James, next we have the question of why someone (let's call
him Doubting Thomas, for example, although his name is many
and his number is legion) wishes to dispute the ideas
implicit in your anecdote and call for "evidence" --yet, if
you were to give him more anecdotal evidence, would only
decide that your knowledge was based on faith because no
"controlled studies" had been done.
This mental factors which go to make up a Doubting Thomas
may be cultural -- the product of environoment. Or (and i
wish to present the following idea cautiously), his
disbelief in dream contacts with the dead -- and conversely
your firm knowledge that such contacts happen (and often)
may be genetic as well as cultural.
I refer you to this article by Antrhony Shafton:
African-Americans and Predictive Dreams by Anthony Shafton
http://www.asdreams.org/magazine/articles/african_prediction_dreams.htm
Shafton has also written a full-length book on this subject
-- Dream Singers, the African American Way With Dreams. It
is a very good book and i recommend it highly. It is carried
by amazon and other dealers.
Shafton does not judge culture versus genetics (if anything,
he seems to come down on the side of culture), but i think
that we can and should look at gifts of the spirit as having
genetic, in addition to cultural, components. We all know of
families where everyone is gifted to dream true -- and other
families where no one does. Even in the same church
(culture), we will see these distinctions (family gifts).
Now, i speak here from my personal experience of dealing
with thousands of magic-users, diviners, shamans, and
spiritual workers per year through my shop and my church --
the per capita ratio of people who dream true in general and
dream predictively of the deaths of family members in
specific is far higher in the African American community
than in the general U.S. population. I have also noted two
strong racial-national subdivisions of the European American
community who similarly dream true almost as often as
African Americnsm -- namely, the Irish and Scottish.
Furthermore, Native Americans (and it is a fact that many
African Americans, and Scots/Irish Americans also have some
Native American ancestry) also are known for dreaming true.
I am not saying that if one is Jewish or German or Japanese
one will not or can not dream true -- i, for instance,
have this gift to a high degree and i am Jewish-Sicilian --
but in terms of percentages of the various populations, it
is obvious to anyone who meets a wide cross section of the
magic-using, spiritual, religious, and mystical population
that African Americans are on the whole, as a group, more
gifted in this realm.
Is it cultural training and expectation or genetics?
I cannot say -- but i can say that Shafton actually
interviewed people and demonstrated a distinct difference in
the content and the predicitive quality of dreams -- and
hence the belief that dreams of the dead can be and are
predictive -- in the African American versus the Anglo
American communities.
Cordially,
cat yronwode
http://www.southern-spirits.com
SOUTHERN-SPIRITS.COM:
annotated 19th and 20th century hoodoo archives
http://www.missionary-independent.org
MISSIONARY INDEPENDENT SPIRITUAL CHURCH:
interdenominational, multicultural, world's smallest church
I think it's a fine little story. It's essentially irrelevant to what we
were talking about in this thread, though. Premonitions of death are not
evidence of the survival of one's sense of self after death.
Cat is right in saying that unverifiable anecdotes are worthless as evidence
no matter how many unverifiable anecdotes get told.
> This mental factors which go to make up a Doubting Thomas may be
> cultural -- the product of environoment.
Pretty much. One has to observe for a while before it occurs to one that
not everything you're being told is factual and accurate. No one with a
properly working brain and any experience in life is as trusting as an
new-born babe.
I have had 5 dreams that indicated (correctly) to me some one had passed
(before i knew about it in real life), if it had not been for the many
dreams of pets that passed i might not have paid any attention at all.
The last time was peculiar and just a few weeks ago.
About 30 years ago i had a very intense, and for me first time, 2 year
relationship that ended, i am convinced, because the other person, who
was a very radical, leftist, political activist (sub genre Berkelium
Radicleitus:) type was embarrassed by my new age hippieness, but that
was about 30 years ago, we saw each other occasionally, socially,
remained friends but naturally drifted apart due to our extremely
opposite life styles.
It had been at least 10 years since i saw or spoke to the person, and
then a couple of weeks ago he came to me in a dream, sits me down at a
table in a dark room and wants "to talk" in the dream i am compassionate
& listen to his tale of woe i cant clearly remember, and end the
conversation and the dream with a question, "why are you telling me this?"
Upon waking i try to dismiss the dream but it had a quality i have come
to associate with dreams i have had of people i am very close to passing.
So i call up the last place i knew the person worked, leave a message
and not 10 minutes latter i get a call.
It seems the person had just lost a long time companion, the end of a
20+ year relationship came up suddenly and startlingly with the demise
through an auto accident of my friends loved one, whom i had never met.
I was having the dream of my friends sorrow right around the time the
person he loved was expiring in hospital.
My atheist friend was naturally distraught and overwhelmed, and by his
own admission was thinking about things i had talked about regarding my
belief in the transmigration of the soul.
After i told him i was calling to ascertain his state of health and well
being he told me what had happened to his lover.
Turns out that when we were both much younger he was not so much
embarrassed by me (though i still think that's a part of it) but that he
was superstitiously frightened of the subjects i was interested in, but
being older and wiser, now, he was appreciative and admittedly impressed
with my "reaching out" to him, as he put it, there was no causal reason
i should have had that dream, but there it was, i knew something had
happened to him, i was afraid he was gone, but it turned out to be his
long-time companion and in his grief he admitted he was thinking of me
and what i had told him about my beliefs in reincarnation.
The very first dream of death i had was when i was 4 - 5 years old,
which, upon asking me mum about it caused her to literally collapse in
shock.
My genetic father died of a terminal illness when i was 4 - 5 years old,
i dreamt of him as a statue of carved wood that had been burnt and
turned to charcoal though still looking like him, and the statue was
surrounded by growing green plans and a brilliant blue sky in the
background, the image is still clear in my mind, when i asked me mum
about it and told her what i saw she literally collapsed and had to be
carried to her bed.
My father illness and death had been kept from me, i had the dream at
almost the same time he was being cremated.
FYI sorry Cat for removing the X posting to alt.magick but i wanted to
share the above with you and anyone who might be reading lucky w but
kinda felt slightly nauseous about posting it to alt.magick.
IMO dreams are the first, if not the primary oracle, i read once that
some one once speculated that written language could have been dream
inspired, some one might have dreamt of making marks for sounds or
objects in a dream and tried it in waking life.
--
JL
I typed: "her mom had passed away the night before I left for D.C."
This was not a predictive dream.
> Cat is right in saying that unverifiable anecdotes are worthless as evidence
> no matter how many unverifiable anecdotes get told.
You are contradicting yourself here Tom, you've already said that
unverifiable anecdotes are evidence as well, it is you who now
chooses to claim the authority to assign worth.
>
>> This mental factors which go to make up a Doubting Thomas may be
>> cultural -- the product of environoment.
>
> Pretty much. One has to observe for a while before it occurs to one that
> not everything you're being told is factual and accurate. No one with a
> properly working brain and any experience in life is as trusting as an
> new-born babe.
>
>
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
Here too we have a culture clash. A predicitive dream of
death, as in your example and in Joseph's example, regarding
his friend's lover -- is not necessarily a dream before the
death-to-be of the person who is about to die. It can, from
the dreamer's point of view, as in James' case, be
predictive of the NEWS that one will receive as soon as one
inquires. Also, as Joseph pointed out, the dream may not
show a death, either; it may take the form of a conversation
so compelling that one "must" contact the person somehow --
and at that point one learns of the death.
There is a reason this gift is called "dreaming true" -- the
truth of the dream, the fact that it is not fiction or
imagination or unconnected to "real" reality, is a central
distinction between a true dream and a regualr dream.
>> Cat is right in saying that unverifiable anecdotes are worthless as
>> evidence no matter how many unverifiable anecdotes get told.
I did not say that. I said that a Doubting Thomas would not
accept anectdotal evidence as proof.
>>> This mental factors which go to make up a Doubting Thomas may be
>>> cultural -- the product of environoment.
>>
>> Pretty much. One has to observe for a while before it occurs to one
>> that not everything you're being told is factual and accurate. No one
>> with a properly working brain and any experience in life is as
>> trusting as an new-born babe.
Being a hard-bitten skeptic is not a sure sign of having "a
properly working brain."
cat yronwode
http://www.herb-magic.com
ALPHABETICAL INDEX AT HERB-MAGIC.COM:
traditional magical usages of hundreds of herbs, minerals,
and zoological curios
Premonitions only have to predict that you'll get the news later.
>> Cat is right in saying that unverifiable anecdotes are worthless as
>> evidence no matter how many unverifiable anecdotes get told.
>
> You are contradicting yourself here Tom, you've already said that
> unverifiable anecdotes are evidence as well, it is you who now
> chooses to claim the authority to assign worth.
They are evidence. They are worthless evidence. And everybody gets to
decide worth. It requires no authority at all.
No, here we have your personal vendetta, which you like to disguise as all
sorts of different things in order to pretend you actually have a sound
reason to keep throwing your pathetic little hissy-fit.
These types of dreams for me are not limited to this predictive type of
thing, but actual communication with other beings. I was only able to
verify this one time though, but it was with my doctor who would seem
to me to be highly motivated to tell the truth about such matters.
>
>>> Cat is right in saying that unverifiable anecdotes are worthless as
>>> evidence no matter how many unverifiable anecdotes get told.
>
Enter the dragon Tom.
> I did not say that. I said that a Doubting Thomas would not accept
> anectdotal evidence as proof.
>
>>>> This mental factors which go to make up a Doubting Thomas may be
>>>> cultural -- the product of environoment.
>>>
>>> Pretty much. One has to observe for a while before it occurs to one
>>> that not everything you're being told is factual and accurate. No
>>> one with a properly working brain and any experience in life is as
>>> trusting as an new-born babe.
>
> Being a hard-bitten skeptic is not a sure sign of having "a properly
> working brain."
>
> cat yronwode
> http://www.herb-magic.com
> ALPHABETICAL INDEX AT HERB-MAGIC.COM:
> traditional magical usages of hundreds of herbs, minerals, and
> zoological curios
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
From my point of view, this dream was not a premonition, but rather
a communication. My question is: Was the being representing my aunt
actually her transmitted identity still coherent in thought?
>>> Cat is right in saying that unverifiable anecdotes are worthless as
>>> evidence no matter how many unverifiable anecdotes get told.
>> You are contradicting yourself here Tom, you've already said that
>> unverifiable anecdotes are evidence as well, it is you who now
>> chooses to claim the authority to assign worth.
>
> They are evidence. They are worthless evidence. And everybody gets to
> decide worth. It requires no authority at all.
Just so we know that this is still only your claim as well Tom.
>
>
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
> "catherineyronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
> news:4647c93e$0$14124$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
>>Here too we have a culture clash.
>
>
> No, here we have your personal vendetta,
Interesting, as displaying your thought process's.
--
JL
Im a tad bit surprised he would write that, much less infer it, however
obliquely, as having any meaning in relation to anything else he has
written in this thread.
"worthless" is, i suppose, an equivalent of "meaningless".
0 = 2 and all that.
--
JL
Yes, it shows they're often quite good at cutting through bullshit.
Except you really didn't know what was being "communicated" until you were
told overtly. All you had was a non-specific feeling. Those come and go
and most are quickly forgotten. However, when some random foreboding
actually *does* precede a significant event, we retroactively apply
significance to that particular foreboding feeling. "Post hoc ergo propter
hoc" is a magical formula of tremendous power.
> My question is: Was the being representing my aunt
> actually her transmitted identity still coherent in thought?
It may well be that the only "being" representing your aunt was you.
>> They are evidence. They are worthless evidence. And everybody gets to
>> decide worth. It requires no authority at all.
>
> Just so we know that this is still only your claim as well Tom.
Anything anybody says about anything is only their claim.
Again, your surpise is not surprising to me. You show a great deal of
trouble understanding just about anything I write.
> "worthless" is, i suppose, an equivalent of "meaningless".
Wrong again. Meaning and worth are not equivalent. Worth is a subset of
meaning.
And here sir is the sharpest razor of them all: Individuality is
illusion. When you cease your Earthbound conceptualizations, you
do know this is a fact.
>>> They are evidence. They are worthless evidence. And everybody gets to
>>> decide worth. It requires no authority at all.
>> Just so we know that this is still only your claim as well Tom.
>
> Anything anybody says about anything is only their claim.
>
>
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
Never occurs to you why you have so much faecal mater to deal with?
Of course its "other peoples" faeces, you just get stuck with the
shovelling of it.
Seems appropriate really, if you live in a sewer you gots to expect to
have to deal with a lot of shit.
--
JL
When I cease my Earthbound conceptualizations, there is no me to know any
fact.
With people like you around, that's no mystery.
> Of course its "other peoples" faeces, you just get stuck with the
> shovelling of it.
I just recognize it for what it is. You do the shovelling.
> Seems appropriate really, if you live in a sewer you gots to expect to
> have to deal with a lot of shit.
Or if you associate with a lot of untrained puppies.
That's just a theory, you don't know that for a fact. Its probly so but
you cant prove it one way or another.
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts"
--
JL
It's neither a theory nor a fact. It's the definition of identity I
previously stated.
> Its probly so but you cant prove it one way or another.
Now Joe, what have I told you time and again about proof? That it's
whatever convinces you. Remember?
I seek evidence, Joe, not "proof". There is considerable evidence for the
statement I just made. I have recommmended the books of Antonio Damasio
many times in this newsgroup. Someday you should try reading them. It's
risky, of course. There's the danger that you might learn something.
"Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain"
"The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of
Consciousness"
"Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain"
> "Joseph Littleshoes" <jpst...@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:2a1d$4648f7e9$4396f4b0$17...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>
>>Tom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When I cease my Earthbound conceptualizations, there is no me to know any
>>>fact.
>>
>>That's just a theory, you don't know that for a fact.
>
>
> It's neither a theory nor a fact. It's the definition of identity I
> previously stated.
>
>
>>Its probly so but you cant prove it one way or another.
>
>
> Now Joe, what have I told you time and again about proof? That it's
> whatever convinces you. Remember?
Then why do you bother to contradict anyone on anything? is it because
really that only what convinces YOU of something is in any way valid.
>
Spinoza was on to something, but imagine what he would have thought
if he knew what the shear *S*I*Z*E* of just the observable universe is.
The real deal is of course *assuming* that Prime Infinity does not
communicate with mere men. Heh. (EVIDENCE DAMN IT!!!)
>
>
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
I do it when the evidence I see suggests that an alternative hypothesis is
equally or more likely. I like examining competing hypotheses and seeing
which ones seem most promising. I'm not out to prove anything, though.
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic
concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some
will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of
Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity
of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I
believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and
understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human
problem - the most important of all human problems." -- Albert Einstein
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Accommodating pantheistic
> patterns of thought to his religious commitments was certainly a central entanglement
> for Coleridge, but his repeated defenses of Spinozism, and his insistence that pantheism
> was not (as Jacobi argued) irreconcilable with Christianity, do not sit well with McFarland’s
> conceptual framework. Indeed, Coleridge directly contradicts such assertions:
> It is most necessary to distinguish Spinosism from Spinosa—i.e. the imaginary consequences
> of the immanence in God as the one only necessary Being whose essence
> involves existence, with the deductions from Spinosa’s own mechanic realistic view of
> the World. Even in the latter I cannot accord with Jacobi’s assertion, that Spinosism
> as taught by Spinosa, is atheism/ for tho’ he will not consent to call things essentially
> disperate by the same name, and therefore denies human intelligence to the Deity, yet
> he adores his Wisdom… (CM V 207–8)
> Coleridge is consistent in dismissing the “icy nihilist” view of Spinoza in favor of seeing
> him as a rational Divine whose only faults arise from being limited to natural religion,
> and standing in need of revelation.-- Richard Berkeley, European Romantic Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, October 2006, pp. 457–475
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
M.I.T. and the institute for advanced studies not returning your calls?
--
JL
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly
harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and
actions of human beings." -- Albert Einstein
The Addamites take this a bit further and prefer to worship Lucifer as
"Prince of the Earth" concerned, for whatever reason, with the doings of
mankind, unlike the remote and uninterested impersonal creator god of
both the universe and the Devil.
Freud considered "God" concepts to be a psychological impairment. I
think a "neurosis" iirc.
Einstein, C.S. Lewis, Freud M.M.O'Hair all had their "ideas" and
"opinions" on a concept that can not be demonstrated one way or the other.
As i have written here, i can understand these arguments based on a lack
of demonstrable evidence. But that does not keep me and most people
from some sort of belief in some sort of Diety(s).
If non believers want to consider us "stupid" for having the belief, and
"half baked" or "silly" or worse for expressing our "opinions" on it
that is their problem, and speaks to me of a problem grater than that of
the belief being criticized. There are some atheists that would like
to pass laws against any form of religion, there are religionists that
would (and have) passed laws against atheism.
What i don't understand is why "some people" in a discussion forum
insist on condemning an "opinion" and the holders of the opinion.
Some people don't like certain foods, or styles of art, but that does
not make them "stupid" it only revels personal taste.
People change, and grow, hopefully they are not stuck in a mechanistic
rut of empiricism but complement their logic and reason with imagination
and abstract speculation.
I am beginning to have doubts about the infinity of the universe,
eternity is easily dismissed as a condition or dimension of matter, and
matter seems to be a limited phenomena in an infinite space, but as i
wrote, i cant shake my doubts that the universe MUST be contained with
in something.
Perhaps 4th dimensionally or maybe 11th dimensionally, and even perhaps
that any real infinity is just that containment.
Given "Toms" history of responding to my thoughts, as well as those of
other contributors here, i can easily imagine what his response to the
above would be. And i would merely argue that thinking about what
another person considers "stupid" don't make it so, and that calling a
person "stupid" merely for having thoughts that are not agreed with is
the more demonstrable mental and emotional inadequacy.
--
JL
If they couldn't convince God to listen, maybe they could convince the
Devil. As it turns out, that didn't work either. The only ones concerned
about humans are humans.
> Freud considered "God" concepts to be a psychological impairment. I think
> a "neurosis" iirc.
"Man found that he was faced with the acceptance of 'spiritual' forces, that
is to say such forces as cannot be comprehended by the senses, particularly
not by sight, and yet having undoubted, even extremely strong, effects. If
we may trust to language, it was the movement of the air that provided the
image of spirituality, since the spirit borrows its name from the breath of
wind (animus, spiritus, Hebrew: ruach = smoke). The idea of the soul was
thus born as the spiritual principle in the individual...Now the realm of
spirits had opened for man, and he was ready to endow everything in nature
with the soul he had discovered in himself." -- Sigmund Freud, "Moses and
Monotheism".
> As i have written here, i can understand these arguments based on a lack
> of demonstrable evidence. But that does not keep me and most people from
> some sort of belief in some sort of Diety(s).
Lack of evidence has never been an impediment to wishful thinking.
> If non believers want to consider us "stupid" for having the belief, and
> "half baked" or "silly" or worse for expressing our "opinions" on it that
> is their problem, and speaks to me of a problem grater than that of the
> belief being criticized.
Well, it's one thing to believe something without any evidence one way or
the other. It's another to believe something in spite of contradictory
evidence. It is the latter that I tend to call half-baked and silly.
> There are some atheists that would like to pass laws against any form of
> religion, there are religionists that would (and have) passed laws against
> atheism.
This is just another way of saying that there are foolish people all over
the place.
> What i don't understand is why "some people" in a discussion forum insist
> on condemning an "opinion" and the holders of the opinion.
Then your reasons for your own condemnation of my opinions are beyond your
comprehension.
> People change, and grow, hopefully they are not stuck in a mechanistic rut
> of empiricism but complement their logic and reason with imagination and
> abstract speculation.
It's one thing not to be stuck in a rut. It's quite another to disregard
the road completely and wander off a cliff.
> I am beginning to have doubts about the infinity of the universe, eternity
> is easily dismissed as a condition or dimension of matter, and matter
> seems to be a limited phenomena in an infinite space, but as i wrote, i
> cant shake my doubts that the universe MUST be contained with in
> something.
The universe in your head is contained by your head.
> Given "Toms" history of responding to my thoughts, as well as those of
> other contributors here, i can easily imagine what his response to the
> above would be.
No surprise there. You imagine all sorts of things.
> And i would merely argue that thinking about what another person considers
> "stupid" don't make it so,
And it don't make it not so either.
> and that calling a person "stupid" merely for having thoughts that are not
> agreed with is the more demonstrable mental and emotional inadequacy.
However, a stupid person may well decide that he's being called stupid for
no other reason than that, mostly because he couldn't understand the actual
reasons he was given.
I'm not out to prove anything to them either.
Not your "opinions" i object to, its your style of presenting them.
>
> The universe in your head is contained by your head.
You have mentioned this before, and of course it does explain the the
size of our own head, swelling beyond the confines of n dimensional space.
>
>
>>Given "Toms" history of responding to my thoughts, as well as those of
>>other contributors here, i can easily imagine what his response to the
>>above would be.
>
>
> No surprise there. You imagine all sorts of things.
Yep at one time i imagined you were worth tying to communicate with, you
have made it very clear you don't share the same opinion vis a vis moi.
Unless you are going to claim some sort of "humour" from this exchange,
amusing you and keeping you interested in it, and if that's the case you
already know what i think of your sordid attempts at "humour".
>
>
>>And i would merely argue that thinking about what another person considers
>>"stupid" don't make it so,
>
>
> And it don't make it not so either.
stupid |ˈst(y)oōpid| adjective ( -pider, -pidest)
Lacking intelligence or common sense : I was stupid enough to think she
was perfect.
Dazed and unable to think clearly : apprehension was numbing her brain
and making her stupid.
Informal used to express exasperation or boredom : she told him to stop
messing with his stupid painting. noun informal a stupid person (often
used as a term of address) : you're not a coward, stupid!
DERIVATIVES stupidity |st(y)oōˈpiditē| noun stupidly adverb ORIGIN mid
16th cent.: from French stupide or Latin stupidus, from stupere ‘be
amazed or stunned.
I readily admit i was "stunned" by your use of personal, null content
verbiage, for somebody so ready to assert the superiority of their own
mental processes it seems a "stunning" thing to do. And seems more
"yokelish" to me than anything else.
yokel |ˈyōkəl| noun informal often derogatory an uneducated and
unsophisticated person from the countryside. ORIGIN early 19th cent.:
perhaps figuratively from dialect yokel [green woodpecker.]
>
>
>>and that calling a person "stupid" merely for having thoughts that are not
>>agreed with is the more demonstrable mental and emotional inadequacy.
>
>
> However, a stupid person may well decide that he's being called stupid for
> no other reason than that, mostly because he couldn't understand the actual
> reasons he was given.
If you would give some it would help in deciphering your rather cryptic
at best, null content at worst verbiage.
Unfortunately you reach a place in a conversation where you don't agree
and then rather than explaining why you disagree, you resort to the
above referenced "null content verbiage." In many cases your
disagreement can ONLY be one of opinion as there is no demonstrable
proof or evidence one way or the other.
As flattered as i am by your inconsistent attention to the stupid fool
you seem to think i am, i must decline any further honours as a waste of
limited time.
I had the measure of your foot a year ago, your recent behaviour here
only confirms what i had begun to have doubts about.
So long and thanks for the evidence of the accuracy of my previous
assessment of you.
--
JL
You have your style, he has his, I have mine.... why don't
you just let everyone have their own style instead of
complaining that others do not follow yours?
>
>
> > The universe in your head is contained by your head.
>
> You have mentioned this before, and of course it does explain the the
> size of our own head, swelling beyond the confines of n dimensional space.
>
Heh, give me shit for "jist" but you are stuttering above,
adding an unnecessary letter and apparently made a Freudian
slip... as your own head is swelling beyond the confines of
dimensional space.
>
>
> >>Given "Toms" history of responding to my thoughts, as well as those of
> >>other contributors here, i can easily imagine what his response to the
> >>above would be.
>
> > No surprise there. You imagine all sorts of things.
>
> Yep at one time i imagined you were worth tying to communicate with, you
> have made it very clear you don't share the same opinion vis a vis moi.
>
My goodness and it took you this long to figure this out.
I imagine you have the ability to pull your head out of your
ass but I doubt you will.
> Unless you are going to claim some sort of "humour" from this exchange,
> amusing you and keeping you interested in it, and if that's the case you
> already know what i think of your sordid attempts at "humour".
>
Heh, so states the self-righteous one.
>
>
> >>And i would merely argue that thinking about what another person considers
> >>"stupid" don't make it so,
>
> > And it don't make it not so either.
>
> stupid |ˈst(y)oōpid| adjective ( -pider, -pidest)
>
> Lacking intelligence or common sense : I was stupid enough to think she
> was perfect.
>
> Dazed and unable to think clearly : apprehension was numbing her brain
> and making her stupid.
>
> Informal used to express exasperation or boredom : she told him to stop
> messing with his stupid painting. noun informal a stupid person (often
> used as a term of address) : you're not a coward, stupid!
>
> DERIVATIVES stupidity |st(y)oōˈpiditē| noun stupidly adverb ORIGIN mid
> 16th cent.: from French stupide or Latin stupidus, from stupere ‘be
> amazed or stunned.
>
> I readily admit i was "stunned" by your use of personal, null content
> verbiage, for somebody so ready to assert the superiority of their own
> mental processes it seems a "stunning" thing to do. And seems more
> "yokelish" to me than anything else.
>
> yokel |ˈyōkəl| noun informal often derogatory an uneducated and
> unsophisticated person from the countryside. ORIGIN early 19th cent.:
> perhaps figuratively from dialect yokel [green woodpecker.]
>
Heh, what's Toms behavior have to do with a green woodpecker?
>
>
> >>and that calling a person "stupid" merely for having thoughts that are not
> >>agreed with is the more demonstrable mental and emotional inadequacy.
>
> > However, a stupid person may well decide that he's being called stupid for
> > no other reason than that, mostly because he couldn't understand the actual
> > reasons he was given.
>
> If you would give some it would help in deciphering your rather cryptic
> at best, null content at worst verbiage.
>
> Unfortunately you reach a place in a conversation where you don't agree
> and then rather than explaining why you disagree, you resort to the
> above referenced "null content verbiage." In many cases your
> disagreement can ONLY be one of opinion as there is no demonstrable
> proof or evidence one way or the other.
>
joseph, you win the prize for the overuse of the term
"null content verbiage."
> As flattered as i am by your inconsistent attention to the stupid fool
> you seem to think i am, i must decline any further honours as a waste of
> limited time.
>
So you are going to finally fuck off?
> I had the measure of your foot a year ago, your recent behaviour here
> only confirms what i had begun to have doubts about.
>
> So long and thanks for the evidence of the accuracy of my previous
> assessment of you.
> --
> JL
Surprise surprise, joey, you have confirmed for me my
previous assessment of you being a total shit for brains
fuckwad.
-Douglas
My style is also part of my opinion.
>> The universe in your head is contained by your head.
>
> You have mentioned this before, and of course it does explain the the size
> of our own head, swelling beyond the confines of n dimensional space.
Everybody has a head big enough to contain their view of the universe. Not
everybody confuses it with the real universe, though.
>>>Given "Toms" history of responding to my thoughts, as well as those of
>>>other contributors here, i can easily imagine what his response to the
>>>above would be.
>>
>>
>> No surprise there. You imagine all sorts of things.
>
> Yep at one time i imagined you were worth tying to communicate with, you
> have made it very clear you don't share the same opinion vis a vis moi.
And now you imagine something different. The one constant here is that you
keep believing whatever you imagine.
> Unless you are going to claim some sort of "humour" from this exchange,
> amusing you and keeping you interested in it, and if that's the case you
> already know what i think of your sordid attempts at "humour".
The butt of a joke seldom appreciates its humor.
>> However, a stupid person may well decide that he's being called stupid
>> for no other reason than that, mostly because he couldn't understand the
>> actual reasons he was given.
>
> If you would give some it would help in deciphering your rather cryptic at
> best, null content at worst verbiage.
I have. You've failed to understand them, though. Hence my comment above.
> Unfortunately you reach a place in a conversation where you don't agree
> and then rather than explaining why you disagree, you resort to the above
> referenced "null content verbiage."
You just keep telling yourself that , Joe. I'm sure you can convince
yourself of it by sheer repetition.
> As flattered as i am by your inconsistent attention to the stupid fool you
> seem to think i am, i must decline any further honours as a waste of
> limited time.
Time is short, Joe. By all means, don't waste it. Go find something
productive to do instead.
> "Joseph Littleshoes" <jpst...@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:c3638$464a2424$4396fc85$25...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>
>
>>>>Given "Toms" history of responding to my thoughts, as well as those of
>>>>other contributors here, i can easily imagine what his response to the
>>>>above would be.
>>>
>>>
>>>No surprise there. You imagine all sorts of things.
>>
>>Yep at one time i imagined you were worth tying to communicate with, you
>>have made it very clear you don't share the same opinion vis a vis moi.
>
>
> And now you imagine something different. The one constant here is that you
> keep believing whatever you imagine.
>
I see, so calling me silly, half baked and worse is somehow indicative
of "communication" to you?
And now im just "imagining" things?
I still do not understand the need you exhibit to question the
intelligence of those who do not agree with your opinions. Or at least
i do not understand anybody's need for such a 'knee jerk' reaction, i
still think you feel threatened by a persons belief in those things you
dismiss for yourself.
As i have written here, i understand and can even, intellectually, agree
with an intellectual questioning of the existence of Deity, i just do
not happen to FEEL the same way bout this as you apparently do. Nor do
i see any need to call an atheist "stupid" or half baked or worse,
merely because of the way they conceptualize the universe.
Your demonstrations of intolerance to viewpoints conflicting with your
own, however, is indicative to me of, if not "stupidity" than at least
an ugly and uninformed intolerance.
I have had enough of attempting to put my views to you about what i
consider your intolerance, you don't agree, don't even seem to
understand what i am writing so there is little to be gained from trying
to explain it to you.
If you insist on continuing the snide slanders and insults i will
respond in kind as i deem appropriate, and since you have no particular
grievance with demeaning and insulting language, since you in effect
encourage it by your use of it, you must expect the favour to be
reciprocated "vis a vis" (surprised you let that go by without comment
by your all knowing delusion of) yourself.
--
JL
Heh, joey's giving in to the dark side.
-Douglas
It's part of the communication, yes.
> And now im just "imagining" things?
Yep. That's part of what I'm communicating, too.
> I still do not understand the need you exhibit to question the
> intelligence of those who do not agree with your opinions.
It's pretty clear that you do indeed think you understand it, but you think
it makes you seem more authentic to say you don't. However, the truth of
the matter is that you really don't. You have simply imagined that you do.
Firstly, I experience no "need" to question anyone's intelligence. I do so
when I choose to, not because I feel compelled to. Secondly, I do not
belittle the intelligence of anybody who disagrees with me. I question the
intelligence of people who say something stupid, whether they agree with
something I've written or not. Thirdly, a person may be pretty smart or
clever in one area and abysmally stupid in others. Intelligence is not
global. It comes in a variety of simultaneous levels of competence and
incompetence.
Most of your resentment of me comes from your investment of yourself in the
things you say and think. Hence, when I say your theories are silly and
half-baked, you immediately imagine that I consider *you* to be entirely
worthless, which, for some reason, upsets you. You show very little capacity
to detach your sense of self from the things you do and say. I consider
this to be a major flaw in someone who wishes to study and practice magick,
where personal transformation is the primary goal.
> Or at least i do not understand anybody's need for such a 'knee jerk'
> reaction, i still think you feel threatened by a persons belief in those
> things you dismiss for yourself.
You don't understand it because you simply imagined it and things we imagine
don't have to make sense.
> As i have written here, i understand and can even, intellectually, agree
> with an intellectual questioning of the existence of Deity, i just do not
> happen to FEEL the same way bout this as you apparently do.
That's because I'm serious about the study and practice of magick and you're
just doing it for a feel-good. That's why I choose to ask troubling
questions and you choose not to.
> Nor do i see any need to call an atheist "stupid" or half baked or worse,
> merely because of the way they conceptualize the universe.
I do so when I see an atheist write something I consider stupid. This is
not because they are an atheist, but because they wrote something stupid.
> Your demonstrations of intolerance to viewpoints conflicting with your
> own, however, is indicative to me of, if not "stupidity" than at least an
> ugly and uninformed intolerance.
I am not intolerant. I am challenging. If you feel like you have failed
that challenge, well, then maybe you have. What will either you or I do
about that?
> I have had enough of attempting to put my views to you about what i
> consider your intolerance,
It doesn't seem so, since that's exactly what you're doing right now.
> If you insist on continuing the snide slanders and insults i will respond
> in kind as i deem appropriate, and since you have no particular grievance
> with demeaning and insulting language, since you in effect encourage it by
> your use of it, you must expect the favour to be reciprocated "vis a vis"
> (surprised you let that go by without comment by your all knowing delusion
> of) yourself.
Well, that's a wonderful excuse to be a hypocrite. If you think something
is wrong and you can imagine that somebody else is doing it anyway, then it
must be OK for you to do as well. Grow a spine, Joseph. Do what's right,
not simply whatever someone else is doing.
And you criticize my grammar!
You have simply imagined that you do.
> Firstly, I experience no "need" to question anyone's intelligence. I do so
> when I choose to, not because I feel compelled to.
I do not believe that assertion, i think in your case its pathological.
Secondly, I do not
> belittle the intelligence of anybody who disagrees with me. I question the
> intelligence of people who say something stupid,
"something stupid" In your opinion.
whether they agree with
> something I've written or not. Thirdly, a person may be pretty smart or
> clever in one area and abysmally stupid in others. Intelligence is not
> global. It comes in a variety of simultaneous levels of competence and
> incompetence.
>
> Most of your resentment of me comes from your investment of yourself in the
> things you say and think. Hence, when I say your theories are silly and
> half-baked, you immediately imagine that I consider *you* to be entirely
> worthless, which, for some reason, upsets you. You show very little capacity
> to detach your sense of self from the things you do and say. I consider
> this to be a major flaw in someone who wishes to study and practice magick,
> where personal transformation is the primary goal.
"Personal transformation" is not the "primary goal" of ever student of
"magick"
>
>
>>Or at least i do not understand anybody's need for such a 'knee jerk'
>>reaction, i still think you feel threatened by a persons belief in those
>>things you dismiss for yourself.
>
>
> You don't understand it because you simply imagined it
Another example of why it is pointless to continue any correspondence
with you.
Yes, I do. Do you detect a grammatical problem with either of the two
sentences above? If so, what?
>> Firstly, I experience no "need" to question anyone's intelligence. I do
>> so when I choose to, not because I feel compelled to.
>
> I do not believe that assertion, i think in your case its pathological.
Well, you choose to imagine that it might be. You imagine lots of things
and then get them confused with facts.
>> Secondly, I do not
>> belittle the intelligence of anybody who disagrees with me. I question
>> the intelligence of people who say something stupid,
>
> "something stupid" In your opinion.
My opinions are frequently accurate.
>> Most of your resentment of me comes from your investment of yourself in
>> the things you say and think. Hence, when I say your theories are silly
>> and half-baked, you immediately imagine that I consider *you* to be
>> entirely worthless, which, for some reason, upsets you. You show very
>> little capacity to detach your sense of self from the things you do and
>> say. I consider this to be a major flaw in someone who wishes to study
>> and practice magick, where personal transformation is the primary goal.
>
> "Personal transformation" is not the "primary goal" of ever student of
> "magick"
No, it's ony the primary goal of the serious ones. The silly and half-baked
come up with all sorts of different and largely trivial goals for it.
Mostly those goals have to do with infantile wish-fulfillment. A while back
I posted a short essay by Alfred Bester called "A Diatribe Against Science
Fiction" in which his main complaint about the content of science fiction
was that is was almost solely a collection of infantile fantasies. I
thought it was also true of a lot of what gets written about magick.
>> You don't understand it because you simply imagined it
>
> Another example of why it is pointless to continue any correspondence with
> you.
And yet again, here you are. How many times will you correspond with me in
order to thell me you're not going to correspond with me?
> "Joseph Littleshoes" wrote:
>
> And yet again, here you are. How many times will you correspond with me in
> order to thell me you're not going to correspond with me?
>
A valid point, when you stop your slander of me i will cease commenting
on it.
However rather than filter you completely i shall wait for the
predictable outburst of null content verbiage you will inevitably &
irrationally direct at some other person and then i will resurrect the
whole thing (*chuckle* "virtual necromancy") all over again. Just to
make the point you refuse to acknowledge, and not in the vain hope you
will, but rather just cause i have little else to do than scan the net
for something interesting to chat about.
Of course you either choose not to comment on my implied praise of you
or perhaps it did go just over your head, if not up your sleeve, or
perhaps, you thinking it was some trickery on my part, up my sleeve,
laughing all the way, im sure.
Either way it don't seem to matter to you at all the admitted reason why
i even care in the first place. That being the remarkably interesting
things you do write when you are not engaging in null content verbiage.
That apparently got lost in your appreciation of my objection to your style.
And which is simply that i do not like to find in the midst of an
interesting discussion of abstract philosophical ideas a sudden
intrusion of null content verbiage, one of the GD diatribes ended the
other day after the usual slanders with a comparison of female sexual
anatomy and "smelly cheese" *sigh* the blind man at the fish market joke
was bad enough....as i wrote, as a style yours is rather mild, but its a
matter of principle with me.
And in answer to your previous question:
"Would you prefer "insufficiently intellectually rigorous" and
"expressing an idea not to be taken seriously"?
Yes, yes i would prefer it. But as i also have written i believe it's
opposite form (your "null content verbiage") is demonstrative of a
pathology on your part and i would not expect you could change your
tendencies (the tendencies of the mind lying deeper far than any
thought) by an act of will.
Though you might try, as i wrote, your particular "null content
verbiage" (hereinafter to be referred to acronymically as NCV) was
relatively mild, but still, nevertheless, falling with in the parameters
of unacceptable NCV.
To recapitulate, just cause i never know when to stop, to add a sort of
coda to what will hopefully be my last excuse to do so, the NCV's often
make no sense at all, carry no information and can be, and often are,
graphically ugly and not a type of imagery one seeks out, and when found
in an other wise intelligent piece of writing are bound to make this
writer a little nervous around those very writings, and hesitant to read
them for any other reason than to denounce the personal flaw they
demonstrate, in the probly futile hope that the author of them will take
note and "clean up their act" so that their writings may be read
without trepidation and injury.
Have a nice day.
--
JL
Well, there's a locus of control problem here. You don't want to do
something that you're doing by choice, but you think it's up to me to stop
you. I do not accept your interpetation of my remarks as "slander" and I
will not retract them. Instead, I will continue to remark on your posts
(and anybody else's) as I see fit and will not alter my remarks in order to
help you reduce your sense of distress over them. Ergo, if you want to keep
saying that you're not going to communicate with me and then keep
communicating with me anyway, you are simply parading your own powerlessness
to control your own behavior.
> However rather than filter you completely i shall wait for the predictable
> outburst of null content verbiage you will inevitably & irrationally
> direct at some other person and then i will resurrect the whole thing
> (*chuckle* "virtual necromancy") all over again.
This will produce precisely the same effect it always does, which is to make
you look silly. I don't mind.
Typical, avoid the substance and reiterate your bias.
All you're doing here is repeating your accusations while adding nothing
substantial at all and then complaining that this is what I'm doing, which
looks silly, Joe.
So an admission to finding some of what you write worth reading is
"silly"? as i wrote, you skip content and reiterate your bias.
--
JL
Read over the above comment.
Think it over.
Tom is our hero.
(yes you lying sons of bitches, he is, but no worries, he would accept yas
withouth being called alt.magick king.)
There are an uncertain number of fucktards that have insurmountable
problems.
They should croll up into a corner and die.