Poor old Jonx gave himself another depressing experience by posting about his 'non belief' - once again he's withdrawn from the fray claiming exs just twist everything. Given how important the "experience not a belief" sales pitch is to premies, the fundamental problem that it presents, is significant.

In the early 70s the "experience not a belief" pitch had a lot to recommend it, at that time there was no concerted challenge to the reality of an 'inner existence'. Virtually all religious and philosophical thinking encompassed an 'inner' actuality, while atheistic and non theistic approaches were largely the province of functionalists, rationalists and totalitarians, none of whom were much bothered about the 'internal world'. In addition to the prevailing religious background, academia was also enthralled by the magical conceptions of Freud, Jung and their successors according to whom the human mind had a reality that could be expressed in concrete terms, and which could be divided into functional parts.

In 1971, in terms commonly understood in all the major European languages, a proposition that through some specific practice and without reference to belief, an empirical perception of an inner world/self/state/being could be attained, was sustainable amongst many different audiences.

In the intervening three decades, human thinking has moved on. While psychologists may find that Freudian and Jungian terms remain useful theoretical references - no advances have been made in demonstrating that Freudian or Jungian theory actually describes the mind/brain. In contrast Cognitive Science, Evolutionary Psychology, Neurology, and Neuro Psychology have all advanced in practice, theory and in capacity to describe the reality of the human mind/brain. The 70s picture of the 'consciousness' at the heart of a human mind has almost no place in current academic thinking and the separation of 'belief' from 'experience' within today's models of the mind/brain would probably be considered as being futile by most academics.

This 'loss' of distinction between what is 'believed' and what is 'experienced' is not a problem for most religious thinkers, for whom 'belief' or 'faith' is an integral part of religious observance. For premies however the "it's an experience not a belief" is a millstone because they have to rely on an anachronistic way of thinking about the human mind to give it validity.

Of course the standard premie response still gets used - "once you have the Knowledge, then you'll understand that it's an experience not a belief" - the difficulty is that until the 'aspirant' is initiated they must adopt the belief that they are indeed going to have an experience (otherwise what would be the point of seeking initiation) - and this adoption of belief (that an experience is impending) of itself provides the very belief upon which the experience of Knowledge is then founded.

A rounded (dare I say holistic !) approach to the human brain/mind/conciousness would have no difficulty with this predication on belief - it's the way that most human experience is transacted - for premies though 'belief' acts like a contaminant - to admit that the experience of Knowledge could in the slightest be mediated by 'belief' would be to admit to 'impurity'. So they are stuck endlessly parroting the mantra "it's not a belief, it's not belief."