|
It is really appreciated that you chose your terminology studiously. There are subtle distinctions and your alacrity is beneficial to clear understanding and discussion about such matters.
There is a point where, once one has uprooted and discarded the weeds of belief and faith that a new flavor of tolerance emerges. For, in that sense, one sees abstract thought and symbolic representation as largely a belief system to varying degrees, be it in the personal, political, philosophical, religious, or scientific sense.
At that point, one is struck with, at the very least, a belief in the existence of the mind. One observes that existence and mind and whatever transcendental concepts one holds to be true are merely mental objects as thought. Those mental objects never are what they convey, nor are they even direct links to a potential actuality in a subjective sense.
So, the persisting belief in mind is left due to habit and training. There is evidence to suggest it exists, but it is often of the same type, (though more complex and convoluted) as the kind used by those subsets and factions of mind that we call religious and spiritual.
The stark and obvious problem is that evidence is not proof. Finding the mind itself is an issue akin to finding concretely , in a direct and knowable way, the object of any subjective modality, be it a deity or a transcendental plane.
I could add that what we experience as existence and life could very well just be a pattern, (as complex and rich and diverse as those we see in nature's structures) and what we call mind is merely a reflection of that pattern that allows for an ephemeral, but observable knot that we call self or I. One simply finds one's self in layers of self-representation and relationship that imply, synergistically, something real and tangible out of cultural necessity alone.
|