focus on this first believe system you mentioned. I do not think this is a good example because there are already two groups that look at this system in different ways, the racists and the non-racists. Is been disputed already by large groups.

I think the other one will do. Almost everyone in the world believes that ownership and amassing wealth are good things, especially if they themselves do it.
In the hands of others it is of course a rotten believe system

There's a book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It's about scientific paradigms and belief systems and how they change, but it really applies to all sorts of belief systems in all areas. I highly recommend it, as it addresses the issue that you've raised. If you don't care to read the book, the Wikipedia article is worth taking a look at:

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), by Thomas Kuhn, is an analysis of the history of science. Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of scientific knowledge and it triggered an ongoing worldwide assessment and reaction in — and beyond — those scholarly communities. In this work, Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in "normal science." Scientific progress had been seen primarily as a continuous increase in a set of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. During revolutions in science the discovery of anomalies leads to a whole new paradigm that changes the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research, asks new questions of old data, and moves beyond the puzzle-solving of normal science. For example, Kuhn’s analysis of the Copernican Revolution emphasized that, in its beginning, it did not offer more accurate predictions of celestial events, such as planetary positions, than the Ptolemaic system, but instead appealed to some practitioners based on a promise of better, simpler, solutions that might be developed at some point in the future. Kuhn called the core concepts of an ascendant revolution its “paradigms” and thereby launched this word into widespread analogical use in the second half of the 20th century. Kuhn’s insistence that a paradigm shift was a mélange of sociology, enthusiasm and scientific promise, but not a logically determinate procedure, caused an uproar in reaction to his work. Kuhn addressed concerns in the 1969 postscript to the second edition. For some commentators it introduced a realistic humanism into the core of science while for others the nobility of science was tarnished by Kuhn's introduction of an irrational element into the heart of its greatest achievements.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Pokoia
About believe systems and their life -cycle.

I had some thoughts about the power of believe systems.
Thinking about justice, government power, religion and the value of money., democracy etc etc.
These are all institutions that can only function if if a major part of the people believes in them.
They usually believe these institutions to be ; the best, inevitable, at the basis of society and such.

First question: how many of the systems exist? Which ones can you add to my short list?
How many of these systems were faded out during history and was this an active process or passive?

What is the best way to get rid of a no longer functioning believe system? Revolution is usually very messy so I prefer milder methods.

If you want to git rid of one of the believe systems that we have now, what would you like to be put in place.

Every system out there is a social covenant, no matter how complex it seems. At its very core, it all boils down to consensus. The question is: how many people are actually aware of the latter? I'd wager - not that many. You need to have a certain level of acumen to see through the charade. Or even attempt to.

reply to post by OnceReturned


Hi, thanks for your post, it was very informative.
I am still reading

Originally posted by survivaloftheslickest

Every system out there is a social covenant, no matter how complex it seems. At its very core, it all boils down to consensus. The question is: how many people are actually aware of the latter? I'd wager - not that many. You need to have a certain level of acumen to see through the charade. Or even attempt to.

I know not to many people know this(strange sentence).
I know sometimes there are very well visible efforts to continue the old systems in place, usually by the use of power or advertisement".
Controlling the news is also a very handy tool.
I just wondered if it is possible, for someone with very little power, to end a social covenant, or to start a new one.

reply to post by Pokoia

The most notorious faith-based social invention is money.

reply to post by Pokoia


beliefs is from being conscious constant existence fact, being conscious is to truth conception as an abstract free sense individually existing constant

truth conception right so conscious right being, is what looks at its freedom individuality to check upon truth facts not what is objectively existing, which is always accepted as it is not meaning it for any purpose, accepting it or rejecting it depending on self interests and free wills back but that never had any consequence on objective perspectives or objects facts realities, it doesnt matter at all when objective is of all matters not u

bc u never turn to ur individual free sense to mean anything objectively in relative ways of urself realities, that is why there are some fundamental basics u keep willing to ignore

when a point of smthg is obviously wrong, like belief fact, then it is all wrong, as then it means that it is never an absolute thing, what is not absolutely never matter is never of what matter nor to is never objective is never existing is never real is never nothing even when nothing is absolutely free

so it is wrong and when it is absolutely wrong it is evil living wills and when it is absolutely evil living wills then it is now existence objective oness powers and force

A belief system is comparable to a shape sorter, there are all kinds of sockets with different shapes, when a new piece is found, it is made to "fit" into the system, the system will sort and store, and file away all the data and compile it into a system of information that is recalled upon request. Different belief systems means different data, and if the data does not fit, then it is either altered to fit or discarded. Data that is altered to fit a belief will generate arguements between belief systems that use the same data in different ways.