Tags: religion
Bias, Belief, and the lense of Temperament
Regardless of what might be below, this note ought to become an inquiry into how temperament might be taken into account with storytelling. Based on my theory for religion’s use of storytelling to distill psychology down, is it possible to predict (and account for) differences in temperament towards what lessons are more impactful, which lessons are less necessary, and which might be interpreted in different ways.
Perhaps combining the Ideas of archetype, Jungian “shadow” and a kind of interpretive story Rorschach test.
Science has given us genetic variance of predisposition and experience has given us nurture and belief.
I have found my peace and my greatest encouragement in finding the intersticial grounds between these 2 forces.
Experience exists first Logic is drawn from observation of experience We form and test hypotheses Re-introduce this information into our experience We can now ‘Experience’ more effectively to our will, should we choose to manipulate it. We have logic and can now create strategy in experience Too much observation takes you away from presence and blocks our unbiased intake of experience/reality.
(The Evolution of Soccer) as a look into experiencing + developing S2 thinking to advance the game of soccer *Applied physically might be repetition of movements as an athlete until it integrates into S1 and becomes your experience rather than just logic
Strategy, of course helps us to win. When we identify strongly with the advantages of S2 use of the brain we can “gamify life by learning the meta”
Zorba the Greek personifies these two characters
- Zorba: a fully system 1 human. Heart
- Narrator: a system 2 reliant human. Head Narrator is so caught up in the logic and strategy of viewing the world that he never Experiences the testing of his hypotheses.
Through the development of logic there’s a kind of “Delayed gratification” in the compounding of its benefit.
I experienced this firsthand when I came to Austin as I was stuck in my head, “Armchair philosophying” my beliefs and continually updating them. It was taxing on my experiencing of life, and so I went back out to experience with light writing much for a while. It allowed me to adjust my beliefs based on new first-hand data. Rather than theory all the time.
There’s a problem in “armchairing” your knowledge of the world. We “learn” of things, we’ve “heard” them and we say we “already know” the lessons we need to prove. It still doesn’t prove that you have the value You can have knowledge that being healthy will lead to a better life, but you may be stopping yourself from proving it.
Perhaps this entire process can be left to what “naturally” feels right in your spirit. It’s a sort of compass that ticks you between what feels good and what feels bad to you despite any logic or outside advices.
For example: you may think it most effective then, to always delay the gratification of developing “meta level beliefs” in order to be most effective, saving you from suffering(loss of time, emotional hurt) However even if you tried, the beliefs are only solidified and integrated into system 1 through first-hand use. This balances out infinitely pulling your punches, because we will always naturally have to move back into “experiencing” the opportunities we see are a direct result of where you have been developed. You can’t take opportunities above your proof of belief, and you won’t engage in those below