Trust

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

If trust is a willingness to be surprised, then what is being comfortable with risk?

Transitive or intransitive?

Originally Posted by path_of_one

We trust something.

Do you? A little reciprocity might suggest: Trust another something as you would like the other something to trust you, and be trustworthy to another something as you would like the other something to be trustworthy to you. I'm not certain We all do that.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

A general attitude of comfort or willingness to assume risk, uncertainty, or imperfect information isn't trust, it's just our comfort level with risk. Some people are more gambling types than others. Doesn't mean they trust those on whom they take a gamble. We're able to assume risk without trust.

I submit: Gambling is typically counter to the will of others. Trust is typically with the will of others. Both involve a risk.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

In an attempt to get this back to the OP and not off-topic, as it relates to religion, most peopsle trust the authorities or organizations of their religion. It isn't like they are just willing to take the risk of going to a church or the uncertainty that their religion might not be right. It's that they trust their religion or practice is right, at least for them. Two very different things.

I'd say the two very different things there are: 1) Trusting an authority or organization, and 2) Trusting a religion. Very different.

I submit there is greater trust in an outsider who goes to a church for the first time than for someone who is raised up going to one. Why is that?

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I trust my path because I think it is right for me. I'm also willing to be surprised and resign myself to uncertainty, but that is another matter. If I was solely the latter, there would be no need for any religion at all.

I guess every word like 'love', 'honesty', 'trust', 'faith', etc... would have to be intransitive in order for it to be merely towards a singular path. That is: trusting or loving a path is different than trusting or loving others. Like apples and... soul? Applesauce?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Interesting, Vaj.

Do you think that trust might be a mechanism to overcome the madness and vexation brought on by attempting to conjecture about "the precise working out of the results of kamma" written about in the Acintita Sutta?

Is trust a form of conjecture, or a release from conjecture, in this respect? (Sounds like a koan...)

Oh, to clarify my point, I'm making an analogy to kamma being conditioned patterns, and a koan as a means to move your mind outside of patterned conditioning. Therefore, trust could be seen as being analogous to a koan, in this respect.
{Does that make any sense?}

[cyberpi]

Yet more editing here? It would be good if whoever is now deleting posts to have the minimal virtues to at least ask the person who originated the thread, let alone those wasting their time conversing. Have you no respect for others? Shame on you.

Shame on the moderators here. Just because you have judged the words of others to be either off topic or counter to your own beliefs and what you would like to hear, doesn't mean you are right or that others here think as you do. I had read the OP and was on topic the whole time... you simply don't see it yet.

Originally Posted by sherry

I've spent the last 8 years hearing "their belief is wrong because..." and many bad, or stereo-typical things about other relgions that don't fall in line with "Southern Baptist".

I don't want to hear steroe-types.. they are judgmental and group things together as a whole instead of giving them to chance to prove themselves on an individual basis.

To me, there obviously is something there in those other religions to not only cause such devotion to them, but to (as my husband drilled it to me last night..) "take the chance with your soul that you are wrong.."

Emphasis mine on the word 'chance'. I submit those are two very distinct and very difference cases of gambling... one is trust in another person and the other is trust in information.

Excellent demonstration here. Shame on you moderators.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Yet more editing here? It would be good if whoever is now deleting posts to have the minimal virtues to at least ask the person who originated the thread, let alone those wasting their time conversing. Have you no respect for others? Shame on you.

Shame on the moderators here. Just because you have judged the words of others to be either off topic or counter to your own beliefs and what you would like to hear, doesn't mean you are right or that others here think as you do. I had read the OP and was on topic the whole time... you simply don't see it yet.

Emphasis mine on the word 'chance'. I submit those are two very distinct and very difference cases of gambling... one is trust in another person and the other is trust in information.

Excellent demonstration here. Shame on you moderators.

I'm sorry if you disapprove of the way this board is moderated. However, it will continue to be moderated.

Take care.

v/r
Q

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Yet more editing here? It would be good if whoever is now deleting posts to have the minimal virtues to at least ask the person who originated the thread, let alone those wasting their time conversing. Have you no respect for others? Shame on you.

The posts weren't deleted, they were moved to the Trust thread in the Philosophy forum so they could continue with the previous posts on the same topic. I don't at this time know who moved them, but I think it is best to keep all of them together so people have a context for the most recent posts.

I didn't think anyone is wasting time conversing, since the posts are still extant and that thread is picking up other interesting comments from others.

Personally, I refuse to discuss the off-topic matter further on this thread. It is detracting (in my opinion) from the original question, which was to ask individuals about their own beliefs and why they have them. It never asked why people in general trust a religion- it was about "why you believe in YOUR religion." Two very different things IMO, and this thread began to read like two separate conversations- one on general human cognition and trust and the other on people's reasons for believing in their own religion.

Shame on the moderators here. Just because you have judged the words of others to be either off topic or counter to your own beliefs and what you would like to hear, doesn't mean you are right or that others here think as you do. I had read the OP and was on topic the whole time... you simply don't see it yet.

No, I don't. I felt the whole time that I was off-topic and hogging space, disrupting the conversation relevant to the OP. You may feel the long conversation we were having was relevant, but I don't and neither did others. When I look at the title and OP, it is clear that it meant for people to talk about their own beliefs about their own religions, not trust or religion in general.

This is why I refuse to continue to disrupt this thread with OT matters.

Beliefs counter to my own have nothing to do with it- they are all still there on the separate thread. I could care less if people have beliefs counter to my own- most people do on some topic.

[cyberpi]

Moderate the words of others as you would that others moderate yours. Perhaps that might be in a religion somewhere. Blessings to you otherwise.

[China Cat Sunflower]

I think that we come into the world with utter trust, and work our whole lives to remove as much of it as possible. There is no safety or security in trust. To have 100% trust means to be utterly at the mercy of a completely unpredictable world. A powerful driver of human evolution manifests as the effort to eliminate, or at least minimize surprise. OTOH, we have a modicum of personal trust that we can invest as we choose. So, in the sense of trust as a commodity it's a matter of risk versus potential benefit. Safety versus profit. I'm thinking that trust can be defined as a sort of field, or state of consciousness, or as a commodity of personal investment. Trust being a willingness to be surprised, or, put another way, the inability to prevent surprise would fall under the first part, while trust invested in people and processes would, in my mind, fit better under the second definition. Risk becomes synonymous with surprise.

Besides taking calculated risks on people or processes, a person can allow trust by consciously withdrawing from the control game. Anything we don't have to own or control can be reinvested with trust so that it's potential to surprise us reinvigorates.

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Moderate the words of others as you would that others moderate yours. Perhaps that might be in a religion somewhere. Blessings to you otherwise.

Posts were moved appropriately, not moderated.
Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I think that we come into the world with utter trust, and work our whole lives to remove as much of it as possible. There is no safety or security in trust. To have 100% trust means to be utterly at the mercy of a completely unpredictable world. A powerful driver of human evolution manifests as the effort to eliminate, or at least minimize surprise. OTOH, we have a modicum of personal trust that we can invest as we choose. So, in the sense of trust as a commodity it's a matter of risk versus potential benefit. Safety versus profit. I'm thinking that trust can be defined as a sort of field, or state of consciousness, or as a commodity of personal investment. Trust being a willingness to be surprised, or, put another way, the inability to prevent surprise would fall under the first part, while trust invested in people and processes would, in my mind, fit better under the second definition. Risk becomes synonymous with surprise.

Besides taking calculated risks on people or processes, a person can allow trust by consciously withdrawing from the control game. Anything we don't have to own or control can be reinvested with trust so that it's potential to surprise us reinvigorates.

Chris

Trust is a funny thing. We inherently give it to most we meet, and it develops as the relationship does, but once lost, it is very hard to get back. I'm not sure why, by I think it as to do with being vulnerable and then being hurt. Self defense mechanism I suppose.

Good post Chris.

Josh

[greymare]

i my experience, trust is a once only thing for eachperson. now, that may be harsh, but once lost it will never be teh same. it maybe a shadow of itself, but not as it once was. imo.

[Francis king]

trust... trust in what, or whom?

a climber trusts his ropes...but each time, he checks them before he uses them...

a child trusts it's parents... but still tests the boundaries...

if you kick a cat once, he will shy away from your affections... kick him three times, and he'll ignore you for days... a dog will love you even if you kick him eighteen times a day...

we are often told by our religions to "trust": to accept things via blind faith alone... it smacks of gullability. It smacks of deceit.

to say something is true, when it is not, is a lie... to call something a truth when it is just a theory, is foolish.

the only person you can fully trust in life is yourelf. Some humans can't even do that.

trust as a release from conjecture? great. But what happens when we are released from conjecture and find this in itself is a trap?

for an army to cease thinking about an enemy does not mean the enemy simply goes away... instead, the army strategises, equips itself for battle...

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hmmm...I didn't realize that there are now multiple Trust threads. How did that happen?

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Hmmm...I didn't realize that there are now multiple Trust threads. How did that happen?

Chris

operator error (slips back into obscurity, shagrinned)

[China Cat Sunflower]

Thanks Josh!

For once I agree with a decision to split a thread. This topic deserved its own.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

Letting a stranger come within striking distance demonstrates a mutual level of trust. There can't be civilization, culture, or society without a constant modicum of trust. Paradoxically, it is the removal of trust that gives the trust which remains value. Science and religion are both trust removal tools. There is no less trusting mindset than the one which demands answers and predictability. Since belief is a process where metaphysical axioms are allowed to stand in for facts to compensate for the lack of a complete fact set, it is essentially part of the answer finding process, and is therefor antithetical to trust. Belief opposes trust.

Chris