Notices by Moritz Bartl (gamambel@social.tchncs.de), page 2

@tokyo_0 @jeffowski

For me, it is an exercise in communication, in various ways. I enjoy such exercises.

It is also a distraction from other things, which brings relaxation.

Contact, intellectual stimulation, personal development/growth, relaxation. Probably more.

It is not my intention to cause pain, it is my intention to experiment and improve upon having intellectual debates about emotionally charged topics such as "religion" or "sacret". I am deeply interested in such exchanges.

@tokyo_0 @jeffowski

Wait. So you think you can determine whether something is something that I benefit from? Isn't that inherently something I can decide only for myself?

@tokyo_0 @jeffowski

This discussion? No, I do not believe that. I know that it is.

@tokyo_0 @jeffowski

Which is where we have different beliefs, which to me does not separate us, whereas "religion" would ;-)

@tokyo_0 @jeffowski So your pain that comes from your own judgment makes it so that you think the other person is not interested in it, and then in your reality that becomes a fact. Isn't it more that you *believe* the other is not interested, and that becomes an insinuation rather than an assumption to verify? Isn't it only the other that can know if they are interested or not?

@tokyo_0 @jeffowski

Don't you see how you feeling offended by it is exactly the point that is being made in the article, that it creates pain, because your belief system makes you think it is wrong, and not only "a different equally valid opinion"?

The core idea here is to not merely "tolerate the pain of difference", but "dissolve the pain" by realizing how the only thing that causes the pain in the first place is the belief that one belief is wrong and the other is right.

Q.E.D.?

@tokyo_0 @jeffowski If we define religion as "set of beliefs", and being part of a religion as "subscribing to this particular set of beliefs", why is it then not okay for somebody to be of the opinion that that is already and generally "poison"?

You may not agree with it, but that should be ok, in the space of hypotheses, to have different opinions?

Interesting, how you introduced "sacred" into this! We could probably talk for days about what "sacred" means and implies... ;-)

@tokyo_0 @jeffowski Again, it seems to be a mere difference in definition, not an actual disagreement?

@tokyo_0 @jeffowski We move to the most important step! In religion, you believe a belief to be true! In science, you are very careful about this distinction. It is the moment where you judge a hypothesis to be true where it becomes dangerous, which is all that is being pointed out in the article, nothing else?

@tokyo_0 @jeffowski Ah. It's not that someone else decides you are part of it or not. YOUR belief makes YOU decide whether you are part of something discriminating or not. But that belief comes from somewhere external, not your own knowledge of facts. Which is what Sadghuru lays out in that article. On facts we can agree, if we both share the experience. A belief is just an idea. A possibility. The moment is is known to be true it stops being a belief, it becomes a fact.

@tokyo_0 @jeffowski I do not see "my" definition as contrary to the possible definitions that Merriam Webster offers? Religion as a set of beliefs. Which automatically means any belief that is contrary to that set is outside of it. And a belief is by definition something you cannot know for certain, you just *think* it is true. So you are introducing separation, between those that believe that, and those that believe otherwise.

@tokyo_0 @jeffowski For a long time I was not really that interested in narrowing down on my own definition, but over time, I found it helpful to adopt this definition. I understand that there are many.

@tokyo_0 @jeffowski I think what is happening here is that we have a different definition in mind of what is "religion" and what is "spirituality". Which is also why I refered to that site, as one of many possible articles that try to make that distinction.

It's exactly that the moment spirituality becomes religion that it implies division. In that definition, religion simply cannot exist without it, because you are either part of it or you are not. You believe, or you do not.

@tokyo_0 @jeffowski In "religion", you are either "with us", or "against us", a "non-believer". Religion, as an organized form that you can either "join" or not, is by definition authoritatian, and must be.

It sounds like you are operating from a broader definition, which is where this disagreement may stem from, when in fact we probably agree on which elements are "dangerous" and which ones are not.

@tokyo_0 @jeffowski

"The moment man became religious, it should have been the end of all conflict. Unfortunately, religion has become the main source of conflict everywhere in the world. It has taken the maximum number of lives and caused the maximum amount of pain on the planet for thousands of years. This is because a religion is essentially coming from a set of belief systems. […]"

https://isha.sadhguru.org/en/wisdom/article/spirituality-vs-religion

"The book leads readers through a process of self-discovery, helping them identify the language of their worries and fears that link to unresolved trauma in their #childhood or family history. Through questions, case studies and a series of body-centered exercises, readers are guided to become detectives, mining their family history to unearth the source of their issues. Readers learn how to convert old, fearful images into ones that bring strength and healing."

https://markwolynn.com/it-didnt-start-with-you/

"We are a team of researchers from Humboldt-Universität conducting an anonymous online survey about people’s experiences with #breathwork.

You are warmly invited to take part if you have done at least 1 fast-paced breathwork session in the last 5 years (Circular breathing, Conscious Connected Breathwork, Rebirthing, or similar) and it was led by a facilitator.

Your responses will help us to better understand the therapeutic potential of breathwork."

https://dziobek-lab.org/breathwork-survey/

2. All-or-none / black-and-white Thinking

I reject extreme or over generalized descriptions, judgments or criticisms. One negative event does not mean I am stuck in a never-ending pattern of defeat. Statements that describe me in “always” or “never” are rarely true.

3. Self-hate / Self-disgust / toxic shame

I commit to loving myself. I am a good enough person. I refuse to trash myself. I transfer back the shame and disgust to the person who is judging me for my normal emotions of anger, fear and sadness. I especially refuse to attack myself for how hard it is to completely eliminate the self-hate habit.

4. Micromanaging / Worrying

I will not repetitively examine details over and over. I will not jump to negative conclusions. I will not endlessly second-guess myself. I forgive my past mistakes. I cannot make the future perfectly safe. I will stop hunting for what could go wrong. I will not try to control the uncontrollable. I will not micromanage others or myself. I work in a way that is “good enough”. I accept that sometimes, my efforts bring desired results, and sometimes they do not.