Christian Nonduality

[Me_Be]

The Bible is belief.
God is belief.
Christianity is belief.
Nonduality is belief.

Reality as such is simply ordinary and simple; it's this immediate unknowing, and at the same time reality knows it does not know, everything else is imagination/story.

There is no such thing as Nonduality because Nonduality is not a thing.

The Oneness that is reality is not a concept. Duality and multiplicity are concepts, hence the paradox/contradiction of this NON-DUAL multiplicity.

The reality is that there is no separation or otherness.  There's simply everything&nothing one without a second.

The misunderstanding of the word ''Nonduality'' often invokes the feeling of confusion within the thinker, especially how it then attempts to express the idea's ultimate meaning, using concepts. Misunderstandings form a kind of unavoidable ignorance; as Oneness is never recognised, because it's unknown.

 Only the conceptual world is known, and in and of itself knows nothing. That's the paradox of Nonduality which is pointing to the nonconceptual using concepts. But, behind the message of every belief lies the pure clarity of reality, the absolute truth.

Is this topic worthy of being discussed? I personally think it's useful in the sense of thinking for oneself, and having the capacity to not believe something just because it's what everyone else believes too, so it must be true. We can listen to other people's personal takes on knowledge and belief, and then make up our own mind as to whether we perceive it that way too, or not.

The more deeply we think about Nonduality, the closer we come to the realisation of the true nature of reality, eventually arriving at a conclusion that all ''religious beliefs'' are simply analogous to the multiple characters and images seen in our nightly dreams.

Thoughts...

[Asmodean]

The Bible is belief.
God is belief.
Christianity is belief.
Nonduality is belief.

Details matter, especially when there is quite as much devil in them as here. (The reason I am nitpicking is to avoid using chosen language as the deciding factor in definitionally-dependent contexts. Is "orange" a fruit or a colour? Is a vertebrate a bird? So forth. Avoiding linguistic ambiguity is a good starting point when trying to describe reality, which does not depend on the words you call it at all. Your models of it, however, may.)

The Bible is a book. A collection of stories from a couple of millennia ago, some in turn based on stories from even earlier times. It is not a belief, but people do believe in its contents.

God is a mythological creature. It's something you can believe in - or not. God is not a belief.

Christianity is a set of beliefs. There are many denominations of Christianity with contradicting views on specific theological issues. As a very surface-level analysis, however, you could say that it is a belief, thereby hand-waiving potential discrepancies.

Nonduality is a state of not being dual. It's absence, singularity and every plurality but one. As a philosophical tradition, it is as Christianity - a set of beliefs and observations. (Though from what I know, that one is called "Nondualism.")

There is no such thing as Nonduality because Nonduality is not a thing.

This is a trick of linguistics. It would be like saying "There is no God because God is not a thing." It's... Lazy, somehow. Circular.

Even if a construct of a demented mind, it exists as such. It may be some degree of wrong and/or some degree of correct, and you could analyse the reasons why it must be so, but the expression "there is no such thing as..." implies absence of something as it is described. "No free lunch" means (literally speaking) that even if on the surface, you have been offered it for free, expect there to be strings attached. It does not mean that lunches do not exist. That would be circular argument - a much-used tool of the faithful (Much-trunkated example: The Bible is true because God says it is because the Bible says he does) but rather on the useless side when it comes to learning.

The Oneness that is reality is not a concept. Duality and multiplicity are concepts, hence the paradox/contradiction of this NON-DUAL multiplicity.

The reality is that there is no separation or otherness.  There's simply everything&nothing one without a second.

Reality is a collection of interconnected systems. The practical degree of said interconnection, however, may vary. For example, due to wave-like nature of particles, an electron "almost certain" to be here *point* may upon resolution be in Andromeda. Let us assume that that electron is a part of my toenail. Does that mean that my toenail is connected to Andromeda? Practically speaking, no, it does not.

You may "zoom out" and view everything as a single unit. Meaningless, unless examining its properties or actions at that level. You can zoom in and determine the system's system's systems. That, in turn, would be meaningless on the scale of reality itself - just like my toenail electron resolving in Andromeda against astronomical (pun intended) odds.

The misunderstanding of the word ''Nonduality'' often invokes the feeling of confusion within the thinker, especially how it then attempts to express the idea's ultimate meaning, using concepts. Misunderstandings form a kind of unavoidable ignorance; as Oneness is never recognised, because it's unknown.

 Only the conceptual world is known, and in and of itself knows nothing. That's the paradox of Nonduality which is pointing to the nonconceptual using concepts. But, behind the message of every belief lies the pure clarity of reality, the absolute truth.

Deliberately-confusing language may contribute to misunderstanding the proposition. It really is not complicated and while it may have some, shaky though it may be, intellectual scaffolding to lean on, it quite simply gives the individual sensor data analysis far too much credit. So someone born blind does not know what blue looks like. Well, so-effing-what? They can still understand what blue means in the broader context. It's energetic photons at certain wavelengths, hitting the retinae of the eyes and those interactions are being processed as "blue." So, does blue exist even if you cannot conventionally sense it? Of course, it does! It refers to photons of certain energy, which are trivially demonstrable to exist.

I personally think it's useful in the sense of thinking for oneself, and having the capacity to not believe something just because it's what everyone else believes too, so it must be true. We can listen to other people's personal takes on knowledge and belief, and then make up our own mind as to whether we perceive it that way too, or not.

Mmmh... Yeah... There are no good reasons to believe anything. There may, however, be sufficient reasons to accept something as true until proven otherwise.

If it's important to you - verify it.

The more deeply we think about Nonduality, the closer we come to the realisation of the true nature of reality, eventually arriving at a conclusion that all ''religious beliefs'' are simply analogous to the multiple characters and images seen in our nightly dreams.

Thoughts...

An advice more than thoughts. You are unliekly to arrive at the "true nature of reality," whatever that expression means to you, in any meaningful way by thinking about nonduality. That just churns and re-churns your pre-existing datasets in search of new conclusions. Get a few more measurements, compare against conflicting datasets and add to your own. Your mind is an open system - treat it as such.

[zorkan]

Christianity is not a set of beliefs. It's a set of nonsense or delusions based on ancient myth and fable.
Nonduality is not a belief. The brain builds up a model of its environment as a mode of survival.
Nobody has ever seen god, but some are willing to think such an entity is there to guide them.

"Knowing that you're nothing is wisdom, and knowing that you're everything is love."
Science has gone beyond that philosophy by asking if anything exists at all, although Buddhism comes close.
There is no wisdom, just experience.

[Asmodean]

Whether the beliefs are nonsensical or not, Christianity is still a set of them.

Again, I do apologize for being all nit-picky, but in my experience, one thing you don't want in a philosophical discussion is linguistic ambiguity. To put it this way, there is a reason why my otherwise-lazy ass is verbose even by my own standards in these responses.

[Me_Be]

Christianity is not a set of beliefs.

Of course it's a belief. It's a story based on a character named Jesus who claims to be the son of God.

It's a set of nonsense or delusions based on ancient myth and fable.

The belief in Christianity is a belief held to be true by many believers whether their belief is true or not. For the human mind, just believing in something as existing is enough to justify it's existence, whether it's there or not in the real objective sense. That's just how the mind works, it is able to conceive things as existing. And yet not only has God never been seen, nobody has ever seen their own mind either.

And so who can say otherwise if there's a claimed belief in God; and has actually experienced God to have been their own personal direct experience. How can someone else prove their belief to be nonsense or delusional if it's been their own private direct experience, that no one else could possibly be privy to, ever?

And since no one can access the mind of another mind, as it's obvious that no two minds ever meet up. It's an impossibility for two minds to meet up so as to be in an advantageous position where each mind is able to examine directly the other mind's personal experiences as being true or not. All that can be offered to others here, is one's word about their own private experiences..

And so surely, by opposing a belief held to be true, to be nonsense and not true,  would require an opposing belief.  So even the action of dismissing one's belief requires the belief a belief can be invalidated as a false truth claim being nonsense.

 So the argument to dispel a belief as nonsense also requires belief that the belief is indeed nonsense, as you cannot know for certainty if it's nonsense or not, it'll only be your word on someone else's direct experience, and not your actual direct experience. So all I'm saying is that anything that is being claimed to be someone else's direct experience requires a belief to invalidate or validate it.

Nonduality is not a belief.

Of course Nonduality is a belief. It's still a claim to know the ultimate nature of reality.
It's a realisation that there is only belief, and yet no believer. As the knowledge of a BELIEVER existing would also be a belief. Which in turn means ''belief'' is simply myth, and such is all things that are claimed to be known, those claims to know any knowledge, is also a myth.

The brain builds up a model of its environment as a mode of survival.

Say's who? Who knows this? Who is seeing the brain, but then claims to know nobody has ever seen God?

Nobody has ever seen god

And the one who makes the claim to know nobody has ever seen God, has ever seen the one making this claim to know the brain builds up a model of it's environment by talking about someone else's brain, never their own. But even if you did open up your own skull and look at your own brain, there is nowhere in that brain where you would find a person who is claimed to be a Believer, or a Knower, or a Seer. 

[Me_Be]

Details matter, especially when there is quite as much devil in them as here. (The reason I am nitpicking is to avoid using chosen language as the deciding factor in definitionally-dependent contexts. Is "orange" a fruit or a colour? Is a vertebrate a bird? So forth. Avoiding linguistic ambiguity is a good starting point when trying to describe reality, which does not depend on the words you call it at all. Your models of it, however, may.)

Okay fair enough.

The Bible is a book. A collection of stories from a couple of millennia ago, some in turn based on stories from even earlier times. It is not a belief, but people do believe in its contents.

Well the story/contents is never separate from the book, so belief is still a factor in this discussion.

God is a mythological creature. It's something you can believe in - or not. God is not a belief.

Okay. But I'm not sure what you mean exactly by that.

Christianity is a set of beliefs. There are many denominations of Christianity with contradicting views on specific theological issues. As a very surface-level analysis, however, you could say that it is a belief, thereby hand-waiving potential discrepancies.

Okay.

Nonduality is a state of not being dual. It's absence, singularity and every plurality but one. As a philosophical tradition, it is as Christianity - a set of beliefs and observations. (Though from what I know, that one is called "Nondualism.")

This is knowledge, a claim known. A belief.

There is no such thing as Nonduality because Nonduality is not a thing.

This is a trick of linguistics. It would be like saying "There is no God because God is not a thing." It's... Lazy, somehow. Circular.

It is circular, but so is all introspection into the answers as to what it is to know the knower of known conceptual things.

Even if a construct of a demented mind, it exists as such. It may be some degree of wrong and/or some degree of correct, and you could analyse the reasons why it must be so, but the expression "there is no such thing as..." implies absence of something as it is described. "No free lunch" means (literally speaking) that even if on the surface, you have been offered it for free, expect there to be strings attached. It does not mean that lunches do not exist. That would be circular argument - a much-used tool of the faithful (Much-trunkated example: The Bible is true because God says it is because the Bible says he does) but rather on the useless side when it comes to learning.

Okay.

The Oneness that is reality is not a concept. Duality and multiplicity are concepts, hence the paradox/contradiction of this NON-DUAL multiplicity.

The reality is that there is no separation or otherness.  There's simply everything&nothing one without a second.

Reality is a collection of interconnected systems. The practical degree of said interconnection, however, may vary. For example, due to wave-like nature of particles, an electron "almost certain" to be here *point* may upon resolution be in Andromeda. Let us assume that that electron is a part of my toenail. Does that mean that my toenail is connected to Andromeda? Practically speaking, no, it does not.

I think that 'Empty Space' is what divides the interconnectedness of all things creating the illusion of distance between objects. And yet there cannot be known to be space without objects and there can't be known to be any objects without space, so they have to be connected as one undivided unitary whole reality when it comes to the claim to know.. It's only language that divides what is essentially this one reality without a second. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's how we learn to understand ourselves and others. We, the one's that make the claim; each and every one of us;  who have somehow just suddenly popped aware out of nowhere, without ever knowing how or why. We just did.

You may "zoom out" and view everything as a single unit. Meaningless, unless examining its properties or actions at that level. You can zoom in and determine the system's system's systems. That, in turn, would be meaningless on the scale of reality itself - just like my toenail electron resolving in Andromeda against astronomical (pun intended) odds.

Okay.

The misunderstanding of the word ''Nonduality'' often invokes the feeling of confusion within the thinker, especially how it then attempts to express the idea's ultimate meaning, using concepts. Misunderstandings form a kind of unavoidable ignorance; as Oneness is never recognised, because it's unknown.

 Only the conceptual world is known, and in and of itself knows nothing. That's the paradox of Nonduality which is pointing to the nonconceptual using concepts. But, behind the message of every belief lies the pure clarity of reality, the absolute truth.

Deliberately-confusing language may contribute to misunderstanding the proposition. It really is not complicated and while it may have some, shaky though it may be, intellectual scaffolding to lean on, it quite simply gives the individual sensor data analysis far too much credit. So someone born blind does not know what blue looks like. Well, so-effing-what? They can still understand what blue means in the broader context. It's energetic photons at certain wavelengths, hitting the retinae of the eyes and those interactions are being processed as "blue." So, does blue exist even if you cannot conventionally sense it? Of course, it does! It refers to photons of certain energy, which are trivially demonstrable to exist.

Okay.

I personally think it's useful in the sense of thinking for oneself, and having the capacity to not believe something just because it's what everyone else believes too, so it must be true. We can listen to other people's personal takes on knowledge and belief, and then make up our own mind as to whether we perceive it that way too, or not.

Yeah... There are no good reasons to believe anything. There may, however, be sufficient reasons to accept something as true until proven otherwise.

If it's important to you - verify it.

I think we verify our beliefs by simply being aware of them. And that's all we've got to work with.

The more deeply we think about Nonduality, the closer we come to the realisation of the true nature of reality, eventually arriving at a conclusion that all ''religious beliefs'' are simply analogous to the multiple characters and images seen in our nightly dreams.

Thoughts...

An advice more than thoughts. You are unliekly to arrive at the "true nature of reality," whatever that expression means to you, in any meaningful way by thinking about nonduality. That just churns and re-churns your pre-existing datasets in search of new conclusions. Get a few more measurements, compare against conflicting datasets and add to your own. Your mind is an open system - treat it as such.

Although no one ever arrives where they already are, so I agree it's unlikely to be a destination to reach. An open mind informs itself, it's self-evident as a direct experience, whereas the absence of one's direct experience of being is not an experience, hence it's always openly self-evident.

[Asmodean]

I think that 'Empty Space' is what divides the interconnectedness of all things creating the illusion of distance between objects. And yet there cannot be known to be space without objects and there can't be known to be any objects without space, so they have to be connected as one undivided unitary whole reality when it comes to the claim to know.. It's only language that divides what is essentially this one reality without a second. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's how we learn to understand ourselves and others. We, the one's that make the claim; each and every one of us;  who have somehow just suddenly popped aware out of nowhere, without ever knowing how or why. We just did.

Well, if we are onto something with a field-based model of space, then in a way, "empty space" is what bridges stuff rather than what divides it.

It's not a perfect analogy by a long shot, but imagine the surface of a lake. You disturb it, and concentric waves move outward. The greater the disturbance, the grater the waves. Theoretically, "the entire lake" may experience this disturbance, but at certain point, the waves created by it fall below the level of noise - those waves already there from other causes. The lake is an analogy for a field, permeating the "empty space." The disturbance can be an analogy for a particle - a wave packet of that field. If you try to resolve a point where the particle is, you will get a probability distribution, greatest at the epicentre of the diisturbance and decreasing outwards - theoretically, "forever." If that is all there was to it, everything would have been connected. However, there are different sorts of fields permeating space, there is an inherent "noisiness" to them ("zero-point energy," ref. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) and sufficiently-large systems are, much like the fields themselves, not practically changed by the loss or addition of their smallest components. If there is hardly any practical (or, meaningful) connection between "everything" at the building block levels, how would there be at the levels of systems consisting of more such building blocks than there are stars in the observable Universe?

Language is a tool for communication. If I start responding to you in Norwegian, you will not understand enough of it (assumnign that you have never learned it) to understand what I'm saying. It is not a reflection on the factual basis in what I say. Whether a car or en bil, the hunk of plastic, metal and rubber does not depend on it. You apply language, if you know any, to your datasets as a part of creating that mental model of reality I've been belabouring in the past two conversations.

[zorkan]

Of course it's a belief. It's a story based on a character named Jesus who claims to be the son of God.

If I say David Icke is the son of god, would that be a belief, or would it be bullshit?

https://news.sky.com/story/who-is-david-icke-the-conspiracy-theorist-who-claims-he-is-the-son-of-god-11982406

[Asmodean]

Could be both.

[Me_Be]

Of course it's a belief. It's a stories based on a character named Jesus who claims to be the son of God.

If I say David Icke is the son of god, would that be a belief, or would it be bullshit?

https://news.sky.com/story/who-is-david-icke-the-conspiracy-theorist-who-claims-he-is-the-son-of-god-11982406

The point I'm making is that there are some people in the world who believe the story that is written in the Bible to be God's word. And that Jesus was the son of God.
That's all I'm trying to say here. The Belief is always prior to any valid or invalidation of it.

People have their beliefs whether they are seen by others as BS or not, the belief is held regardless.

Children have beliefs about Father Christmas, they really love the idea. Their belief about (Santa) was planted in them from birth by their parents and family. Adult human beings who know better, that the belief is a LIE continue to perpetuate the lie by wanting to keep it alive as and through their offspring.

And the reason why I think this happens is because none of us can really know our creator in the same context a machine can never know it's creator. And so we make-believe our beliefs because the alternative is just too unbelievable, we seem to be naturally wired to want to know things, there is an aching longing in the human heart for knowledge, as if we do not like to Never Not-know.

Another example of (belief) is the belief we all die. Our death is a belief too, and yet none of us have ever experienced the experience of death, it's simply a belief, but have no absolute idea about what it means to die.

It's all very mysterious because it certainly feels like I am alive, and yet there was a time when I did not exist, and so I can say to myself, ''who am I right now''  knowing right now that there was a time where I did not exist. And knowing I once did not exist seems like death to me now, so death is a strange concept then, insofar as how could I have been dead if I know that I am alive right here and now? That question is unanswerable, in my opinion.



 

[Asmodean]

The point I'm making is that there are some people in the world who believe the story that is written in the Bible to be God's word. And that Jesus was the son of God.
That's all I'm trying to say here. The Belief is always prior to any valid or invalidation of it.

It's a fair enough observation, but I don't think validation is always secondary to belief in this manner. An observation may form a belief, and therefore precede it.

It's all very mysterious because it certainly feels like I am alive, and yet there was a time when I did not exist, and so I can say to myself, ''who am I right now''  knowing right now that there was a time where I did not exist. And knowing I once did not exist seems like death to me now, so death is a strange concept then, insofar as how could I have been dead if I know that I am alive right here and now? That question is unanswerable, in my opinion.

This is interesting, because from my point of view, your question is actually very easy to answer.

You were not dead before you were born - or, conceived, in fact. There simply was no you. Death is something that happens to something that is alive. A cell may die - or a system (of systems) of cells, constituting a human. Death is the degradation of a living system into its non-living components. Thus, there is no death without preceding life.

You know that you didn't exist before your time - and you know that you will not after (unless you believe in some manner of an afterlife that enables the continuation of you as a single system in some meaningful way) It's... "All chemistry." If you burn two hydrogen molecules, you will get two water molecules. Those molecules did not exist before hydrogen was burned, and will not exist after they have been electrolysed apart or reacted into something else. Humans are no different in this sense - only significantly more complex.

[Me_Be]

I think that 'Empty Space' is what divides the interconnectedness of all things creating the illusion of distance between objects. And yet there cannot be known to be space without objects and there can't be known to be any objects without space, so they have to be connected as one undivided unitary whole reality when it comes to the claim to know.. It's only language that divides what is essentially this one reality without a second. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's how we learn to understand ourselves and others. We, the one's that make the claim; each and every one of us;  who have somehow just suddenly popped aware out of nowhere, without ever knowing how or why. We just did.

Well, if we are onto something with a field-based model of space, then in a way, "empty space" is what bridges stuff rather than what divides it.

It's not a perfect analogy by a long shot, but imagine the surface of a lake. You disturb it, and concentric waves move outward. The greater the disturbance, the grater the waves. Theoretically, "the entire lake" may experience this disturbance, but at certain point, the waves created by it fall below the level of noise - those waves already there from other causes. The lake is an analogy for a field, permeating the "empty space." The disturbance can be an analogy for a particle - a wave packet of that field. If you try to resolve a point where the particle is, you will get a probability distribution, greatest at the epicentre of the diisturbance and decreasing outwards - theoretically, "forever." If that is all there was to it, everything would have been connected. However, there are different sorts of fields permeating space, there is an inherent "noisiness" to them ("zero-point energy," ref. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) and sufficiently-large systems are, much like the fields themselves, not practically changed by the loss or addition of their smallest components. If there is hardly any practical (or, meaningful) connection between "everything" at the building block levels, how would there be at the levels of systems consisting of more such building blocks than there are stars in the observable Universe?

Language is a tool for communication. If I start responding to you in Norwegian, you will not understand enough of it (assumnign that you have never learned it) to understand what I'm saying. It is not a reflection on the factual basis in what I say. Whether a car or en bil, the hunk of plastic, metal and rubber does not depend on it. You apply language, if you know any, to your datasets as a part of creating that mental model of reality I've been belabouring in the past two conversations.

And this story authored by you there, is also you're belief. For anything at all to be known, it must first be conceptualised and infused with meaning for it to make sense or not.

Human language is the perfect tool for making sense of what we ultimately cannot know, but can envision this unknowing as if it is known as and through the senses and the mental capacity to be able impose our make-believed beliefs upon it as and through our conception of it. We have the capacity to think about reality, to perceive it by attaching labels and stringing them all together to make a story, where previously there wasn't one. And we have been doing this story telling from cradle to grave constantly relating to our thoughts until we think we've understood who we are and the world we live in. But our limited knowledge as finite beings is still just a (belief)

Beliefs are mentally constructed arbitrary ideas within the sense of human I Am-ness, they're born of thoughts. And yet 'thoughts' can never touch reality as it actually is, because reality as it actually is is inconceivable to the human mind. And yet seems to be obviously knowable in this immediate Non-knowing, for how could there be a state of Not-knowing for the mind - 'thought' simply imposes upon this unknowing reality turning it into some kind of known. So what seems to be happening here is very basic and simple once realised, and that is reality is known only by association by what is ultimately always this mysterious unknowing knowing of itself. 

[Me_Be]

There simply was no you.

You know that you didn't exist before your time - and you know that you will not after (unless you believe in some manner of an afterlife that enables the continuation of you as a single system in some meaningful way) It's... "All chemistry." If you burn two hydrogen molecules, you will get two water molecules. Those molecules did not exist before hydrogen was burned, and will not exist after they have been electrolysed apart or reacted into something else. Humans are no different in this sense - only significantly more complex.

Well I agree with that so far.

So when you say there is no you... and then say there is a you that knows it didn't exist before it's time? and knows there is a you that will not exist upon death?

Are you saying you think the word ''YOU'' is a synthetic product of brain chemistry ?

Thank you for this insightful discussion btw.

[Me_Be]

It's a fair enough observation, but I don't think validation is always secondary to belief in this manner. An observation may form a belief, and therefore precede it.

I think there is a third (trinity) factor involved here. Which is (observer - observing - observed) are all one unitary action.

I don't think an observation of a belief is what forms the belief. There is an awareness of belief, but the belief itself was not formed by the observer of it. Awareness and belief are one instantaneous knowing, and not two separate things where one precedes the other, or is prior to the other, except the belief within the idea of conceptual separation where the observer, observing observed, are known only to be 3 separate words in this conception.

[Asmodean]

And this story authored by you there, is also you're belief. For anything at all to be known, it must first be conceptualised and infused with meaning for it to make sense or not.

Or you can just assume the words to carry their most commonly agreed-upon meanings.

The story was not authored by me - I merely reproduced and reframed it. I do not claim any original research in the realm of physics.

Human language is the perfect tool for making sense of what we ultimately cannot know,

Perhaps it is. Now, what makes you think that there is something worth knowing that we may ultimately not? (By "worth knowing," I mean something that has or can have some interactivity with us)

but can envision this unknowing as if it is known as and through the senses and the mental capacity to be able impose our make-believed beliefs upon it as and through our conception of it.

It ceases to be make-belief when it can be verified as an adequate model of some aspect of reality.

We have the capacity to think about reality, to perceive it by attaching labels and stringing them all together to make a story

There was a time, even in your own life, when all you did was gather and process sensor data. Your conscious capacity to sort and label, not to mention make stories, came later. A person who does not know a language can still perceive and think about reality in terms of some other sensory input, and may output those thoughts by other means than linguistic communication.

And we have been doing this story telling from cradle to grave constantly relating to our thoughts until we think we've understood who we are and the world we live in. But our limited knowledge as finite beings is still just a (belief)

It's not a belief if it can be verified as an adequate model of some aspect of reality, even if it is not "cosmically correct." Einsteinian gravity is not a force. Newtonian gravity is. Both model the same aspect of reality with varying degrees of precision. Both are useful. You can throw a ball and predict exactly where it lands using Newton's model. You can drive a car and know exactly where to take the next right using Einstein's. When trying to accomplish something these models are insufficient for, you need a different one.

Beliefs are mentally constructed arbitrary ideas within the sense of human I Am-ness,

No. They need not be arbitrary, or have anything to do with someone's "themness," beyond "running on their hardware."

they're born of thoughts.

This, however, they are. They are born of thoughs and are themselves thoughts. They are a product of sensor input and dataset processing. (Just to explain precisely what I mean by that, a sensor input may be a sound you hear. Dataset processing may be you recalling that sound or relating it to a cat or an air raid siren)

And yet 'thoughts' can never touch reality as it actually is, because reality as it actually is is inconceivable to the human mind.

Are you certain that you are not talking about The Cosmic Truth(tm) rather than reality? Because even if your sensor data is faulty, you still use it to perceive reality. It's far from inconceivable, and your conception of it needs not be total or often even approach perfection.

That said, thoughts are processes. They can touch reality through triggering proper outputs. Even if we grant the premise that thoughts cannot touch reality, however, how do you arrive at the conclusion that it is because reality is inconceivable? Being inconceivable is not a bar from being touched in any way physically or metaphorically, so... Yeah.

And yet seems to be obviously knowable in this immediate Non-knowing, for how could there be a state of Not-knowing for the mind - 'thought' simply imposes upon this unknowing reality turning it into some kind of known. So what seems to be happening here is very basic and simple once realised, and that is reality is known only by association by what is ultimately always this mysterious unknowing knowing of itself.

So close, and yet so far, it seems. Anything that can be sensed, directly or indirectly, be it by you or some tool for the purpose, is knowable. I don't see the mystery here. Precisely how it works - say, how does my brain store faces I've seen in memory - that's the mysterious part as I see it. Of course, the fog of mystery recedes with increased understanding, For an explanation of the state of not knowing, I refer you back to the discussion we've had about you experiencing not being in my living room, or above for the burnt hydrogen example. It works in precisely the same manner.

[EDIT:]Tacked on the response to previous post:

I don't think an observation of a belief is what forms the belief.

Nono, not what I meant. An observation of a log floating down a river may make you believe that "things float." Throw a rock in, however, and you will have falisified that belief. Thus, your model of reality, in which things float, should be modified to accomodate the new data.