NationStates Jolt Archive

It's not undefined, not at all.

Well, if it's not undefined, then it has a definition. What is it? For you, at least.

Well, if it's not undefined, then it has a definition. What is it? For you, at least.
For me, it's blue, a colour between green and violet, a property to describe other things. That is pretty much the extent of blue's meaning for me; I'm not a very imaginative person. Why? What is it for you?

....

In essence, I am asking if you believe that the "blue experience" is different for mechanical reasons or for some other, mental/biological/"spiritual" reason. I would like everyone's take on this, please. If you would rather telegram me, that's fine. I don't want to bog down the thread. I just need clarification.
I feel singularly unqualified to answer this, but it seems to me that both are viable avenues for explanation. The 'mechanical' explanation enables you to model you what is happening during the experience, the 'other' explanation enables you to model it feels, perhaps what it means.

Where I may (or may not) differ from other posters in this thread is that I would expect the two explanations to complement one another rather than contradict, or for one to be 'better' than the other. One is an alternative model for the other (assuming both are correct), though they cannot necessarily predict each other. Where they do differ is in the tools they provide for further investigation. The first opens up scientific investigation, the second more expressive language.

But I don't have a robust theory of the mind, so I'm guessing really.

For me, it's blue, a colour between green and violet, a property to describe other things. That is pretty much the extent of blue's meaning for me; I'm not a very imaginative person. Why? What is it for you?

Oh, you thought I meant the definition of "blue." Sorry 'bout the misconception...

We can all agree on approximately what "blue" is - it's a color between green and violet, which we can define more precisely by wavelengths if we like. And so on. That's not the question.

The question is what do you mean by "your experience of blue."

Actually, I like "The White Hats"'s post. There are two different ways of looking at the same thing...

Nevermind, I guess. I'm not expressing myself very well.

The problem with less, same, and more is that they are consistent within each person only to the extent that the external and internal variables can be accounted for. For example, having blood drawn while donating will hurt less than having blood drawn to be tested while one is sick. More or less doesn't apply to the blood-drawing apparatus, but the situation. And while we may be able to have working definitions for the physical properties of the wave-lengths of light that roughly account for blue, this will in no way tell us what "blue" actually means to an individual. Some may equate blue with serenity, others may equate blue with depression.
I agree with your caveats - pain is a whole field of study in itself, very subjective, very sensitive to both individual physiology and external circumstance. All in all a very high noise to signal ratio. Same thing with the experience of colour.

However, it can be, and is, studied scientifically. In those terms, all these factors become explanatory variables. If one can control for them individually (big if), one can start to predict results and test theories in terms of percieved pain. To pick an example from my own life, we can know that breaking one's leg is surprisingly pain-free, because shock and endomorphins cut in. Whereas, have it wrenched back into place by a team of nurses is quite remarkably painful, because the fact that they are pinning you to the bed is a bit of a give-away about what is about to happen, so no shock when it happens. While waking up from an operation with several large bolts and a large metal frame screwed into your tibia is worst of all because the endomorphins are long gone.

This doesn't explain the whole experience, but knowing the mechanics of pain enable pharmaceutical solutions. (Which I was extremely grateful for, I might add, especially the self-administering morphine machine ... mmm, morphine *does Homer Simpson impression*.) Similarly, studying the subjective experience of pain enables non-pharmaceutical therapies.

But I don't want to make it seem a purely rational, objective thing. At the risk of appearing flaky, I ought to declare that my mother was a faith healer, so I've some experience of the non-rational route.

Even if we could find physical proof of interaction, this wouldn't tell us anything about the nature of god(s), if such exist, other than it is in the nature of god to interact. Any further assertions (such as saying this proves a certain religious view true) would be based upon preconcieved notions of god. Therefore, it would no more prove or disprove the existance of a god outside of the natural world, since it is the nature of the natural world to interact.

I agree with your last sentance, and to a degree with the previously one. However, if we knew only that it is in the nature of God to interact with the world, that is a very large thing to know. It would have an immediate bearing on the gnostic/agnostic argument.

Moreover, if we know that God interacts with the world, the fact that we have found evidence suggests we would know something about how God interacts with the world, and that might give us clues about the nature of God beyond the world (assuming God extends beyond the world).

...

Actually, I like "The White Hats"'s post. There are two different ways of looking at the same thing...

Nevermind, I guess. I'm not expressing myself very well.
Thank you. (And I'm glad it's not just me has difficulty articulating what I feel. ;) )

....

I'm pressing this whole point because it was something I didn't get before I began reading about mythology and other such subjectively interpreted things. It's not something we in the modern world are programmed to think about at all, evidenced in the way you keep going back to the objective view of things. As I said, Aristotle would be proud; we've all been programmed by ancient Greek guys :-) to repress the subjective.
I think this is what I was trying to get to when I used the example of social history in theology. One can take the secular explanation as sufficient in itself, or one can take it on the mythological level as revealing inner truths about the God of the religion concerned. But I think those 'myths', and perhaps myths in general, are more powerful when they are untramelled by concious, biased human intervention. So I don't want to hear just the religion's inside story, but that observed externally.

Whether science can deal with the subjective or not is one thing - but it sure as heck can't deal with the undefined.

presciesly

but, for anything to have a definition, we need to associate a symbol to it. While numbers are currently the favored by science, I have seen little, if any, disscussion into the validity of mathmatics. The fact that 3/3 = 0.99999... kinda catches me as odd.

What IS this "experience of blue" you're asking us to find things about? I can say that "the experince of blue is all of the neurons that fire when you see the color blue." Then, science can make predictions and descriptions and generalizations - we can find the similarities between the neural firings of different people, try to find out why different people have different patterns, find out how the patterns differ within a single individual with different viewings of "blue."

I've got to be honest, Ive never like the blue example, more than the pain one that i gave, but probably not the best that one could think of.

but yes, in essence you are absolutly correct. It is the values and symbols that we associate to things that I have a problem with. Words the most, numbers the least.

It's true that something like that can't be touched on by science - because it's undefined! Or, rather, you're defining it to be untouchable by science. In that case, yes, science can never tell us "what it is to experience blue." But we can find out things ABOUT the experience - not the complete picture, of course, but things about it.

I like that line "You are defining it as undefinable".

I guess that raises a logical paradox like God, where it continues to adapt itself to progress, making it impossible to ever get rid of a long dead idea.

I will have to think on this matter more.

(And I'm glad it's not just me has difficulty articulating what I feel. ;) )

lol

indeed

hurray for language

I feel singularly unqualified to answer this, but it seems to me that both are viable avenues for explanation. The 'mechanical' explanation enables you to model you what is happening during the experience, the 'other' explanation enables you to model it feels, perhaps what it means.

Where I may (or may not) differ from other posters in this thread is that I would expect the two explanations to complement one another rather than contradict, or for one to be 'better' than the other. One is an alternative model for the other (assuming both are correct), though they cannot necessarily predict each other. Where they do differ is in the tools they provide for further investigation. The first opens up scientific investigation, the second more expressive language.

But I don't have a robust theory of the mind, so I'm guessing really.
I don't think you differ from anyone else here in claiming that both views of reality are complementary. Both are vital for a complete picture of reality. They don't conflict, unless of course one has reason to doubt one's perceptions of something.

Oh, you thought I meant the definition of "blue." Sorry 'bout the misconception...

We can all agree on approximately what "blue" is - it's a color between green and violet, which we can define more precisely by wavelengths if we like. And so on. That's not the question.

The question is what do you mean by "your experience of blue."

Actually, I like "The White Hats"'s post. There are two different ways of looking at the same thing...

Nevermind, I guess. I'm not expressing myself very well.
Sorry. But I still maintain subjective things are not "undefined". If I was to say, "Blue is a big happy elephant trampling Manhatten," it would still *mean* something to me, and hence have definition. Sure, it's not well defined in the sense that someone else could come along and know what "blue" was to me. But if I hit on a combination of words that do convey what blue is to me, that could work: "Blue on blue, heartache on heartache."

Poetry is the language of the experiential, a simpler means to convey the subjective idea than literally stated things. It speaks in images, in metaphor and symbol, and uses rhythm that relaxes the hard, literal, logical mind and leaves it open to feel the flow of the fluid words.

...and I don't mean this (http://www.bluemag.com/features/camping_poetry1.html) ;)

'What IS the experience of blue?' is a philosophical question that demands a subjective answer. 'How is blue experienced?' is a question for a scientist. 'How does the individual experience blue?' is an objective question, because it posits a viewpoint apart from the observer, and includes the observer with others. 'Hey, look at that --am I seeing blue or slightly off-blue?' is a subjectively posed question that demands a subjective answer --and only one person can answer it, for himself. Just like, "What is God?"

I think this is what I was trying to get to when I used the example of social history in theology. One can take the secular explanation as sufficient in itself, or one can take it on the mythological level as revealing inner truths about the God of the religion concerned. But I think those 'myths', and perhaps myths in general, are more powerful when they are untramelled by concious, biased human intervention. So I don't want to hear just the religion's inside story, but that observed externally.
Actually, they *require* human intervention, and humans are biased and, for the most part, conscious. Now if you're getting at that the consciousness should be 'switched off' to get at the truth of them, there's a route I can go. But if you're excluding the human altogether, then they mean nothing.

All right, I have something to say. And this is not me playing devil's advocate.

Stop with the New Age revisionist crap!

Divination, i.e. astrology, is not "astrotherapy". It was, and is, used as a means to gather real world information. When primitive cultures seek the blessings of their deity or deities by giving something up, that is called sacrifice, not divination. Divination is killing a bull and looking in its guts to see if our side is going to win the battle. This, in turn, has been shown to be utter BS.

If divination was a way for the "Noble Savage" to attune himself to universe, then we should see the same things in modern day, non-Westernized primitive tribes. So, do we? No, we don't. Modern primitive tribes don't use divination as a way to symbolically see something about themselves. They use their divination to see if they are going to live through the war they are about to have with their neighbors. See information on the Yanomamo for examples of this.

Also, if astrology were related to the way we experienced our first seasonal changes and had our first nutritional requirements met, then we would see a lessening of distinctive "astrological" characteristics the closer one gets to the equator, where seasonal changes are lessened, and in some cases, effectively eliminated. Is this the case? No.

There is no such thing as a Noble Savage who sought enlightenment through symbolic interpretation of mythology, even unintentionally.

One person's mythology is another person's religion. Does religion seek to lead us to "inner truths" that are in some way ineffable? No! When an ancient Greek sent a libation to Bacchus before a party, he wasn't invoking some self-help pyche-up within himself. He truly believed that if he poured wine on the ground, Bacchus MIGHT come and help his party be successful. Similarly, Zeus and his thunderbolts were not metaphors for the war-like nature of man. Zeus was, to the ancient Greeks, a real being up on a high mountain. You could even see the mountain. Yes, that's right, folks! Mount Olympus is a real mountain! You can go see it in Greece. And guess what, there are often storms around the top of it, with lots of lightning and thunder!

This phenomenon is not limited to the Greeks, however. EVERY religion, and thus every attempt at divination in the primitive world, was an attempt to get an edge on the competition. This competition is inherent in the Old Testament, as well as most other religious writings of the time. So, please do not insult my intelligence or the intelligence of all the readers on this forum by trying to foist this New Age revisionist BS onto us as fact. It is not. Verfiably so.

Um, sure. One of the truths that astrology has revealed for me is that, because I am dependant upon friends as a source of happiness I will look to my circle of friends to find love, in the form of life-long companionship. This makes it rather difficult for me when friends leave. I know, intellectually, that they have to get on with their lives, but I still very much need them.

While I'm in my "rant phase", I'll say this.

You don't need astrology to realize this, Willamena. All you need is a little time and introspection. It's called growing up. We all do it, to one extent or another.

Has astrology pointed up the next step in this process yet? The step where you realize that you are having difficulty with them leaving because you are being greedy? Just as when you mourn the death of a loved one, you are being greedy? (Funerals, and mourning, are not for the dead, they are for the living.) This is not the "negative connotation" greedy, either. This is the normal, oh-crap-they-were-a-huge-part-of-my-life-and-now-they're-gone greedy. Everyone experiences it at some point or another.

Did I need astrology or tarot to tell me this? No. Why not? Because I can look at myself and others, analyse their behavior and come to a tentative, predictive conclusion about it. One that is, to this point, good at predicting the behaviour of others. GASP! I used the scientific method to come to a conclusion about my subjective, internal, experiential, ineffable inner world. In other words, what you did by drawing up natal charts or looking at cards with silly pictures on them or contemplating the symbolic significance of Odin on the World Ash for nine nines of days, I did with JUST MY MIND! And anyone can do it, if they are taught how to do so. It doesn't take a genius, just time.

While we're on the subject of revisionism, here's another tidbit. The ancient Greek (i.e. Aristotelian) world did not invent the objectivity/subjectivity dichotomy. The Middle Ages Arab world was practicing it indepently of ancient Greek influence, as was ancient Asian (i.e. Chinese) culture.

Objectivity arises because we are wired to understand and grasp the concept of permanence. Once a baby develops "object permanence", or the ability to understand that an object exists even though he/she can't see it, objectivity becomes a possibility. And since this happens well before the age of two, that means that objectivity is a possibility before the structures in the brain have developed for adult long term memory storage! Thus, it can be assumed, the ability to perceive the concept of objectivity may have actually developed BEFORE consciousness. Humans are not the only self-aware animals, after all. And that's what object permanence leads to.

Whew! Wow, do I feel better!

There, rant over.

Definition of axiom:

A self-evident and necessary truth,

For you..THere are no self evident truths(a triangle having three sides truth is related to the definition of triangle its not self evident),only ones that you believe so much you cannot think otherwise.

Science doesn't prove theories. It seeks to disprove them. If a theory is good at *predicting* future observations, it's used. If it isn't, it is modified or discarded. Science doesn't prove anything. It only tries to disprove
whatever,it still uses observations.
And I agree the part "If a theory is good at *predicting* future observations" that was my whole point.
they are still accepted by the majority of people
that doesnt prove its %100 true.

An axiom is something like: a triangle has three sides. If it doesn't have three sides, it's not a triangle. There is no way that a shape can have more than three sides and still retain it's "triangle-ness".
Im not talking about analytic info,please re-read my original post.
Just to mention it, the axioms are not based on anyting. They were just thought up
wrong,nothing can be thought from "nothing",maths axioms were formed by peoples need to count,and thats because of seeing.
People have built other systems of math using other axioms and these systems have actually been used by scientists in there theories.
I do not deny that.But those axioms-though less obvious- are still based on *some*observations,at the very least because of the terms used in them.

THere are no self evident truths

I must disagree. An object exists whether we expect it to exist or not. This is a self-evident truth. I can even prove it. If I put a rock in a locked room, then give the only key to someone else with instructions on how to find the room, then when he goes into the room, he will find the rock, irregardless of whether I told him about its existance or not. This is an example of a self-evident "truth". A thing's existance is not dependent on someone's having an opinion about it one way or another.

only ones that you believe so much you cannot think otherwise.

Not true. I can envision something that I do not believe, even the things that I hold nearest and dearest to my worldview. This is where my ability to lie comes from. This ability extends beyond the prosaic to the phenomenal. I can imagine something that has never existed.

Thus, when linked to the part above, it proves that I can actually conceive of things that have never been seen, and those things, if created, will have an independent existance.

that doesnt prove its %100 true.

Again, you can't prove anything. However, I defy you to disprove a mathematical axiom. Saying "I don't believe it and therefore it is not true." is not disproving it. These axioms are used in mathematics to solve real world problems, up to and including putting people on the moon. Therefore, whether they are true or not is irrelevant. They obviously work.

However, I will cede the point that these axioms are based on observations, to some extent or another. Why was this an issue, again, please? I don't remember and I don't have the wherewithal to go sludging to look it up.

If you think about, the "personality types" predicted by western astrology make some sense (moreso when nature more closely ruled people's livelihood) in a scientific way. People born at the same times of the year would have had similar earlier experiences - how warm or cold their enviornment was, the order in which they first experienced the seasons, what activities they (being with their parents) participated in first, their parents moods (as season has been proven to affect mood in many) changing how they related to the child, the quality of nutrition recieved via mother's milk and later what types and qualites of solid foods they first tasted. Early experience and nutrition has drastic long term effects on personality. It is only logical that broadly similar experiences early in life would produce very broadly similar effects on personality, and as such it can loosely predict a general state of mind in response to the natural enviornment because of reaction to buried memories. It can't say "you will fall in love" so much as "given the right circumstances your state of mind will make you more inclined to fall in love than you otherwise would be."
See my rant above for the outburst response to this. I would add that this would create such a broad effect that it would be, in essence, undetectable, as has been proven on more than one occasion. The astrological sign you were born under is irrelevant to your personality.
In a similar manner tarot can "predict" things because how a person reacts to the art (archetypal symbols) on the cards is indicative of the state of mind that they are in, and tells how they are more likely to react should a given situation arise.
They do not predict so much real things about the world, but more the subjective mindset of an individual in relation to the real world - if that makes any sense.
In a similar manner, a Myers-Briggs test can give you insights into your character, the difference being that it is based on solid observational statistics, and it is pretty well reproducible. I would suggest anyone who hasn't taken a Myers-Briggs test do so. Here's a link to a good online one:
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp
These tests, if made up correctly, are vastly more indicative of certain portions of your personality than how you react to pictures on a card. Among other things, how you react will be much influenced by your societal conditioning, as I'm sure Willamena and Terra-Domina would point out.
People can and do use them to make objective predictions, just like some people use the bible to try to make objective predictions - but that is a twisting of what I see as the intent of these symbolic systems.
I'm sorry, but I must disagree. The original intent of tarot, astrology and all other divination, whether it be highly symbolic or not, was to predict the future. This is well established in ancient writings from across the world, as well as in so-called "modern" primitive tribes like the Yanamamo. This extends to all "magic". It is an attempt to influence or learn about the world with/from a supernatural source. And gosh darn it, those pesky gods and demons are so unreliable, aren't they?
For the first part, usually as a way of stating that we like something or because they asked. I have never expected someone to like the things I like (although I have met people who do, and I consider it very silly). I would say that there is part of us that hopes people we are close to have similar subjective experiences as, if we share enough similar subjective experience with someone, it would indicate that our internal landscapes are somewhat similar to theirs, and our words, the way we attempt to project from the inside out, will resonate our true meaning more clearly in them. Then there are pure econoic reasons too, for example, if _everyone_ likes the same type of cola then it more likely that more stores will continue to carry it ;)
Fair enough. I would tend to agree with you, except for the "project from the inside out" part since I don't know what that means, having never knowingly experienced it.
As for the second part, what you describe is the basis for sympathy - knowing how one would feel in another's situation. Empathy is more the ability to pick up on another's feelings (through changes in expression, body language, tone of voice (heard or read), possible pheremonal changes, etc) and understand those feelings regardless of whether the motivation for those feelings is known or understood. Sympathy makes empathy easier, but isn't required.
Hmmm...let's see.

em·pa·thy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mp-th)
n.
1. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. See Synonyms at pity.
2. The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.

The first definition agrees with what you say. The second seems to agree with me.

sym·pa·thy (smp-th)
n.
1. A relation between parts or organs by which a disease or disorder in one induces an effect in the other.
2. Mental contagion, as in yawning induced by seeing another person yawn.
3. Mutual understanding or affection arising from a relationship or an affinity, in which whatever affects one correspondingly affects the other.

The first and second definitions don't apply to this discussion. The third seems to imply a certain connection, and ability to know the feelings of another. I'm not sure which way to jump on this one.

All definitions taken from dictionary.com.

I must disagree. An object exists whether we expect it to exist or not. This is a self-evident truth. I can even prove it. If I put a rock in a locked room, then give the only key to someone else with instructions on how to find the room, then when he goes into the room, he will find the rock, irregardless of whether I told him about its existance or not. This is an example of a self-evident "truth". A thing's existance is not dependent on someone's having an opinion about it one way or another.

You *believe* that every time he goes into the room he will find the rock,trying something for a finite number of times does not prove anything.Also just feeling(see,smell,etc) an object does not prove its existence.
I can envision something that I do not believe
You cannot.To make it clear heres an example:
There are people who memorizes formulas and think they understood them,and there are ones who embraces them so that they can form them even if they have forgotten the formulas.
What you call "envision" is like the first part of the above example,you think you understood the idea you do not believe,but its nowhere near understanding in the second part.Being able to state an opinion you do not actually believe does not mean you understand that opinion.
I defy you to disprove a mathematical axiom. Saying "I don't believe it and therefore it is not true." is not disproving it.
I do NOT say I can disprove them,I say you cannot prove them.

Actually, they *require* human intervention, and humans are biased and, for the most part, conscious. Now if you're getting at that the consciousness should be 'switched off' to get at the truth of them, there's a route I can go. But if you're excluding the human altogether, then they mean nothing.
Yes, that is precisely what I'm getting at. To experience an 'objective fact' as a myth, its symbolic truth has to hit you before you start a concious analysis of it. The gap may only be a split second or you may have the knack of suspending the analytical thought process, but it has to be there.

...

One person's mythology is another person's religion. Does religion seek to lead us to "inner truths" that are in some way ineffable? No! When an ancient Greek sent a libation to Bacchus before a party, he wasn't invoking some self-help pyche-up within himself. He truly believed that if he poured wine on the ground, Bacchus MIGHT come and help his party be successful. Similarly, Zeus and his thunderbolts were not metaphors for the war-like nature of man. Zeus was, to the ancient Greeks, a real being up on a high mountain. You could even see the mountain. Yes, that's right, folks! Mount Olympus is a real mountain! You can go see it in Greece. And guess what, there are often storms around the top of it, with lots of lightning and thunder!

...


Just in passing, you can go see Mount Olympus in Turkey too, in the SW corner, quite close to an old fishing village called Kas. The Turkish version even has natural gas vents producing 'eternal' flames, which were by all accounts quite the thing in Hellenic times. I've got a feeling there's another one or two Mount Olympuses elsewhere too, but I might be wrong on that. The fact there's more than one indicates a certain non-specificity about it all.

All right, I have something to say. And this is not me playing devil's advocate.

Stop with the New Age revisionist crap!

Divination, i.e. astrology, is not "astrotherapy". It was, and is, used as a means to gather real world information. When primitive cultures seek the blessings of their deity or deities by giving something up, that is called sacrifice, not divination. Divination is killing a bull and looking in its guts to see if our side is going to win the battle. This, in turn, has been shown to be utter BS.
Yup, I have to agree with you, there. Looking at bull's guts to see if you'll win a battle is BS.

If divination was a way for the "Noble Savage" to attune himself to universe, then we should see the same things in modern day, non-Westernized primitive tribes. So, do we? No, we don't. Modern primitive tribes don't use divination as a way to symbolically see something about themselves. They use their divination to see if they are going to live through the war they are about to have with their neighbors. See information on the Yanomamo for examples of this.
"Noble Savage", oh dear.

Also, if astrology were related to the way we experienced our first seasonal changes and had our first nutritional requirements met, then we would see a lessening of distinctive "astrological" characteristics the closer one gets to the equator, where seasonal changes are lessened, and in some cases, effectively eliminated. Is this the case? No.
And the charlatans and the Greeks win again.

There is no such thing as a Noble Savage who sought enlightenment through symbolic interpretation of mythology, even unintentionally.

One person's mythology is another person's religion. Does religion seek to lead us to "inner truths" that are in some way ineffable? No! When an ancient Greek sent a libation to Bacchus before a party, he wasn't invoking some self-help pyche-up within himself. He truly believed that if he poured wine on the ground, Bacchus MIGHT come and help his party be successful. Similarly, Zeus and his thunderbolts were not metaphors for the war-like nature of man. Zeus was, to the ancient Greeks, a real being up on a high mountain. You could even see the mountain. Yes, that's right, folks! Mount Olympus is a real mountain! You can go see it in Greece. And guess what, there are often storms around the top of it, with lots of lightning and thunder!
If you're simply doing the Devil's Adovcate thing, still, you're very good at it! *polite applause*

I might reply later.

This phenomenon is not limited to the Greeks, however. EVERY religion, and thus every attempt at divination in the primitive world, was an attempt to get an edge on the competition. This competition is inherent in the Old Testament, as well as most other religious writings of the time. So, please do not insult my intelligence or the intelligence of all the readers on this forum by trying to foist this New Age revisionist BS onto us as fact. It is not. Verfiably so.
We can avoid the topic, if you prefer, but it is related to the thread.

Yup, I have to agree with you, there. Looking at bull's guts to see if you'll win a battle is BS.


"Noble Savage", oh dear.


And the charlatans and the Greeks win again.


If you're simply doing the Devil's Adovcate thing, still, you're very good at it! *polite applause*

I might reply later.


We can avoid the topic, if you prefer, but it is related to the thread.

Wow, that was clever. You see that, the whole way you were rude yet not obviously rude at the same time.

Someone bothers to make a long well thought out post, and there you go refuting everything he or she said by the "clever" us of "quotes" and a few sniggering "references."

Also I like they way that in your world charlatans = Greeks; or something. Probably.

Do you even have a point. And I don't mean in terms of your argument. Do you actually have a point.

And he's right. It is all BS. All of it. Without exception.

Originally Posted by Willamena
Um, sure. One of the truths that astrology has revealed for me is that, because I am dependant upon friends as a source of happiness I will look to my circle of friends to find love, in the form of life-long companionship. This makes it rather difficult for me when friends leave. I know, intellectually, that they have to get on with their lives, but I still very much need them.While I'm in my "rant phase", I'll say this.

You don't need astrology to realize this, Willamena. All you need is a little time and introspection. It's called growing up. We all do it, to one extent or another.
Just so. I may have come to this realisation without using the tool of astrology, or I may not have. And it doesn't matter (to the scientist) which way I come to it, or if I come to it or not, because it's not scientific and it's about science; it's subjective and therefore can be dismissed. *pooh* *pooh*

Has astrology pointed up the next step in this process yet? The step where you realize that you are having difficulty with them leaving because you are being greedy? Just as when you mourn the death of a loved one, you are being greedy? (Funerals, and mourning, are not for the dead, they are for the living.) This is not the "negative connotation" greedy, either. This is the normal, oh-crap-they-were-a-huge-part-of-my-life-and-now-they're-gone greedy. Everyone experiences it at some point or another.
Thank you for your psychoanalysis. You don't quite have a grasp of the situation, it seems, from either your insightful speculations or what little I told you of it in the other post, but thanks anyway.

Did I need astrology or tarot to tell me this? No. Why not? Because I can look at myself and others, analyse their behavior and come to a tentative, predictive conclusion about it. One that is, to this point, good at predicting the behaviour of others. GASP! I used the scientific method to come to a conclusion about my subjective, internal, experiential, ineffable inner world. In other words, what you did by drawing up natal charts or looking at cards with silly pictures on them or contemplating the symbolic significance of Odin on the World Ash for nine nines of days, I did with JUST MY MIND! And anyone can do it, if they are taught how to do so. It doesn't take a genius, just time.
No, you're right. You didn't need astrology or tarot to tell you those things. Well done.

Actually, you didn't demonstrate scientific method here. If you had, you would have waited for a response to your questions before proceeding with a conclusion based on your own replies to your questions. But no matter.

The useful point here is that you have demonstrated the demise of astrology; how it can be maligned merely by refusing to see it in a proper light, from a proper perspective, both its method and application being for the subject.

You're quite good at this Devil's Advocate thing.

so, i have a question that has been bothering me for some time, I guess its probably a 2 parter

1) a) Why, if religion and science are two seperate structures of truth, do the religious people feel that their beliefs need to be validated by science?

b) Why does the scientific community think that it is necessary for religion to agree with them, or more pointedly, why is science critical of religion for not having the same beliefs about the origins of truth as they have?

2) Doesn't it cheapen a belief structure to change long lasting ideas and tennants (gay marrage, priestly marrage, prohibition, ect...) just because the attitude of society and the socio-political atmosphere believes that they should be changed.
1. Because science and religion are not mutually exclusive. God does not want blind faith or obedience. He wants your faith to be rational.
2. I would not say that science as a whole is critical of religion but rather that is individual scientists and certain scientific groups that may be critical of religion. There are many scientists and scientific groups who support religion.
3. Yes it does, I don't know bout the other religions, but the basic tenets of Christianity do not change. As Jesus stated in the last chapter of the Bible, "Those who change any of the words of this book will be cursed and cast into the lake of fire."
Those who are changing the doctrines of their churches to fit "modern" culture and attitudes are teaching false doctrines not based on Christianity.

While we're on the subject of revisionism, here's another tidbit. The ancient Greek (i.e. Aristotelian) world did not invent the objectivity/subjectivity dichotomy. The Middle Ages Arab world was practicing it indepently of ancient Greek influence, as was ancient Asian (i.e. Chinese) culture.
Thank you for that clarification; I should have been more precise, but being a part of Wesern Civilization I am automatically biased towards the Greek version. I've been called on this inaccuracy before. The Greeks were the ones formalized it in their philosophies for what later became Western Civilization, and I'll try to remember to be more specific next time.

Objectivity arises because we are wired to understand and grasp the concept of permanence. Once a baby develops "object permanence", or the ability to understand that an object exists even though he/she can't see it, objectivity becomes a possibility. And since this happens well before the age of two, that means that objectivity is a possibility before the structures in the brain have developed for adult long term memory storage! Thus, it can be assumed, the ability to perceive the concept of objectivity may have actually developed BEFORE consciousness. Humans are not the only self-aware animals, after all. And that's what object permanence leads to.
I understand that objectivity and subjectivity have always been around. But before they were formalized by the philosophers they were not a part of man's conscious modes of thinking. Man had to be raised in conscious awareness in order for the split to take place. Ironically, this is also what I have been attempting to do in this thread --raise the buried subjectivity-thinking to conscious awareness. But overcoming the objectivity-programming of science is not easy.

Originally Posted by Uberpeas
THere are no self evident truthsI must disagree. An object exists whether we expect it to exist or not. This is a self-evident truth. I can even prove it. If I put a rock in a locked room, then give the only key to someone else with instructions on how to find the room, then when he goes into the room, he will find the rock, irregardless of whether I told him about its existance or not. This is an example of a self-evident "truth". A thing's existance is not dependent on someone's having an opinion about it one way or another.
If I may butt in, here (I know; it's never stopped me, before) you two are arguing the very subject/object split that I mentioned earlier. Well done, again.

It's all in how you look at it. You *put* that rock in that room, so it's existence has been subjectively verified by yourself before you closed the door. At this point, subjectively speaking, it has an existence dependant on a human's observation --yours.

Everyone else you tell about the existence of the rock would have to take your word for it, or open the door to verify it for themselves, or verify it with machines. Until then, to them, it's just a hypothetical rock. Until they recieve first-hand knowledge of it, its reality is not verifiable.

Does the rock exist? Yes; really, for you, and hypothetically, for them until they make it real by observing it.

Does the rock exist? Objectively, always and forever, but subjectively, depends on the above view. Thinking subjectively is dependant upon perspective.

Both the objective and the subjective modes of thinking operate at the same time, and both are necessary for a complete picture of reality. Does the rock exist? Sure. How do you know? I saw it.

Objectivity arises because we are wired to understand and grasp the concept of permanence. Once a baby develops "object permanence", or the ability to understand that an object exists even though he/she can't see it, objectivity becomes a possibility. And since this happens well before the age of two, that means that objectivity is a possibility before the structures in the brain have developed for adult long term memory storage! Thus, it can be assumed, the ability to perceive the concept of objectivity may have actually developed BEFORE consciousness. Humans are not the only self-aware animals, after all. And that's what object permanence leads to.

I dont think you can associate object permanance with objectivity. Honestly, I dont think objectivity is possible

when we are born, we learn very quickly what physical and verbal sybmols can get us what we want. Yes, there is the object permanance, but that is only through repetitive exposure to the stimuli. We attach a symbol to somthing and find that it is always there and it becomes a constant. ie: cry to get attention.

The best example of this is, if you and a child were sitting in a room and a man began to fly, the child would be less astonished, because he has established much less of that constraint on the abilities of man to flight.

Objectivity is a good goal, but everything that we analyize is isntantly put up to our subjective. A bias of trying to be objective is a subjective bias, depending on what your interpretation of objective is, as it is not a quantitative term.

You *believe* that every time he goes into the room he will find the rock,trying something for a finite number of times does not prove anything.Also just feeling(see,smell,etc) an object does not prove its existence.

Actually, you're right, it doesn't prove anything. Not in the way you seem to mean prove. However, we can, temporarily, give agreement to the idea that he will find the rock most every time because to not agree goes against the laws of probability. And the laws of probability do not lie. And sensing an object does prove its existence. We only have our senses and our reason to define our reality. Anything else is just imagination. And imaginary reality is, by definition, not real.

You cannot.To make it clear heres an example:
There are people who memorizes formulas and think they understood them,and there are ones who embraces them so that they can form them even if they have forgotten the formulas.
What you call "envision" is like the first part of the above example,you think you understood the idea you do not believe,but its nowhere near understanding in the second part.Being able to state an opinion you do not actually believe does not mean you understand that opinion.

I can. Invention is the soul of this concept. Einstein did this when he created his famous thought experiments. There are plenty of examples throughout history of people making so-called intuitive leaps and coming up with things they had never envisioned before. The discoverer of the aromatic ring comes to mind, although that story may be apocryphal. So, you cannot say that someone cannot envision something that has never been seen before. And being able to STATE an opinion you do not actually believe doesn't mean you understand that opinion, but that does not preclude the possibility that I DON'T understand it. For example, I understand the mainstream Christian concept of Jesus as Savior. I truly understand it. I even accepted it for a time. However, I also came to understand that this idea is flawed in several major ways. Thus, even though I truly this concept, I reject it.

I do NOT say I can disprove them,I say you cannot prove them.
I don't have to prove them. They work. That "proves" them well enough for me. Nothing succeeds like success, I suppose.

See my rant above for the outburst response to this. I would add that this would create such a broad effect that it would be, in essence, undetectable, as has been proven on more than one occasion. The astrological sign you were born under is irrelevant to your personality.
That's the first correct thing you've said about astrology ;-) in the sense that personalities are not dependant upon the sign.

Yes, that is precisely what I'm getting at. To experience an 'objective fact' as a myth, its symbolic truth has to hit you before you start a concious analysis of it. The gap may only be a split second or you may have the knack of suspending the analytical thought process, but it has to be there.

Actually, it wouldn't even have to be conscious analysis, would it? Our brains understand symbols, even if we are not conscious. So, we can't ever get at "symbolic truth" if that's what it takes to experience and "objective fact" as a myth. And I still say that one man's myth is another man's religion. Try telling a fundamentalist Christian that his religious beliefs are just symbolic representations of parts of his own psyche. I bet he turns purple before he passes out.

If you're simply doing the Devil's Adovcate thing, still, you're very good at it! *polite applause*

-----


We can avoid the topic, if you prefer, but it is related to the thread.

First, look at the top of that post. That's the real deal, kiddo. This astrology as path to inner truth has no foundation in ancient writings, and no foundation in modern day primitive tribalism. It is a fantasy cooked up by people like Geoffry Cornelius to make a buck. He may actually believe it, but I'm willing to be he's coldly aware that he is selling a crock of crap to everyone who reads his books.

-----

I freely invite this topic of discussion, if you REALLY want to get into it. I would be cautious, though. Some of your opinions might get bruised.

Just so. I may have come to this realisation without using the tool of astrology, or I may not have. And it doesn't matter (to the scientist) which way I come to it, or if I come to it or not, because it's not scientific and it's about science; it's subjective and therefore can be dismissed. *pooh* *pooh*

Science does not dismiss the subjective. It does not say that the subjective world is unimportant. It merely says that we cannot currently study it properly (although that is slowly changing as we nibble away at the consciousness problem). There is no *pooh* *pooh* involved. Just because a scientist doesn't want to hear your pet theories about your inner landscape doesn't mean that he considers your inner landscape unimportant. He just doesn't have any way to test it, and therefore, he feels he should spend his time in more fruitful ways. Sitting in lotus, contemplating your own navel doesn't put rockets in space or cure cancer. So stop with the hurt feelings act, please.

Thank you for your psychoanalysis. You don't quite have a grasp of the situation, it seems, from either your insightful speculations or what little I told you of it in the other post, but thanks anyway.



I was in no way trying to psychoanalyse you, or anyone else. I'm a fair armchair shrink, but I freely admit that that's like being an armchair quarterback, i.e. worse than useles. As to having insight into your situation, no, I never claimed to have it. But, since you have brought up psychoanalysis (been reading too much of that quack Cornelius again, haven't you?), I did ask you if you had an understanding of a concept that most people in the study of psychology/psychiatry accept as valid. I notice that you very carefully didn't answer that question.

No, you're right. You didn't need astrology or tarot to tell you those things. Well done.

Snide much? Did I hurt your feelings? If so, my apologies. That wasn't my intention.

Actually, you didn't demonstrate scientific method here. If you had, you would have waited for a response to your questions before proceeding with a conclusion based on your own replies to your questions. But no matter.

Actually, you're right. I didn't demonstrate scientific method here. However, I did DESCRIBE my use of scientific method at an earlier period in my life. As to waiting on responses to my questions, well, judging from your comments, I'm glad I didn't. As far as I'm concerned, passion is acceptable when discussing both philosophy and science (which is what we are skirting here, the bleeding edge). Snideness is not. And I doubt I will be the only one to feel this way about your responses.

The useful point here is that you have demonstrated the demise of astrology; how it can be maligned merely by refusing to see it in a proper light, from a proper perspective, both its method and application being for the subject.



I did not, in any way "demonstrate the demise of astrology". Sadly, it is still very much in use around the world. As is blind reliance on a book written 2000 years ago to tell us how we ought to teach our children in the modern world. I did not set out to demonstrate the demise of astrology. I stated my opinion that this New Age revision of astrology is just as specious as the New Age revisions of every other old religious concept that the New Agers have swiped in the name of making a buck, swindling the innocent and hoodwinking the ignorant.

You're quite good at this Devil's Advocate thing.

If I thought you meant it, I'd thank you for it.

That's the first correct thing you've said about astrology ;-) in the sense that personalities are not dependant upon the sign.

Oh, I am so tempted to call you a pompous little twit. I won't do it, but I'm tempted....


Oh yeah, almost forgot: ;-)


I've said many correct things about astrology.

I have said that astrology was used in ancient times, and is still used today, to predict the future. I have said that astrology is not a very good predictor of the future. I have said that astrology has been hijacked (as astrotherapy, whatever the heck that is) by the New Age movement. I have said that the New Age attempt to hijack astrology was carried out by trying to "realign" the meaning of astrology from what it was originally to something that is still just as pseudoscientfic but is more palatable, because it is being slotted into one of the "soft" sciences, i.e. psychotherapy. I have said that there is nothing in astrotherapy/"new" astrology that can't be explained without astrotherapy/"new" astrology. Did you miss those things or did I imagine posting them?

And he's right. It is all BS. All of it. Without exception.

Thank you.

Wow, that was clever. You see that, the whole way you were rude yet not obviously rude at the same time.

Someone bothers to make a long well thought out post, and there you go refuting everything he or she said by the "clever" us of "quotes" and a few sniggering "references."
As I said, I might reply later. It would make a small booklet...

Also I like they way that in your world charlatans = Greeks; or something. Probably.
Heh heh. No; the Greeks were a bit more clever than the charlatans.

Do you even have a point. And I don't mean in terms of your argument. Do you actually have a point.

And he's right. It is all BS. All of it. Without exception.
Yes, I have a point, and my point is apart from the discussion of the validity of divination, so I continued on with my point and left the other for later.

3. Yes it does, I don't know bout the other religions, but the basic tenets of Christianity do not change. As Jesus stated in the last chapter of the Bible, "Those who change any of the words of this book will be cursed and cast into the lake of fire."
Um, the last words of the Bible refer specifically to the last book of the Bible, the prophecy of the Revelations.

I dont think you can associate object permanance with objectivity. Honestly, I dont think objectivity is possible
Right. Things entirely objectively real, without being subjectively verified, are only hypothetical.

when we are born, we learn very quickly what physical and verbal sybmols can get us what we want. Yes, there is the object permanance, but that is only through repetitive exposure to the stimuli. We attach a symbol to somthing and find that it is always there and it becomes a constant. ie: cry to get attention.

The best example of this is, if you and a child were sitting in a room and a man began to fly, the child would be less astonished, because he has established much less of that constraint on the abilities of man to flight.

Objectivity is a good goal, but everything that we analyize is isntantly put up to our subjective. A bias of trying to be objective is a subjective bias, depending on what your interpretation of objective is, as it is not a quantitative term.
But to accept the object permanance as truth is also necessary, or we could not proceed; just as science accepts facts and theories as truths, or it could not proceed to build on them.

Um, the last words of the Bible refer specifically to the last book of the Bible, the prophecy of the Revelations.

Finally, something we agree on.

Things entirely objectively real, without being subjectively verified, are only hypothetical.

What do you mean by the term "subjectively verified"? How can anything be "subjectively verified" when, by your own admission, everyone experiences things differently? Does this mean that something can be hypothetical to one person observing something and real to another person observing it at the same time, if one of them "subjectively verifies" an object and the other doesn't?

Things have an existance beyond our experience of them.

Science does not dismiss the subjective. It does not say that the subjective world is unimportant. It merely says that we cannot currently study it properly (although that is slowly changing as we nibble away at the consciousness problem). There is no *pooh* *pooh* involved. Just because a scientist doesn't want to hear your pet theories about your inner landscape doesn't mean that he considers your inner landscape unimportant. He just doesn't have any way to test it, and therefore, he feels he should spend his time in more fruitful ways. Sitting in lotus, contemplating your own navel doesn't put rockets in space or cure cancer. So stop with the hurt feelings act, please.
There it is, *pooh* *pooh* again.

You claim no dismissal, and then use dismissal to drive the point home.

I was in no way trying to psychoanalyse you, or anyone else. I'm a fair armchair shrink, but I freely admit that that's like being an armchair quarterback, i.e. worse than useles. As to having insight into your situation, no, I never claimed to have it. But, since you have brought up psychoanalysis (been reading too much of that quack Cornelius again, haven't you?), I did ask you if you had an understanding of a concept that most people in the study of psychology/psychiatry accept as valid. I notice that you very carefully didn't answer that question.
All human beings are armchair psychoanalysts, at least since the popularity of Freud. :-)

You never claimed insight, and yet you freely demonstrated it. You're full of contradictions, today.

Originally Posted by Willamena
No, you're right. You didn't need astrology or tarot to tell you those things. Well done.
Snide much? Did I hurt your feelings? If so, my apologies. That wasn't my intention.
No, no hurt feelings. :-) My point here was a bit sarcastic, though, agreeing with you that you didn't need astrology or tarot to come to incorrect and invalid conclusions. ;)

Actually, you're right. I didn't demonstrate scientific method here. However, I did DESCRIBE my use of scientific method at an earlier period in my life. As to waiting on responses to my questions, well, judging from your comments, I'm glad I didn't. As far as I'm concerned, passion is acceptable when discussing both philosophy and science (which is what we are skirting here, the bleeding edge). Snideness is not. And I doubt I will be the only one to feel this way about your responses.

I did not, in any way "demonstrate the demise of astrology". Sadly, it is still very much in use around the world. As is blind reliance on a book written 2000 years ago to tell us how we ought to teach our children in the modern world. I did not set out to demonstrate the demise of astrology. I stated my opinion that this New Age revision of astrology is just as specious as the New Age revisions of every other old religious concept that the New Agers have swiped in the name of making a buck, swindling the innocent and hoodwinking the ignorant.
*shrug* You did demonstrate the demise of astrology; you just don't realise it because you think that what you demonstrate is astrology, i.e., you believe you know what astrology is, and how it is BS, and leave no room for the possibility that what you know is only what the charlatans teach. That it's BS should be your first clue...

If I thought you meant it, I'd thank you for it.
I did mean it.

when we are born, we learn very quickly what physical and verbal sybmols can get us what we want. Yes, there is the object permanance, but that is only through repetitive exposure to the stimuli. We attach a symbol to somthing and find that it is always there and it becomes a constant. ie: cry to get attention.

Crying to get attention is a learned behavior that is gained "only through repeptitive expose to the stimuli". Babies do not cry once, get attention, assign some symbolic significance to crying, and then proceed to do it forevermore. Babies are BORN crying. So, unless they are learning symbolic existance in the womb, then I don't buy this argument. We only attach a symbol to something AFTER it has been observed. The symbol is not necessary for us to observe that something. Symbols, like the light in a fiber optic cable, are a data-transfer mechanism. They do not create data of their own.

There it is, *pooh* *pooh* again.

You claim no dismissal, and then use dismissal to drive the point home.

I am not being dismissive of your inner landscape. I'm being dismissive of your, in my honest opinion, somewhat immature behavior.


You never claimed insight, and yet you freely demonstrated it. You're full of contradictions, today.

Just because I don't claim insight doesn't mean I don't have it.

No, no hurt feelings. :-) My point here was a bit sarcastic, though, agreeing with you that you didn't need astrology or tarot to come to incorrect and invalid conclusions. ;)

You are claiming that the concept of grief being for the living and not the dead is incorrect and invalid? Prove it!

*shrug* You did demonstrate the demise of astrology; you just don't realise it because you think that what you demonstrate is astrology, i.e., you believe you know what astrology is, and how it is BS, and leave no room for the possibility that what you know is only what the charlatans teach. That it's BS should be your first clue...

Here's MY definition of astrology:
_____
as·trol·o·gy
n.
1. The study of the positions and aspects of celestial bodies in the belief that they have an influence on the course of natural earthly occurrences and human affairs.
2. Obsolete. Astronomy.
-----

What's yours?

What do you mean by the term "subjectively verified"? How can anything be "subjectively verified" when, by your own admission, everyone experiences things differently?
Yes! Now you're asking the right questions. Things subjective are "of one person, for one person"; so things "subjectively verified" are verified by one person for him/herself. "Seeing is believing" (albeit in this case, believing is knowing, and knowing it, it is subjectively verified). Now all that remains is for it to be objectively verified so it can become scientifically useful information.

Both perspectives are necessary for a complete picture of reality.

Does this mean that something can be hypothetical to one person observing something and real to another person observing it at the same time, if one of them "subjectively verifies" an object and the other doesn't?
Its existence is hypothetical until it is observed by a person, either first or second-hand (with machines).

Things have an existance beyond our experience of them.
An objective one, yes, hypothetical until we go out and experience them.

Originally Posted by - Gnostikos
Especially the idiots who say that evolution is only a theory. They're worse than the people who say that carbon testing is wrong on the dating of the Earth. Of course religion may be taught in theology, anthropology, and some english classes in public schools.


you and people like you are the idiots, let me ask you a question, if people came from apes, why are there still apes here? i was under the understanding that when something changes into something else, that the something is no longer here, and why have we not found any hard evidence that we came form apes? you are the fool not me God will strike down and all non belivers will be fucked..

You are claiming that the concept of grief being for the living and not the dead is incorrect and invalid? Prove it!
I didn't claim that. I claimed your conclusions are not valid to my case, and and not useful to me.

What's yours?
Astrology is not the study of the "celestial bodies"; it involved that back when it was combined with astronomy in one practice, however things have changed a bit since Ptolomy's time (changed to better reflect what they were prior to his time, too).

I'm just going to say one thing, and then I'll leave off the subject of astrology. Weren't you the one to make a point of complementing people for not flaming and baiting? What happened, there?

...

In a similar manner, a Myers-Briggs test can give you insights into your character, the difference being that it is based on solid observational statistics, and it is pretty well reproducible. I would suggest anyone who hasn't taken a Myers-Briggs test do so. Here's a link to a good online one:
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp
These tests, if made up correctly, are vastly more indicative of certain portions of your personality than how you react to pictures on a card. Among other things, how you react will be much influenced by your societal conditioning, as I'm sure Willamena and Terra-Domina would point out.

....

Hmm .... I had a skim through the statistical background to Myers-Briggs a while back, and found it a bit iffy myself. But, meh, when I suspended my disbelief, it seemed to work well enough and the results were mostly sound for me and the group I was in. More right than wrong, which is a positive enough result. If that sounds a bit sniffy, that's probably due to my hard-science background; it's actually one of the best psycho-thingy tests I've come across.

I'd put it a step or two above more traditional divination myself, as the test has a fair amount of internal consistency, and the results display more specificity. But that's my rational bias. Where it compares less well is in its inflated (imho) presentation of scientific 'truth', and its relatively limited language.

What both systems share, imo, is that their greatest worth is not in the results themselves, but in their interpretation, and thus practical use, by the subjects.

Actually, you're right, it doesn't prove anything. Not in the way you seem to mean prove. However, we can, temporarily, give agreement to the idea that he will find the rock most every time because to not agree goes against the laws of probability. And the laws of probability do not lie. And sensing an object does prove its existence. We only have our senses and our reason to define our reality. Anything else is just imagination. And imaginary reality is, by definition, not real.
So you basically say if we imagine(conjure scenes in our mind) things real time by our senses its real,if we imagine using our past observations its not.It seems to be *bias* to me,please explain if you think otherwise.



I can. Invention is the soul of this concept. Einstein did this when he created his famous thought experiments. There are plenty of examples throughout history of people making so-called intuitive leaps and coming up with things they had never envisioned before. The discoverer of the aromatic ring comes to mind, although that story may be apocryphal. So, you cannot say that someone cannot envision something that has never been seen before. And being able to STATE an opinion you do not actually believe doesn't mean you understand that opinion, but that does not preclude the possibility that I DON'T understand it. For example, I understand the mainstream Christian concept of Jesus as Savior. I truly understand it. I even accepted it for a time. However, I also came to understand that this idea is flawed in several major ways. Thus, even though I truly this concept, I reject it.
You can make analytic conclusions based on your observations and this may seem radical,that does not disprove my point which is you cannot "envision" things you have never seen.havent you ever considered the idea that perhaps you did not understand the christian idea and thus saw unexisiting flaws(This is just a probability,Im not saying I dont see any flaws because my past with religion is very similar to yours-though I was a muslim)?
I don't have to prove them. They work. That "proves" them well enough for me. Nothing succeeds like success, I suppose.
Exactly my point,science is not and cannot be about absolute truth,its just a pragmatic tool for man(some of them,that is).

For all who asked-
An experience of blue: Blue calls to mind memories of the feel of velvet and the smell of vanilla. It evokes a complex of emotions that I refer to as "cocooned" - being snugly and safely surrounded and physically comforted while at the same time being isolated and feeling a sense of loneliness bordering on desolate.

Now, when I look at something - in this case a plastic shopping bag-[ the sensations brought up by blue do not override that it is just a shopping bag. But neither can I fully escape the feelings that seeing that particular shade of blue causes.

Fair enough. I would tend to agree with you, except for the "project from the inside out" part since I don't know what that means, having never knowingly experienced it.

That is how language works. For example, when you "cat" do you usually just mean the animal itself, or do you usually mean the animal plus what feelings and thoughts that you have about it. I just mean that it takes a concious effort for people to speak objectively about something that they have deeply ingrained feelings about. Most people assume their deeply ingrained (internal) feelings about objects are "true." That is why some people get upset about the fact that in some parts of the world, cats are what's for dinner, inspite of the fact that there is nothing inherent in the scientific definition of cat that makes it inedible. They do not or can not separate their internal meaning from the object.

In a similar manner, a Myers-Briggs test can give you insights into your character, the difference being that it is based on solid observational statistics, and it is pretty well reproducible. I would suggest anyone who hasn't taken a Myers-Briggs test do so. Here's a link to a good online one:
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp
These tests, if made up correctly, are vastly more indicative of certain portions of your personality than how you react to pictures on a card. Among other things, how you react will be much influenced by your societal conditioning, as I'm sure Willamena and Terra-Domina would point out.

I have taken them (full official versions and not just the truncated ones on the web) and have learned nothing new. And no, they are no more indicative of my personality than how I would respond to certain symbols on cards or anywhere else, although they may predict how I will respond to certain symbols. All the results do is describe personality in terms of an archetype (in essence a they create a new symbology, new archetypes drawn from what was already there). They may be very useful for those who have never tried to understand themselves in relation to archetypes before.

First, look at the top of that post. That's the real deal, kiddo. This astrology as path to inner truth has no foundation in ancient writings, and no foundation in modern day primitive tribalism. It is a fantasy cooked up by people like Geoffry Cornelius to make a buck. He may actually believe it, but I'm willing to be he's coldly aware that he is selling a crock of crap to everyone who reads his books.


What you don't get is that it doesn't matter if it is based on ancient wisdom or was cooked up yesterday. Inner truths are not subject to objective reality. If symbols speak to a person it doesn't matter _where_ they were derived from.

And I still say that one man's myth is another man's religion. Try telling a fundamentalist Christian that his religious beliefs are just symbolic representations of parts of his own psyche. I bet he turns purple before he passes out.

That is the difference between "myth" or "spirituality" and organized "religion". Religion has taken what is supposed to be subjective and attempted to redefine it as objective truth.

Did I need astrology or tarot to tell me this? No. Why not? Because I can look at myself and others, analyse their behavior and come to a tentative, predictive conclusion about it. One that is, to this point, good at predicting the behaviour of others. GASP! I used the scientific method to come to a conclusion about my subjective, internal, experiential, ineffable inner world. In other words, what you did by drawing up natal charts or looking at cards with silly pictures on them or contemplating the symbolic significance of Odin on the World Ash for nine nines of days, I did with JUST MY MIND! And anyone can do it, if they are taught how to do so. It doesn't take a genius, just time.

So, you contemplated the behavior of others and came to a conclusion about yourself. Other's behaviors were the symbols that you used to examine yourself. What's the difference?

Actually, it wouldn't even have to be conscious analysis, would it? Our brains understand symbols, even if we are not conscious. So, we can't ever get at "symbolic truth" if that's what it takes to experience and "objective fact" as a myth. And I still say that one man's myth is another man's religion. Try telling a fundamentalist Christian that his religious beliefs are just symbolic representations of parts of his own psyche. I bet he turns purple before he passes out.
OK, this is a bit of a side issue, because what I was trying to do was find out whether I was describing the same thing as Willamena when I described social history as having a mythological component. I'd also add that the language that Willamena uses is unfamilier to me, so I'm probably being imprecise in my use of words. But you raised the issue ...

For me, conciousness is important, because because what I'm trying to get to is intuitive truth, not so much about myself necessarily, but just to get away from an external, material way of observing. And with me, in common with most analysts, I have control-freak tendancies, so what I am specifically trying to avoid is manipulation of the facts to fit the theory. In scientific language, what I am trying for in this type of exercise is an pre- or ad-hoc explanation, rather than post-hoc. That's all.

I would certainly agree, at a glib level, that one man's myth is another man's religion. But I wasn't talking about about sort of myth here (unless you want to be really irritating and claim atheism or science as a religion). I was postulating that secular, objective explanations can be addressed as though (my perception of Willamena's) 'myths', to reach a different kind of truth.

Incidentally, your last suggestion used to be one of my favourite pastimes, perferably over a few beers. Generally good entertainment value, whether they took it in a friendly spirit or no. I recommend it.

Hmm .... I had a skim through the statistical background to Myers-Briggs a while back, and found it a bit iffy myself. But, meh, when I suspended my disbelief, it seemed to work well enough and the results were mostly sound for me and the group I was in. More right than wrong, which is a positive enough result. If that sounds a bit sniffy, that's probably due to my hard-science background; it's actually one of the best psycho-thingy tests I've come across.

I'd put it a step or two above more traditional divination myself, as the test has a fair amount of internal consistency, and the results display more specificity. But that's my rational bias. Where it compares less well is in its inflated (imho) presentation of scientific 'truth', and its relatively limited language.

What both systems share, imo, is that their greatest worth is not in the results themselves, but in their interpretation, and thus practical use, by the subjects.

Yes. But divinitation methods are less static in time and are meant for a slightly different purpose (for the sake of Mickonia whether or not what their _original_ use may have been). They are not supposed to give you insight to what your personality is, but rather help you see how your current mindset shapes your reactions. For example, if you were to look at a tarot layout right now, how you react to those archetypes and the interaction of those archetypes would be indicative of how in the near future you are most likely to react to real-world events that carry the same subjective/and emotional meaning to you that the archetypes hold.

Sure it is possible to figure this stuff out without a divination method, just like it is possible to do long division without a calculator. Some people find certain tools useful, others don't.

Earlier you mentioned faith healing. That is another way our subjective realitites help shape the objective. Up to a point, belief and mindset affect the chemicals the brain releases and that does have certain effects on the body.

For all who asked-
An experience of blue: Blue calls to mind memories of the feel of velvet and the smell of vanilla. It evokes a complex of emotions that I refer to as "cocooned" - being snugly and safely surrounded and physically comforted while at the same time being isolated and feeling a sense of loneliness bordering on desolate.

....

:eek: No fair! I want your perception of colour!

Yes. But divinitation methods are less static in time and are meant for a slightly different purpose (for the sake of Mickonia whether or not what their _original_ use may have been). They are not supposed to give you insight to what your personality is, but rather help you see how your current mindset shapes your reactions. For example, if you were to look at a tarot layout right now, how you react to those archetypes and the interaction of those archetypes would be indicative of how in the near future you are most likely to react to real-world events that carry the same subjective/and emotional meaning to you that the archetypes hold.

Sure it is possible to figure this stuff out without a divination method, just like it is possible to do long division without a calculator. Some people find certain tools useful, others don't.

Earlier you mentioned faith healing. That is another way our subjective realitites help shape the objective. Up to a point, belief and mindset affect the chemicals the brain releases and that does have certain effects on the body.
Fair points - I'd agree with all of this. I was just comparing Myers-Briggs and divinition within the context of personality testing. Though, even Myers-Briggs results depend at least partly on circumstance. For example, my results fluctuate between Introvert and Extrovert, which seems to be a function of current job, group and general, long-term mood.

Yes. But divinitation methods are less static in time and are meant for a slightly different purpose (for the sake of Mickonia whether or not what their _original_ use may have been). They are not supposed to give you insight to what your personality is, but rather help you see how your current mindset shapes your reactions. For example, if you were to look at a tarot layout right now, how you react to those archetypes and the interaction of those archetypes would be indicative of how in the near future you are most likely to react to real-world events that carry the same subjective/and emotional meaning to you that the archetypes hold.

Sure it is possible to figure this stuff out without a divination method, just like it is possible to do long division without a calculator. Some people find certain tools useful, others don't.
Yes, each time you look at a spread or a chart you can get a different "take" of the symbols, relative to whatever question or issue is on your mnd at that moment. Each "take" is a valid interpretation, as the symbols themselves have fluid temporaneous meaning, which applies to the real-life events and objects the reading is about, apart from their fixed meaning according to the rules of divination.

Fair points - I'd agree with all of this. I was just comparing Myers-Briggs and divinition within the context of personality testing. Though, even Myers-Briggs results depend at least partly on circumstance. For example, my results fluctuate between Introvert and Extrovert, which seems to be a function of current job, group and general, long-term mood.
Any rules that can be fed into a computer to spit out results for you are not really comparable to divination, which requires the input of humans. Divination is dependant on intuitions and the mind's ability to draw connections, to determine the meaning of each symbol relative to a subject's life, and an ability to relate the results of the symbols back to things in the subject's life. The machine cannot do that.

Any rules that can be fed into a computer to spit out results for you are not really comparable to divination, which requires the input of humans. Divination is dependant on intuitions and the mind's ability to draw connections, to determine the meaning of each symbol relative to a subject's life, and an ability to relate the results of the symbols back to things in the subject's life. The machine cannot do that.
I know I'm heading off at a tangent from the point you're making here, but I can't resist. The human agent of the divination isn't present when a machine is producing the results, but the subject can still draw on their own intuition and insight to draw the connections &c. I think the comparison that I would draw is with self-divination (is that the right term?) methods such as the I-Ching or, my personal favourite, the dictionary.

There is a flaw in the comparison, I know, in that self-divination methods usually rely on random draws of the divining agent (or at least the ones I know about), and Myers-Briggs can't really be called completely random ... but still.

If you were to argue that having someone do the divining for you and help you interpret the results leads to a richer experience, I wouldn't disagree. I've never really tried, if you discount mucking around with girl/friends.

1) a) Why, if religion and science are two seperate structures of truth, do the religious people feel that their beliefs need to be validated by science?

b) Why does the scientific community think that it is necessary for religion to agree with them, or more pointedly, why is science critical of religion for not having the same beliefs about the origins of truth as they have?

2) Doesn't it cheapen a belief structure to change long lasting ideas and tennants (gay marrage, priestly marrage, prohibition, ect...) just because the attitude of society and the socio-political atmosphere believes that they should be changed.

1) a) They don't all feel any such need.

1) b) They don't all think like that.

But possibly those who do just lack the breadth of imagination/wisdom/intellect/humility, call it what you will, to know that there are some things which science may NEVER be able to explain.

2) Not Necessarily. It may instead mean that a person realises that their original belief was coloured by - for example - cultural or scientific reasoning at its inception, and whilst being intrinsically "right" it now would benefit from changes in its core structure based on most recent understanding.

For instance; believing stealing is wrong is a fairly well-held belief, as is the idea that thieves are bad and should be punished. BUT people were transported to Botany Bay once for "stealing" a rabbit they'd shot on a Landowner's estate to feed a starving family.

Would you still cling to the belief structure of that time that they were bad/lawbreakers/deserved to be punished?

Also, it can be helpful to bear in mind that Religions are man-made. God (Whom I do believe exists btw) doesn't depend on any sect or cult and I tend to believe He - or She, whatever - must be really sad about the way we commit so many atrocities and spout all the dangerous crap we do, in the name of God!

btw - Tennants is a beer, brewed in Scotland, I think you meant tenets ;-)

I know I'm heading off at a tangent from the point you're making here, but I can't resist. The human agent of the divination isn't present when a machine is producing the results, but the subject can still draw on their own intuition and insight to draw the connections &c. I think the comparison that I would draw is with self-divination (is that the right term?) methods such as the I-Ching or, my personal favourite, the dictionary.

There is a flaw in the comparison, I know, in that self-divination methods usually rely on random draws of the divining agent (or at least the ones I know about), and Myers-Briggs can't really be called completely random ... but still.

If you were to argue that having someone do the divining for you and help you interpret the results leads to a richer experience, I wouldn't disagree. I've never really tried, if you discount mucking around with girl/friends.
What randomness at all is there in Meyer-Briggs? I can see none.

And this is why I got a kick out of a bumper sticker saying "God Save Us from Religion".

Anyway.

1a) Many religious people don't need to see their theories validated by science. Those that do may be after their own understanding, or perhaps personal or collective conceptual vindication.

1b) Science and religion in general tend to clash because they're based on different postulates. The processes involved in determining -truth- are still really the same, it's just what everything is based on that's different.

The reason some scientists are indignant at religious scholars is because the postulates in science are based on empirical data - evidence that is sensible/perceptible along various lines, regardless of the observer or the equipment they may have to sense/perceive that.
Most religious postulates, on the other hand, are based either on a text, where most principle ends up running into issues with hearsay, conjecture or possibly circular reasoning, or on being 'touched by <insert deity here>', which, assuming it actually happened to the person, is an instant event and/or a very personal one, and thus, being virtually impossible to replicate, is unreliable as the basis for a logical ground rule.

2) Absolutely, but the degree to which the structure is cheapened is always a question. Remember also that one can through works or empirically viable evidence make a belief system stronger or more valuable, and that sometimes it's better to cheapen a belief system a bit than to let it die under the strain of modern morals, baseline ethics, pure science, or public opinion.

What randomness at all is there in Meyer-Briggs? I can see none.
Sorry, this was me thinking as a statistician.

Myers-Briggs, though reasonably consistent, will not always output the same result for any given set of personality traits. This is due to any number of factors, including the fact that the way a personality expresses itself will vary according to circumstance, timing and mood. Also, the questions may not always be precise, the subject may not always report accurately, &c, &c.

Then there is the way that the test operationalises the concept of personality (ie, turns it into something that can be measured). Quite understandably, that is fairly simplistic - a string of four letters each symbolising opposing personality traits, eg extrovert/introvert. There has to be a big question over how well that measurement captures the concept of personality (see also above thread). Finally, the results are generally presented in terms of implied behaviour - preferred jobs, working styles, team roles &c. Again, ambiguity and interpretation creep in here.

The test and test results also seem to be heavily dependant on a statistical analysis of previous test subjects and results, using essentially (from memory) a self-selecting sample, which is held to be heretical by professional statisticians such as myself, for reasons too boring to go into here.

What this all amounts to is a degree of uncertainty and ambiguity in the results. To a statistician, that equates to a random element. Hence my comment.

Now my comment was over-egged for ironic effect (for which I apologise, it's a weakness of mine), since the test is fairly consistent in its results. But it is not consistent in the same way as, say, a chemistry experiment would produce consistent results. There is still an appreciable random element in the results, which, to my way of thinking, allows room for intuitive divination.

There's other stuff as well, but I've probably bored you enough (tip: never ask a statistician for a technical explanation of their thinking ;) ).

And this is why I got a kick out of a bumper sticker saying "God Save Us from Religion".


1b) Science and religion in general tend to clash because they're based on different postulates. The processes involved in determining -truth- are still really the same, it's just what everything is based on that's different.



Alright here is where I have an argument with that staminate … I understand the different postulates that is true the are both starting from a different place and also lend different weight to different sources.


But the processes I feel are different

Science-
Make a guess at what is happening from what you observe.
Make more observations/tests.
Refine the hypotheses
See how it fits the real world
Get more observations – tests
Refine the hypothesis


Religion – they study the bible … (individuals may see “gods work in nature” sort of thing but overall does not change the churches “theory”)

In fact the only time I can see a change is when society pushes the change (at times viewed as a benevolent god or a vengeful god) but it is by no means measurable and by no means followed by all denominations.

In religion just as stated by religion is faith based … there is no real observation theory and for sure no “revamping” of the hypothesis on any short term scale (long term wandering of the religion like states can be attributed to other causes then observation)


So basically not same processes at arriving at an “answer”

Sorry, this was me thinking as a statistician.

Myers-Briggs, though reasonably consistent, will not always output the same result for any given set of personality traits. This is due to any number of factors, including the fact that the way a personality expresses itself will vary according to circumstance, timing and mood. Also, the questions may not always be precise, the subject may not always report accurately, &c, &c.

Then there is the way that the test operationalises the concept of personality (ie, turns it into something that can be measured). Quite understandably, that is fairly simplistic - a string of four letters each symbolising opposing personality traits, eg extrovert/introvert. There has to be a big question over how well that measurement captures the concept of personality (see also above thread). Finally, the results are generally presented in terms of implied behaviour - preferred jobs, working styles, team roles &c. Again, ambiguity and interpretation creep in here.

The test and test results also seem to be heavily dependant on a statistical analysis of previous test subjects and results, using essentially (from memory) a self-selecting sample, which is held to be heretical by professional statisticians such as myself, for reasons too boring to go into here.

What this all amounts to is a degree of uncertainty and ambiguity in the results. To a statistician, that equates to a random element. Hence my comment.

Now my comment was over-egged for ironic effect (for which I apologise, it's a weakness of mine), since the test is fairly consistent in its results. But it is not consistent in the same way as, say, a chemistry experiment would produce consistent results. There is still an appreciable random element in the results, which, to my way of thinking, allows room for intuitive divination.

There's other stuff as well, but I've probably bored you enough (tip: never ask a statistician for a technical explanation of their thinking ;) ).


How bout me … not statistician by trade but by major :) (Networking at our school is a stats major … usually dealing with network modeling … and all that comes with it so more then a few years of stats classes under my belt) :)

Anyway that was a side note I understand where you are coming from and yes defiantly a random factor

Offhand know the confidence level?
(maybe that will help convince some )

(Ok I know this is making me sound like a smartass …not trying to contradict genuinely curious)

How bout me … not statistician by trade but by major :) (Networking at our school is a stats major … usually dealing with network modeling … and all that comes with it so more then a few years of stats classes under my belt) :)

Anyway that was a side note I understand where you are coming from and yes defiantly a random factor

Offhand know the confidence level?
(maybe that will help convince some )

(Ok I know this is making me sound like a smartass …not trying to contradict genuinely curious)
Nice to know I'm not not alone ;)

OK, the ambiguity in Myers-Brigg is not likely to be much of a function of the confidence interval. If my memory of their methodology is right (big if), they're doing something like basing their model on some kind of a rolling sample of subjects that have taken their test. Which is now pretty big (I remember it being of the order of hundreds of thousands, but again I might be wrong), so the confidence intervals at the aggregate level are tiny.

But, the results for each individual are categorical, not ordinal, so you can't apply confidence intervals to those. Fitting the personality types to behavioural categories would probably involve some kind of likelihood testing, and the general rule about disaggregating the sample expanding confidence intervals would apply, but so long as they're sensible, that shouldn't be an issue as such.

The main problem is two-fold:
1. If I'm right, Myers-Briggs is effectively using a non-randomly selected sample (of those put forward or putting themselves forward for the test), so confidence intervals can't be calculated and potential bias becomes a big issue.
2. The main problem is in the operationalisation of the concept of personality type. You're going to need a lot of simplifying assumptions and subjective, relative scales. And that, as discussed elsewhere in this thread, is going to be the main source of uncertainty and error in this type of exercise.

Sorry, if this a bit of a garbled explanation - it's too late inthe evening for me to check the website and refer to my text books, but I hope I've given the gist of what I was getting at. My general principle is that Myers-Briggs will produce a correlation of less than one between personality and measured personality - that's the ordered, 'mechanical' element, and the remainder is, in statistical terms, random.

Crying to get attention is a learned behavior that is gained "only through repeptitive expose to the stimuli". Babies do not cry once, get attention, assign some symbolic significance to crying, and then proceed to do it forevermore. Babies are BORN crying. So, unless they are learning symbolic existance in the womb, then I don't buy this argument. We only attach a symbol to something AFTER it has been observed. The symbol is not necessary for us to observe that something. Symbols, like the light in a fiber optic cable, are a data-transfer mechanism. They do not create data of their own.

you say babies are born crying as if that is just some axiom (way to tie that in Tim) There is a reason they are crying, because every truth they have established has instantaniously changed.

You have to recognize at least a minor degree of consiousness in a child that would establish truths about the reality that they are exposed to. They cry because it is the only thing that they can do, they have no other symbols to assign to the act of being born and having their world turned up-side down.

So the observation of the child in this instant is being born and since they have no linguistic or any sort of symbols, they cry. They then see the attention they get from crying and associate the attention with the cry. They then further differentiate between ways to get food and ways to get changed.

Just a point about astrology, I dont want to get into this, but there is some recent evidence that shows how the ions in our brain are affected by the ions on earth which are directly affected by the gravity and the position of the other planets in our solar system.

So, if this holds true, certain brain functions and synapses may be subject to the position of the planets, hence astrology.

Just a point about astrology, I dont want to get into this, but there is some recent evidence that shows how the ions in our brain are affected by the ions on earth which are directly affected by the gravity and the position of the other planets in our solar system.

So, if this holds true, certain brain functions and synapses may be subject to the position of the planets, hence astrology.

Link, please? This sounds a bit psuedoscientific to me.

you say babies are born crying as if that is just some axiom (way to tie that in Tim) There is a reason they are crying, because every truth they have established has instantaniously changed.

You have to recognize at least a minor degree of consiousness in a child that would establish truths about the reality that they are exposed to. They cry because it is the only thing that they can do, they have no other symbols to assign to the act of being born and having their world turned up-side down.

So the observation of the child in this instant is being born and since they have no linguistic or any sort of symbols, they cry. They then see the attention they get from crying and associate the attention with the cry. They then further differentiate between ways to get food and ways to get changed.

Sure there's a reason they are crying. And I agree with you that they are crying because their world has changed. However, babies don't cry in the womb, at least not that I have ever heard or heard of. Crying is instinctive, and thus what I would call "pre-symbolic".

Sure there's a reason they are crying. And I agree with you that they are crying because their world has changed. However, babies don't cry in the womb, at least not that I have ever heard or heard of. Crying is instinctive, and thus what I would call "pre-symbolic".

yes, i would agree with that

maybe that reveals some instinctual truth about the nature of projected noise... but i think we can use adapted evolutionary processes to explain the reaction

but ya, you are compleatly correct, i am just saying that it is the first things that they can use as a symbol to describe their position in the given situation.

Link, please? This sounds a bit psuedoscientific to me.

very psudo-scientific

well, it deals with very psudo-scientific concepts. Like consciousness and psi phenomena.

Roots of Consciousness (http://www.williamjames.com/Intro/CONTENTS.htm)

Its a great read if you are into these things

if you are a strict dogmatic scientist, you will probably laugh at it though. I find most would

I wouldn't say that conciousness is pseudo-scientific. We have conciousness, or at least the appearance of it. Just because we don't understand it very well doesn't make it pseudoscientific. Psi phenomena, however, go beyond pseudo-science into the realm of the unbelievable. If psi powers existed, James Randi wouldn't still have his million bucks in escrow.

I wouldn't say that conciousness is pseudo-scientific. We have conciousness, or at least the appearance of it. Just because we don't understand it very well doesn't make it pseudoscientific. Psi phenomena, however, go beyond pseudo-science into the realm of the unbelievable. If psi powers existed, James Randi wouldn't still have his million bucks in escrow.

i would disagree

Micheal Moore is offering something like 10-20 thousand for anyone who can prove a lie in his film. I dont see people using Moore in the same circles as they throw around Chomsky. It doesnt credit the point that nobody can disprove it. Its like God.

I'm not saying psi is real, but its something that deserves an enlightened investigation. Especially if their revelations about the workings of ions in the mind and thought are correct.

obviously i cannot prove psi phenomena, and as far as science goes that removes it from the picture. I would suggest you read at least the 2,3 and 4 sections and do some looking into what the studies say.

you say babies are born crying as if that is just some axiom (way to tie that in Tim) There is a reason they are crying, because every truth they have established has instantaniously changed.

You have to recognize at least a minor degree of consiousness in a child that would establish truths about the reality that they are exposed to. They cry because it is the only thing that they can do, they have no other symbols to assign to the act of being born and having their world turned up-side down.

So the observation of the child in this instant is being born and since they have no linguistic or any sort of symbols, they cry. They then see the attention they get from crying and associate the attention with the cry. They then further differentiate between ways to get food and ways to get changed.
Plus, not all symbols are written/image ones identified by sight or touch that require linguistic skills. Sound can also be a symbol (the prounced word and tone), as can taste ("Meatloaf means Monday.") and even scent (territorial markers).

So, you contemplated the behavior of others and came to a conclusion about yourself. Other's behaviors were the symbols that you used to examine yourself. What's the difference?

Those other people's behavior wasn't symbolic to me. I viewed them as very "real", i.e. objective things. Whether the motivations were objective or subjective is irrelevant, the actions themselves were not. And thus, I learned something about myself by observing objective things.

Now, I would like to modify my position a bit, if that's all right. Or perhaps clarify would be a better word.

If you want to talk about using divination as tool to self-discovery, more power to you. I see no difference between contemplating the tarot, contemplating your navel or a beautiful sunrise when it comes to self-discovery. And I am all for self-discovery. It's the first step towards being a truly responsible adult human being.

However, if someone is going to say that divination was once used as a tool of self-discovery by primitive cultures, then I say "Bushwah!" The burden of proof lies on that person to prove their claims. I defy anyone to do so.

Just as White Hats is, understandably and properly, finicky about statistical precision, I am finicky about definitions and historical accuracy.

Just a point about astrology, I dont want to get into this, but there is some recent evidence that shows how the ions in our brain are affected by the ions on earth which are directly affected by the gravity and the position of the other planets in our solar system.

So, if this holds true, certain brain functions and synapses may be subject to the position of the planets, hence astrology.
The planets do not influence us; astrology is about the symbols that are jotted down on the horoscope chart. The planets only serve to randomly placed the markers (planet symbols) on the chart (randomized by the moment chosen to record their positions), in order to read them accordingly.

thats fairly close minded

Show me any reliable proof of psi phenomena.

See this if you really believe "psi" phenomena exist:

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

He wouldn't still have that prize if they were in any way observable.

The planets do not influence us; astrology is about the symbols that are jotted down on the horoscope chart. The planets only serve to randomly placed the markers (planet symbols) on the chart (randomized by the moment chosen to record their positions), in order to read them accordingly.

ok, whatever

i dont really care

if you are interested, read the link, if not, dont

I would suggest you read at least the 2,3 and 4 sections and do some looking into what the studies say.

I'm sorry, but anything that takes Uri Geller in the least bit seriously has lost all credibility with me. This man has been shown time and time again to be a con artist.

Show me any reliable proof of psi phenomena.

See this if you really believe "psi" phenomena exist:

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

He wouldn't still have that prize if they were in any way observable.

ya, im sorry for saying that, it came out, then i edited the post

i would believe that psi phenomena exists. If the science of thought can change how thought works and disprove any of this then I would be more than willing to admit that it is impossible

i think a fairly sufficent theory for psi phenomena (most of which are not controllable) is presented in "The Roots of Consiousness". I'll take a few minutes to go over it and present what they are saying really breifly.

If you can use science to disprove it i will agree that you are right.

I have 2 issues with the prize though:

1) I lacks any sufficent explination for the observable psi-phenomena, aside from coincidence. Some of the phenomena, like astral projection, i think require a little more explination than coincidence

2) What makes you believe that neuro-biology would be able to make any calculations about psi when we can hardly touch the process of thought?

so, i have a question that has been bothering me for some time, I guess its probably a 2 parter

1) a) Why, if religion and science are two seperate structures of truth, do the religious people feel that their beliefs need to be validated by science?

b) Why does the scientific community think that it is necessary for religion to agree with them, or more pointedly, why is science critical of religion for not having the same beliefs about the origins of truth as they have?

2) Doesn't it cheapen a belief structure to change long lasting ideas and tennants (gay marrage, priestly marrage, prohibition, ect...) just because the attitude of society and the socio-political atmosphere believes that they should be changed.

One of the most interesting things to me is how quantum relativistic physics falls somewhere in-between. This is a relatively young field, but it seems to hold some potential to bridge the gap between empirical science and (certain) religious "mysteries."

Generally speaking, I think the error most everyone makes can be summed up simply as an imbalance. If you rely too much on science (left brain), you're only half a person, and you're only experiencing/seeing half of life; if you rely too much on faith (right brain), the same applies in reverse. I think the true reality of life can only be discovered in a balanced blending of the two -- but most people have a tendency to go too far in one direction or the other.

As F. Scott Fitzgerald said, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

I'm sorry, but anything that takes Uri Geller in the least bit seriously has lost all credibility with me. This man has been shown time and time again to be a con artist.

links please?

Weren't you the one to make a point of complementing people for not flaming and baiting? What happened, there?

If you will point out something that you consider unjustified flaming or baiting, I will consider retracting it. And even if I don't retract it, I will try to better explain myself.

links please?

Here's are several on James Randi's website:

http://www.google.com/u/JREF?q=Uri+geller&sa=Go%21


The entirety of all those articles are good, but feel free to skip over the non-Geller parts.

Here's a VERY good article on Skepdic.com:

http://skepdic.com/geller.html

Be sure and see the reader comments at the bottom.

Here's a shorter one, if you don't have time to look through the others:

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/2951

But overcoming the objectivity-programming of science is not easy.

Wasn't it you who pointed out that subjectivity is unavoidable? If so, then how hard could it be to overcome the "objectivity-programming" of science?

Hmm .... I had a skim through the statistical background to Myers-Briggs a while back, and found it a bit iffy myself. But, meh, when I suspended my disbelief, it seemed to work well enough and the results were mostly sound for me and the group I was in. More right than wrong, which is a positive enough result. If that sounds a bit sniffy, that's probably due to my hard-science background; it's actually one of the best psycho-thingy tests I've come across.

I'd put it a step or two above more traditional divination myself, as the test has a fair amount of internal consistency, and the results display more specificity. But that's my rational bias. Where it compares less well is in its inflated (imho) presentation of scientific 'truth', and its relatively limited language.

What both systems share, imo, is that their greatest worth is not in the results themselves, but in their interpretation, and thus practical use, by the subjects.

I didn't mean to put Myers-Briggs forward as a truly scientific tool. It is better at explaining than predicting, and thus not a very good scientific tool. It does, however, show my point that spooky mysticism is not necessary for self-discovery.

Most people who use MB for a living will freely tell you that it's better at explaining and promoting understanding than it is at predicting what someone is going to do. They will also tell you that MB only addresses certain parts of you personality, and doesn't represent a totality.

Multiple intelligences is another tool to help people understand themselves and others. And MI is based on even better research.

Here's are several on James Randi's website:

http://www.google.com/u/JREF?q=Uri+geller&sa=Go%21


The entirety of all those articles are good, but feel free to skip over the non-Geller parts.

Here's a VERY good article on Skepdic.com:

http://skepdic.com/geller.html

Be sure and see the reader comments at the bottom.

Here's a shorter one, if you don't have time to look through the others:

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/2951

ok, lol

the spoon guy

ya, admitidly, there is probably way more bullshit that fact or even hypothesis in existence about psi.

Its very hard to make any point about these, as you see, in a scientific community. You are instantly labled as an idiot and a fraud.

I would like to see if you can show a unbiased scientific look into psi phenomena (you would probably know where to find it more than I)

The last thing I'm going to put in on psi phenomena is from the end of the site

One of the most fundamental developments in the past two decades has been the experimental confirmations of the principle of nonlocality in quantum mechanics and the realization of the importance of that principle for a theory of psi phenomena. If nothing else, this breakthrough strongly suggests that psi phenomena, if they exist, need not be in conflict with established laws of science.

At present, theories regarding psi are somewhat premature for two reasons. We still lack a reliable data base and repeatable psi effects upon which a theory might be constructed and refined. We also lack a comprehensive theory of consciousness itself, upon which a theory of psi must, inevitably, be built. Thus many of the theories discussed represent mere presentations of "theoretical environments" in which more testable theories might be constructed. Sirag's "work in progress" as presented in the Appendix represents the beginnings of a venture which, if successful, will run a course of many generations.

A note of caution may be appropriate at this point. While I have been focusing on the relationship between physics and consciousness, this is only a short step from the issue of physics and mysticism. It is in this realm that many physicists themselves, as well as scholars of mysticism, feel that physics can have little to say. Ken Wilbur, for example, firmly maintains that the attempt to prove the reality of mystical experience by resorting to scientific arguments does a great injustice to genuine mysticism which is self-supporting and timeless. Whereas scientific theories are in constant flux. This is an important point, however, it is also premature to assume that physics will never develop permanent and complete answers. After all, physics is based upon mathematics, and that field does seem to have developed some permanent solutions.

i also wasnt able to get a conscice theory out of the reading... It must have come from somewhere else. If i remember it i will.

Aside from that, i will again concede to science on this, saying that we have no proovable psi phenomena. But, as it is something that seems to transcend culture (as in I cant think of a culture that hasnt had some degree of psychic phenomenon) it warrants a valid scientific evaluation when we are capable of making that evalutaion.

Ya, that sounds a lot like god, but god has the "nature" of being untestable and unscientific. I think that if psychic phenomena exists, when we crack the thought and consciousness nut, we may be able to test for its validity.

But, burden of proof I will accept, I cannot scientifically proove psi.

Nice to know I'm not not alone ;)

OK, the ambiguity in Myers-Brigg is not likely to be much of a function of the confidence interval. If my memory of their methodology is right (big if), they're doing something like basing their model on some kind of a rolling sample of subjects that have taken their test. Which is now pretty big (I remember it being of the order of hundreds of thousands, but again I might be wrong), so the confidence intervals at the aggregate level are tiny.

But, the results for each individual are categorical, not ordinal, so you can't apply confidence intervals to those. Fitting the personality types to behavioural categories would probably involve some kind of likelihood testing, and the general rule about disaggregating the sample expanding confidence intervals would apply, but so long as they're sensible, that shouldn't be an issue as such.

The main problem is two-fold:
1. If I'm right, Myers-Briggs is effectively using a non-randomly selected sample (of those put forward or putting themselves forward for the test), so confidence intervals can't be calculated and potential bias becomes a big issue.
2. The main problem is in the operationalisation of the concept of personality type. You're going to need a lot of simplifying assumptions and subjective, relative scales. And that, as discussed elsewhere in this thread, is going to be the main source of uncertainty and error in this type of exercise.

Sorry, if this a bit of a garbled explanation - it's too late inthe evening for me to check the website and refer to my text books, but I hope I've given the gist of what I was getting at. My general principle is that Myers-Briggs will produce a correlation of less than one between personality and measured personality - that's the ordered, 'mechanical' element, and the remainder is, in statistical terms, random.
Alright was not aware of the nature of the study to its full extent


First of all I want to say its alright … Im drunk so my reasoning may be thrown off …

Here is the info I using
http://www.geocities.com/lifexplore/mbintro.htm
http://www.knowyourtype.com/mbti.html
some of it anyways will add any sites I use

Now I understand non-random sample would though initial bias into the sample (I only took one populace or applied course the rest of mine are in statistical modeling) so sorry If I apply terms used in a modeling or inert object

So the effective projected group (now here is a differentiation in terms I know … I am talking not sample size but essentially the population) of the servey is essentially world population … now you say the (non random) sample size is a few 100 k … plenty though I would have to drag my books out


Anyways interesting stuff lol I will have to read back forget how this applies to the argument but always a fun time learning new things :)

I would like to see if you can show a unbiased scientific look into psi phenomena (you would probably know where to find it more than I)

The good old US government tried to use it in a real-world setting (i.e. spying). Here's a link talking about the results:

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/stargate.htm

Here's an article from skepdic.com talking about the PEAR experiments. White Hats, can you please review this and see if it's legit from a statistical analysis perspective?

http://www.skepdic.com/pear.html

Information has found a way to spread very quickly, and they need other methods of convincing people than the Bible.

Information has found a way to spread very quickly, and they need other methods of convincing people than the Bible.
You mean a 2k year old book is not the best way to spread breaking news :) lol

The good old US government tried to use it in a real-world setting (i.e. spying). Here's a link talking about the results:

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/stargate.htm


I always liked these experiments

but I didn't want to make any "psychic powers" claims, as those are harder to discuss while still sounding rational.

Those other people's behavior wasn't symbolic to me. I viewed them as very "real", i.e. objective things. Whether the motivations were objective or subjective is irrelevant, the actions themselves were not. And thus, I learned something about myself by observing objective things.

Plus, not all symbols are written/image ones identified by sight or touch that require linguistic skills. Sound can also be a symbol (the prounced word and tone), as can taste ("Meatloaf means Monday.") and even scent (territorial markers).


If you didn't know the motivations in any true and objective manner than the actions themselves were symbols. You saw actions and interpreted their 'meaning' according to your own internalized values and preconceptions. Any meaning that someone attaches a "real" thing - whether an object, action (bowing or handshake), scent, etc -that goes beyond the properites inherent in its physical objective reality is symbolic.

For example, a chair is a real object. It upsets most people's sense of propriety to see someone standing on a chair, because the 'symbol-chair' is something used to sit on, in spite of the fact that the physical reality of a great many chairs makes them entirely suitable for standing on.

Most people don't stop to think that a great amount of meaning that they attach to things is largely symbolic and is only tangentially related to the actual object itself. Thus they continue to insist that their own personal interpretation of reality is what is "really-real."

One of the most interesting things to me is how quantum relativistic physics falls somewhere in-between. This is a relatively young field, but it seems to hold some potential to bridge the gap between empirical science and (certain) religious "mysteries."

Generally speaking, I think the error most everyone makes can be summed up simply as an imbalance. If you rely too much on science (left brain), you're only half a person, and you're only experiencing/seeing half of life; if you rely too much on faith (right brain), the same applies in reverse. I think the true reality of life can only be discovered in a balanced blending of the two -- but most people have a tendency to go too far in one direction or the other.

As F. Scott Fitzgerald said, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

*nods* about the only difference between 'metaphysical' books that describe a pantheistic philosophy and books describing recent theories in physics is the terminology used
:)

If you didn't know the motivations in any true and objective manner than the actions themselves were symbols. You saw actions and interpreted their 'meaning' according to your own internalized values and preconceptions. Any meaning that someone attaches a "real" thing - whether an object, action (bowing or handshake), scent, etc -that goes beyond the properites inherent in its physical objective reality is symbolic.

For example, a chair is a real object. It upsets most people's sense of propriety to see someone standing on a chair, because the 'symbol-chair' is something used to sit on, in spite of the fact that the physical reality of a great many chairs makes them entirely suitable for standing on.

Most people don't stop to think that a great amount of meaning that they attach to things is largely symbolic and is only tangentially related to the actual object itself. Thus they continue to insist that their own personal interpretation of reality is what is "really-real."

Fair enough. I concede the point.

*nods* about the only difference between 'metaphysical' books that describe a pantheistic philosophy and books describing recent theories in physics is the terminology used
:)

I'm not even going to touch this one. Do you really believe this, V&K?

but I didn't want to make any "psychic powers" claims, as those are harder to discuss while still sounding rational.

That would be because a belief in "psychic powers" is, by most mainstream definitions, not rational.

I'm not even going to touch this one. Do you really believe this, V&K?

Yes. Think about the ancient concepts of Brahman and Tao and the more modern ideas of the holomovement and "web of life" stuff. Basically all pantheism says is that everything that exists - all creatures, objects, natural phemomena, subatomic paticles, etc - is god and that nothing is more god than anything else (ie god is all and nothing - really different from the standard definition of diety). And there is a focus is on the unity and interconnectedness of all.

I don't even have to go into ultra modern physics to show how it connects to science. Just think in terms of thermodynamics. Energy can never be created or destroyed. The universe is made up of differentiated forms of energy (matter=energy per thermodynamics). The universe is a system, so any change in energy state is going to some degree effect the entire universe so that the sum total will always remain balanced, not to mention that everything has a gravitational pull which is still felt no matter how weakly over lightyears, etc etc. Now new discoveries into the nature of thermodynamics have given us newer insights into physics which were partially responsible for the theory of self-organization (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SELFORG.html)- which show how the universe forms itself into complex structures (including life) all by following natural law and without some mystical outside 'guiding force' because the universe itself with all of its complex forms acting and reacting with each other is its own guiding force (ie - all is god).

Pantheism is just a 'spiritual' way of looking at physical law.

Yes. Think about the ancient concepts of Brahman and Tao and the more modern ideas of the holomovement and "web of life" stuff. Basically all pantheism says is that everything that exists - all creatures, objects, natural phemomena, subatomic paticles, etc - is god and that nothing is more god than anything else (ie god is all and nothing - really different from the standard definition of diety). And there is a focus is on the unity and interconnectedness of all.

I don't even have to go into ultra modern physics to show how it connects to science. Just think in terms of thermodynamics. Energy can never be created or destroyed. The universe is made up of differentiated forms of energy (matter=energy per thermodynamics). The universe is a system, so any change in energy state is going to some degree effect the entire universe so that the sum total will always remain balanced, not to mention that everything has a gravitational pull which is still felt no matter how weakly over lightyears, etc etc. Now new discoveries into the nature of thermodynamics have given us newer insights into physics which were partially responsible for the theory of self-organization- which show how the universe forms itself into complex structures (including life) all by following natural law and without some mystical outside 'guiding force' because the universe itself with all of its complex forms acting and reacting with each other is its own guiding force (ie - all is god).

Pantheism is just a 'spiritual' way of looking at physical law.Hallelujah, another true believer.

I adopted an agnostic viewpoint some time back because, among other things, the theories you summerize here. I like to take it a bit further and acknowledge that we primitve humans probably lack the capacity to comprehend or understand the true nature of "god" or the plan or force that binds the universe together. Instead of whorshiping some human construct of a paternal diety that has our interests foremost, I acknowledge our ingnorance and the primal fear that we are not that important in the grand scheme of things. The truth is more likely to come from science than religion if it comes at all.

I can no longer do the devil's advocate thing, folks. My own opinions are getting mishmashed in. Sorry if I did a poor job.

Yes. Think about the ancient concepts of Brahman and Tao and the more modern ideas of the holomovement and "web of life" stuff. Basically all pantheism says is that everything that exists - all creatures, objects, natural phemomena, subatomic paticles, etc - is god and that nothing is more god than anything else (ie god is all and nothing - really different from the standard definition of diety). And there is a focus is on the unity and interconnectedness of all.

I don't even have to go into ultra modern physics to show how it connects to science. Just think in terms of thermodynamics. Energy can never be created or destroyed. The universe is made up of differentiated forms of energy (matter=energy per thermodynamics). The universe is a system, so any change in energy state is going to some degree effect the entire universe so that the sum total will always remain balanced, not to mention that everything has a gravitational pull which is still felt no matter how weakly over lightyears, etc etc. Now new discoveries into the nature of thermodynamics have given us newer insights into physics which were partially responsible for the theory of self-organization (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SELFORG.html)- which show how the universe forms itself into complex structures (including life) all by following natural law and without some mystical outside 'guiding force' because the universe itself with all of its complex forms acting and reacting with each other is its own guiding force (ie - all is god).

Pantheism is just a 'spiritual' way of looking at physical law.

Cool, I grok that. How does this concept of Universe as Deity deal with entropy?

Cool, I grok that. How does this concept of Universe as Deity deal with entropy?

Science of course. Not being a physicist and being horrid at math, I sort of go along with some of the more complex proofs, but there is a peer review, and the theory that most of self organization is based upon that of dissipative structures (which is at the basic level of explaining the entropy problem) did win Prigogine the nobel prize, so while far from proven it has a decent basis. Still some gaps as it is all really new for physics. The neat thing is that it goes way beyond just open systems to show how sometimes the 2nd law causes the increase in order.

I would probably get the terms garbled especially this late at night, so this may be easier:

http://www.calresco.org/extropy.htm

http://psoup.math.wisc.edu/archive/sosfaq.html

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notebooks/dissipative-structures.html
(the above one finds flaws with the theory, but since I was searching around for things to make it easier to explain thought I'd throw it in for fairness)

http://users.viawest.net/~keirsey/pofdisstruct.html

not sure if these mention it but there is also a theory that as the universe expands the maximum possible entropy increases faster than the net gain of entropy thus in effect causing a negative balance of entropy and sort of "forcing" structures to form - Eric Chaisson is one of the physicists behind this idea ( I just read the damn book! have to mention it everywhere! called Cosmic Evolution!)

Hallelujah, another true believer.

I adopted an agnostic viewpoint some time back because, among other things, the theories you summerize here. I like to take it a bit further and acknowledge that we primitve humans probably lack the capacity to comprehend or understand the true nature of "god" or the plan or force that binds the universe together. Instead of whorshiping some human construct of a paternal diety that has our interests foremost, I acknowledge our ingnorance and the primal fear that we are not that important in the grand scheme of things. The truth is more likely to come from science than religion if it comes at all.
Ah, but humans need a symbol to focus on, to identify with the inexplicable thing. Hence, the projection of a "human construct of a paternal diety" and his eventual anthropomorphization (through the building of a relationship with "him" or "her"). In this sense, god serves another purpose: that of a transcendental reflection of the human mind, which provides for spiritual learning and growth.

Ah, but humans need a symbol to focus on, to identify with the inexplicable thing. Hence, the projection of a "human construct of a paternal diety" and his eventual anthropomorphization (through the building of a relationship with "him" or "her"). In this sense, god serves another purpose: that of a transcendental reflection of the human mind, which provides for spiritual learning and growth.
So do imaginary friends (I will find the report that I ran across … general idea is a imaginary friend is a reflection of self)

But I feel no need to make a formal construct of him much less bias my whole world view point on him/her controlling everything

So do imaginary friends (I will find the report that I ran across … general idea is a imaginary friend is a reflection of self)
Yes; and imaginary friends can be equally as insightful.

But I feel no need to make a formal construct of him much less bias my whole world view point on him/her controlling everything
I agree. I thnk that mankind's consciousness has advanced past the need for the formal construct established more than 2 millennia ago, and that there are too many people today blindly clinging to it. Our image of the transcendant needs to progress as our consciousness grows, and that brings us full circle to the beginning of this thread.

I ran across this quote on ApatheticAgnostic.com:

While a myth can illustrate a truth, it is not The Truth.

I think this is something to keep in mind. (no pun intended).

I ran across this quote on ApatheticAgnostic.com:

While a myth can illustrate a truth, it is not The Truth.

I think this is something to keep in mind. (no pun intended).
A myth is a metaphor, it *is* the truth that it represents, and to read it as something else --for instance, as just a story, or worse, literally --is to look at it the wrong way. When a metaphor is read literally it loses all meaning.

it loses all meaning.

Or maybe it never had any to begin with? It merely causes a train of thought in us that leads us to the truth? Is it the moral of the story that is the "truth," not the story itself?

Nice little grey area there... ;)
:rolleyes:

I ran across this quote on ApatheticAgnostic.com:

While a myth can illustrate a truth, it is not The Truth.

I think this is something to keep in mind. (no pun intended).

A myth is a metaphor, it *is* the truth that it represents, and to read it as something else --for instance, as just a story, or worse, literally --is to look at it the wrong way. When a metaphor is read literally it loses all meaning.

The quote illustrates how the objective is given more value than the subjective.

And that is where many problems arise, where science and religion come into conflict- when one is thought of as more real than the other. Everyone lives largely in a subjective reality - there is no escaping it. Just because the objective is the material reality that is common to all doesn't make it any more "real" to an individual than the subjective. To think of the objective as more real than the subjective is damaging to the psyche - it denies the concept of a valid *personal reality*.

This leads to One True Way Disease - the assertion that the subjective is the objective, and thus to the insistence that everyone believe in exactly the same myths, and in some cases, eventually that objective reality conform to the subjective reality that is the myth (literal creationsists, people who think the Vampire Lestat is objectively real, etc)

Or maybe it never had any to begin with? It merely causes a train of thought in us that leads us to the truth?
Well, the whole field of study of mythology demonstrates otherwise. :-)

Is it the moral of the story that is the "truth," not the story itself?

Nice little grey area there... ;)
:rolleyes:
The truth of a metaphor is in looking past the words: the words paint an image or an idea apart from their literal meaning. The metaphor, then, becomes symbolic of the ideas inherent in the image they represent.

I really dislike Keats, but he makes for a good example:Oh for a beaker full of the warm South,
Full of the true, the blushful Hippocrene,
With beaded bubbles winking at the brim,
And purple-stainèd mouth;
That I might drink, and leave the world unseen,
And with thee fade away into the forest dim
What is Keats expressing, here? Is it drinking wine? or is it melancholy? as you read it, use your own feelings to determine, based on the images presented. The feeling expressed is the truth of the poem. "The truth" is experienced by you, as you read the words and feel it stir you.

Do we need to know if Keats was feeling sadness or glee when he wrote this? Not really. Its value is in what we get out of it as we read. Whatever the truth of Keat's emotional state at the time, he *communicated* saddness in the poem.

Myths --the ancient stories --are metaphors. They contain metaphors (that's a given), but whole parts of them, and even the whole of them taken together in context, are also, in many cases, metaphors representative of truths. They are written in the language of poetry.

A moral is different than the meaning of a myth. A moral is a lesson inherent from the flow of ideas presented in the story; the meaning of the myth is the immanent abstract meaning that the story portrays or communicates to the reader. It is not a flow of ideas that leads to the "lesson" but the inherent imagry that stirs the lesson in your head, heart, soul, as you read it, as you experience it.

A myth informs* the way we think, the way we understand, and the way we experience, and ultimately, if done well, the way we live our lives. It is dependant not only on the flow of ideas presented, but the way they are presented by the storyteller. A fellow on APTN (a television channel) said it well: he said, "The storyteller tells a story. And you listen, and listen," (and his hand is moving upwards indicating levels) "and listen, until you become the story."

It's all about the experiential view, and identifying with the symbol presented.


*informs = forms from within

...

Here's an article from skepdic.com talking about the PEAR experiments. White Hats, can you please review this and see if it's legit from a statistical analysis perspective?

http://www.skepdic.com/pear.html
[begin diversion/] OK, based on a quick read through, the article makes some valid points. Ones I would make:

With millions of trials, just about any variation from the expected mean is going to be a statistically significant result. But the effect found was only 0.02%. That result may be statistically significant, but it's scarcely material. As the article says, statistical significance =/= importance.

Then there's Operator 10: if he is taken out of the experiment, the result drops to 0/01%, which could be expected by chance. For me that makes Operator 10 actually more interesting than the rest of the experiment - either he's faking his results (or screwed up) or he's the psychic. We're told he's been investigated and found to be kosher, but no further details are given.

As reported in the article, the results were not clinically reported by the experimenters (rounding errors), which is a bad sign. However, that could be the article that's misreporting. (The article itself is not a neutral source.)

Generally, with an effect as small as that reported, I'd be looking at the experimental conditions and controls applied rather than the statistics. It would take only a very small experimental or measurement bias to completely wipe out the validity of the results.

In this last regard, there's one potentially very important point that the article missed, which is that it doesn't specify the random number generator used in the trials. If it was computer-based or mechanical, it couldn't be completely random. Current software random number generators, for example, are good enough for most purposes but show up patterns over very heavily repeated iterations. That's still true now, probably even more true over the period of the experiment.

So I find the experiment, as reported, less than convincing. That and the fact that it hasn't revolutionised neuroscience (that I'm aware of anyway).[/end diversion]

[begin apology to people with a life/] Sorry, guys [/end apology to those with a life]

*nods* about the only difference between 'metaphysical' books that describe a pantheistic philosophy and books describing recent theories in physics is the terminology used
:)
Come back, Bishop Berkely. All is forgiven!

Cool, I grok that. How does this concept of Universe as Deity deal with entropy?
Damn. We're getting frighteningly close to a consensus here. I'm counting about six of the regulars on this thread signing up to this conception.

Quick, someone say something controversial, like they believe in cause and effect or something.

Come back, Bishop Berkely. All is forgiven!

Hmmm... maybe a mix of Bishop Berkely and Spinoza?

[quote]Quick, someone say something controversial, like they believe in cause and effect or something.[/i]

Which would be the controversial part - the cause and effect or the something?

Hmmm... maybe a mix of Bishop Berkely and Spinoza?

[quote]Quick, someone say something controversial, like they believe in cause and effect or something.[/i]

Which would be the controversial part - the cause and effect or the something?
Sounds like a working mix of philosophies to me. Probably what I would go for is someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to believe in God.

....


Well, saying something would be a start, but not necessarily controversial.

Or maybe it never had any to begin with? It merely causes a train of thought in us that leads us to the truth? Is it the moral of the story that is the "truth," not the story itself?

Nice little grey area there... ;)
:rolleyes:

Thank you! That is exactly what I was getting at. The myth itself has no truth. Just as the tarot cards have no truth of their own. There is no independent meaning inherent in a story. To steal a line: "It's all subjective."

The quote illustrates how the objective is given more value than the subjective.

Um, how? It says that a myth can illustrate a truth. If your personal reality is subjective, then that myth contains no truth of its own, only what truth you impart to it. Terra-Domina, help me out here, please.

Well, the whole field of study of mythology demonstrates otherwise. :-)

Sorry, Willamena, but I'm going to have to continue to disagree with you on part of this myth thing. Maybe your study of mythology demonstrates otherwise, but not mine. My study of mythology looks at myths to learn about the attitudes and cultures of the times, true. But my study of mythology also realizes that the originators of the myths really believed these things happened!

Just as the modern-day myths of the Judeo-Christian mythos are believed by the bulk of Christians to have really happened, at least to some extent.

So, the whole myth as metaphor concept can only go so far. It's like Bigfoot. Bigfoot can be seen as a metaphor for our collective yearning for something to exist beyond the realms of science. But for the people who really believe Bigfoot exists (and there are a plethora of them), then they really believe Bigfoot exits! I think this needs to be taken into account when looking for metaphors in myths. Something that also needs to be accounted for: the fact that many myths have a kernel of actual events at their core. These stories usually aren't made up from whole cloth. So the actual events help to shape the myths, also. So, you see, I don't think you can read a myth in isolation and get at some inherent truth. If you try that, then all you are doing is imprinting the things you already believe, or your subconscious is percolating, onto the story.

If myth has an inherent truth to it, then everyone should get the same things out of it, yes? And yet they don't. Thus, the subjective comes into play. And once the subjective comes into play, the idea of anything having an independent truth goes out the window. Everything subjective relies on the subject to inform it.

[begin diversion/] OK, based on a quick read through, the article makes some valid points.

Thanks, White Hats! I appreciate a second opinion.

Quick, someone say something controversial, like they believe in cause and effect or something.

I do believe in cause and effect. If you don't, then I can come and cause you some very effective pain by smacking you upside the head. :p

Sorry, Willamena, but I'm going to have to continue to disagree with you on part of this myth thing. Maybe your study of mythology demonstrates otherwise, but not mine. My study of mythology looks at myths to learn about the attitudes and cultures of the times, true. But my study of mythology also realizes that the originators of the myths really believed these things happened!

Just as the modern-day myths of the Judeo-Christian mythos are believed by the bulk of Christians to have really happened, at least to some extent.

So, the whole myth as metaphor concept can only go so far. It's like Bigfoot. Bigfoot can be seen as a metaphor for our collective yearning for something to exist beyond the realms of science. But for the people who really believe Bigfoot exists (and there are a plethora of them), then they really believe Bigfoot exits! I think this needs to be taken into account when looking for metaphors in myths. Something that also needs to be accounted for: the fact that many myths have a kernel of actual events at their core. These stories usually aren't made up from whole cloth. So the actual events help to shape the myths, also. So, you see, I don't think you can read a myth in isolation and get at some inherent truth. If you try that, then all you are doing is imprinting the things you already believe, or your subconscious is percolating, onto the story.

If myth has an inherent truth to it, then everyone should get the same things out of it, yes? And yet they don't. Thus, the subjective comes into play. And once the subjective comes into play, the idea of anything having an independent truth goes out the window. Everything subjective relies on the subject to inform it.
Are you sure about that bit in bold? Do you know that Moses believed the creation story when he told it the first time? Or did he just make it up to help them understand that God made the Earth? You don't and can't possibly know the answer to that.

Are you sure about that bit in bold? Do you know that Moses believed the creation story when he told it the first time? Or did he just make it up to help them understand that God made the Earth? You don't and can't possibly know the answer to that.

I freely admit that I can't and don't know the answer with 100% certainty, but I can look at modern day myths, and see that there are people who truly believe them. And we're not talking about a small minority either. Ask the average American Christian on the street if he thinks Jesus died on the Cross. After they finish giving you funny looks, they'll tell you yes, and then hide their children from you. They'll think you're crazy, because to them, it is so self-evident that this actually happened that there's no reason to even ask.

And yes, I know that not all Christians are this way. Not even all American Christians are this way. There is a well-informed minority in America that will understand why you're asking, and then give you a well-thought out opinion. But these people are few and far between, especially in rural and suburban areas. I can't speak with any certainty about other countries, but I have read that Europeans tend to be a bit more sane about it all.

I freely admit that I can't and don't know the answer with 100% certainty, but I can look at modern day myths, and see that there are people who truly believe them. And we're not talking about a small minority either. Ask the average American Christian on the street if he thinks Jesus died on the Cross. After they finish giving you funny looks, they'll tell you yes, and then hide their children from you. They'll think you're crazy, because to them, it is so self-evident that this actually happened that there's no reason to even ask.

And yes, I know that not all Christians are this way. Not even all American Christians are this way. There is a well-informed minority in America that will understand why you're asking, and then give you a well-thought out opinion. But these people are few and far between, especially in rural and suburban areas. I can't speak with any certainty about other countries, but I have read that Europeans tend to be a bit more sane about it all.
I like how you refer to "not even all American Christians" we may have a large number but they really are not that much more fanatical then Christians everywhere (they are just currently causing a ruckus)

But my study of mythology also realizes that the originators of the myths really believed these things happened!
Then I think you should get better mythology instructors. ;-)

If myth has an inherent truth to it, then everyone should get the same things out of it, yes? And yet they don't.
Then the "inherent truth" you are looking for, shared and sharable by all, is an objective truth.

You place truth and reality solely in the realm of the objective. The subjective then becomes secondary...

Thus, the subjective comes into play. And once the subjective comes into play, the idea of anything having an independent truth goes out the window. Everything subjective relies on the subject to inform it.
Right; myth does not require any independent objective truely-true truth for it to work and do its job. That is something the old myths and the modern-day version of myths-as-lies have in common.

It is not the subject who informs subjective things; they are a part of the subject, inherent in him, not something separate, so the informing they do of him is his being them.

Myth does not require a shared "inherent truth"; its "inherent truth" is subjectively gleaned. It requires an individual to look at reality and truth primarily both subjectively and objectively at the same time.

EDIT: When I say "myth" without further qualifying it, I am referring only to the ancient myths, not the modern common usage of the term.

I freely admit that I can't and don't know the answer with 100% certainty, but I can look at modern day myths, and see that there are people who truly believe them.
Modern-day myths have no relation to the ancient myths that were written for, and to support, religions. The modern common definition of myth is equivalent to "a lie that is commonly accepted as true". There are no parallels to the ancient myths in modern stories, although efforts like Star Wars have come very close to it (even spawned it's own mock religion).

I do believe in cause and effect. If you don't, then I can come and cause you some very effective pain by smacking you upside the head. :p
Ah, but only if I have failed to develop the self-discipline required not to allow myself to feed the pain. :p

Modern-day myths have no relation to the ancient myths that were written for, and to support, religions. The modern common definition of myth is equivalent to "a lie that is commonly accepted as true". There are no parallels to the ancient myths in modern stories, although efforts like Star Wars have come very close to it (even spawned it's own mock religion).
What about the Magical Realism school of writing? Or is that something else entirely?

What about the Magical Realism school of writing? Or is that something else entirely?
This is the first I have heard of Magical Realism. A quick web search gives this description:A literary mode rather than a distinguishable genre, magical realism aims to seize the paradox of the union of opposites. For instance, it challenges polar opposites like life and death and the pre-colonial past versus the post-industrial present. Magical realism is characterized by two conflicting perspectives, one based on a rational view of reality and the other on the acceptance of the supernatural as prosaic reality. Magical realism differs from pure fantasy primarily because it is set in a normal, modern world with authentic descriptions of humans and society. According to Angel Flores, magical realism involves the fusion of the real and the fantastic, or as he claims, "an amalgamation of realism and fantasy".
The italics are mine. Based on this, I would have to say that yes, myth and magical realism are different things. I'm not sure what "prosaic reality" means, but it seems to suggest that the supernatural is nothing more than literary fantasy from the minds of imaginative writers like Steven King.

This is the first I have heard of Magical Realism. A quick web search gives this description:
The italics are mine. Based on this, I would have to say that yes, myth and magical realism are different things. I'm not sure what "prosaic reality" means, but it seems to suggest that the supernatural is nothing more than literary fantasy from the minds of imaginative writers like Steven King.
I think the magical realists would be upset to be compared to Stephen King, but I think you're right in that they're writing the supernatural or magical elements of their stories from their imaginations rather than their beliefs. Not that I'm any great authority on the genre (hence my question).

I think the magical realists would be upset to be compared to Stephen King, but I think you're right in that they're writing the supernatural or magical elements of their stories from their imaginations rather than their beliefs. Not that I'm any great authority on the genre (hence my question).
Heh. Steven King and Clive Barker are the first that come to my mind when "supernatural" is mentioned.

Sorry to interrupt...

Can someone (re)-enlighten me as to what "subjective truth" is? A definition? The discussion managed to lose me - I don't see what point you're trying to make, since I don't even know what you mean by "subjective truth" anymore. :confused: :( :(

Um, how? It says that a myth can illustrate a truth. If your personal reality is subjective, then that myth contains no truth of its own, only what truth you impart to it. Terra-Domina, help me out here, please.

While a myth can illustrate a truth, it is not The Truth.

It may just be my way of reading but the implication that I see is that an (indeterminate article) lower case "t" truth is lesser than (capital determinate article) uppercase "t" truth.

Now a truth is a fact, verity, reality, etc.

Furthermore I see an implication that humans are somehow able to know The Truth (or else why distinguish). Meaning that there is one real truth out there. While I will say that there is one real material world, I do not think that it is possible for humans to know it. In otherwords, humans are not capable of thinking completely objectively about anything. So it sets up a false dichotomy between using myth to discover a truth as opposed to things like observing friends to discover a truth.

Thinking that there is a "The Truth" that humans can know (or at least know without totally devoiding themselves of all emotion and preconcieved ideas and embedded learning) leads people for some reason to assert that their truth is The Truth.

Sorry to interrupt...

Can someone (re)-enlighten me as to what "subjective truth" is? A definition? The discussion managed to lose me - I don't see what point you're trying to make, since I don't even know what you mean by "subjective truth" anymore. :confused: :( :(
Truth is truth, and the phrase "subjective truth" or "objective truth" does not imply a thing different from the truth, or even different types of truths, just different ways of looking at truth.

True things can either be objectively perceived (from an abstracted perspective outside the self, where things that are "true" are universally consistent in all cases, for all people ...except for those whom we would reasonably have reason to doubt their sanity) or subjectively perceived (from a perspective of the mind, filtered through the senses, where things that are "true" are unique for and by one person, in any one given instance); hence we have the potential for fascinating courtroom dramas, with witnesses giving contradictory testamonies, each claiming "the truth" as they saw it. The individual testamonials can be referred to as "subjective truth", or the truth as perceived subjectively.

Existence is a cool truth; "things that exist are" is inherently true, whether things are viewed subjectively or objectively. The big difference is that things viewed subjectively are given less weight and less credibility than things viewed objectively, even though the latter is the one that requires a unique mental effort to accomplish (the ability to abstract), and even though the former is natural, effortless and inescapable for all humans. An even greater difference is that some things viewed subjectively can have no material existence; for instance, if I hold an idea in my mind and tell no one, the thing that I am thinking of has no material existence, yet it exists for me. This has implications on truth, because we habitually allocate what truthfully exists to the physical, material world that can be objectively examined and catalogued by science. Hence, what exists in the imagination is regarded as less real, and therefore less true, than the very same thing brought out into the physical world, for instance by voice, by written word, or by action. Until we "real-ize" it, or make it real, it is "only imaginary".

"Subjective truth" is a bit of a misnomer, a childish simplification, and I've tried to make a conscious effort to correct myself thinking in such terms.

Sorry, Willamena, but I'm going to have to continue to disagree with you on part of this myth thing. Maybe your study of mythology demonstrates otherwise, but not mine. My study of mythology looks at myths to learn about the attitudes and cultures of the times, true. But my study of mythology also realizes that the originators of the myths really believed these things happened!

Just as the modern-day myths of the Judeo-Christian mythos are believed by the bulk of Christians to have really happened, at least to some extent.



Most modern day study of mythology is underlied by modern day ideas about belief. It can lead to some false assumptions. Obviously I don't have a time machine to prove what the ancients thought, so I am basing this on observation. But look around at all the religions in the world today (and even in some of the differences in the doctrine and practices of the different denominations of American Christians).

The trend appears to be that the more people believe in myth as literal truth, the less ritual accompanies the beliefs. The believers of the ancient myths tended to have a _lot_ of rituals. Voudouns have a _lot_ of rituals. Practicers of Shinto do things in a very ritualistic way. Buddhists have rituals. Catholic have more ritual than Fundamentalist Christians who have little to no ritual at all. Of all these that exist today, Fundamentalist Christians are the most likely to hold the myths that inform their religion as literal, objective truth.

Most modern day study of mythology is underlied by modern day ideas about belief. It can lead to some false assumptions. Obviously I don't have a time machine to prove what the ancients thought, so I am basing this on observation. But look around at all the religions in the world today (and even in some of the differences in the doctrine and practices of the different denominations of American Christians).

The trend appears to be that the more people believe in myth as literal truth, the less ritual accompanies the beliefs. The believers of the ancient myths tended to have a _lot_ of rituals. Voudouns have a _lot_ of rituals. Practicers of Shinto do things in a very ritualistic way. Buddhists have rituals. Catholic have more ritual than Fundamentalist Christians who have little to no ritual at all. Of all these that exist today, Fundamentalist Christians are the most likely to hold the myths that inform their religion as literal, objective truth.
This is an interesting argument. A couple of thoughts occur to me:
1. Rituals are a characteristic of religions that have survived over a very long time. Indeed, there is a very strong argument that robust adherence to rituals aids survival of a religion through identification of the individual with the group and the fostering of a conservative mindset. So rituals may be more to do with group survival than inherent belief types. Also, the longer the history of a religious group, the more 'primitive' their scripture and so the more likely a mismatch with modern, 'scientific' truths and the more difficult for followers to adhere to a literal reading of their scriptures.
2. I don't know if I'll get this one past Willamena ( ;) ), but is there a sense in which the rituals themselves can become the myth? An example: in modern Taoism, adherence to the Tao-ch'ang ritual in the temple is designed to allow union with the Tao. The ritual is the physical expression of an extremely abstract truth. A simpler example - yoga.
3. One counter-example: Islam - strong adherence to ritual, strong adherence to a literal interpretation of their scripture.

Just thoughts. Happy to have them shot down.

Truth is truth, and the phrase "subjective truth" or "objective truth" does not imply a thing different from the truth, or even different types of truths, just different ways of looking at truth.

True things can either be objectively perceived (from an abstracted perspective outside the self, where things that are "true" are universally consistent in all cases, for all people ...except for those whom we would reasonably have reason to doubt their sanity) or subjectively perceived (from a perspective of the mind, filtered through the senses, where things that are "true" are unique for and by one person, in any one given instance); hence we have the potential for fascinating courtroom dramas, with witnesses giving contradictory testamonies, each claiming "the truth" as they saw it. The individual testamonials can be referred to as "subjective truth", or the truth as perceived subjectively.

Existence is a cool truth; "things that exist are" is inherently true, whether things are viewed subjectively or objectively. The big difference is that things viewed subjectively are given less weight and less credibility than things viewed objectively, even though the latter is the one that requires a unique mental effort to accomplish (the ability to abstract), and even though the former is natural, effortless and inescapable for all humans. An even greater difference is that some things viewed subjectively can have no material existence; for instance, if I hold an idea in my mind and tell no one, the thing that I am thinking of has no material existence, yet it exists for me. This has implications on truth, because we habitually allocate what truthfully exists to the physical, material world that can be objectively examined and catalogued by science. Hence, what exists in the imagination is regarded as less real, and therefore less true, than the very same thing brought out into the physical world, for instance by voice, by written word, or by action. Until we "real-ize" it, or make it real, it is "only imaginary".


Interesting... it seems to be a difference in definitions, just. Or a difference in expressions.

Using a simple example - an orange. If there is an orange sitting on the table, which different people can see/feel, everyone agrees that "there is an orange on the table in front of me" is truth, an objective verifiable truth.

Now, say you go outside into an open field, close your eyes, and think of an orange on a table in front of you - in that case, if you said "there is an orange on the table in front of me," that would not be truth in any sense of the word. What WOULD be truth is the statement "I'm imagining an orange on a table in front of me" or "I see an orange on the table in front of me" or something to that effect.

...also implicit in the way I think of "truth" is the idea that "truth" only applies to a statement - one can determine whether a claim is true or false... something like "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" is either TRUTH or NOT truth, but trying to determine whether the sentence "go forth and multiply" is truth or not is meaningless. But the statement "I feel as if the walls are closing in on me" is as much "truth" as "on Earth, objects fall down at approximately nine point eight meters per second." Science chooses to deal with the latter more than the former because it's easier - we can find out what the truth is, as opposed to 'subjective' truths that we can't find out, in the general case.

Definitions, definitions... I don't think we're on the same page here. :(

It's silly to argue about facets of "truth" when we don't even agree on what "truth" is...

This is an interesting argument. A couple of thoughts occur to me:
1. Rituals are a characteristic of religions that have survived over a very long time. Indeed, there is a very strong argument that robust adherence to rituals aids survival of a religion through identification of the individual with the group and the fostering of a conservative mindset. So rituals may be more to do with group survival than inherent belief types. Also, the longer the history of a religious group, the more 'primitive' their scripture and so the more likely a mismatch with modern, 'scientific' truths and the more difficult for followers to adhere to a literal reading of their scriptures.
2. I don't know if I'll get this one past Willamena ( ;) ), but is there a sense in which the rituals themselves can become the myth? An example: in modern Taoism, adherence to the Tao-ch'ang ritual in the temple is designed to allow union with the Tao. The ritual is the physical expression of an extremely abstract truth. A simpler example - yoga.
3. One counter-example: Islam - strong adherence to ritual, strong adherence to a literal interpretation of their scripture.

Just thoughts. Happy to have them shot down.

1)Perhaps. Post Reformation, it seems as though a new denomination of Christianity has sprung up every few weeks or so (lack of ritual=lack of cohesion). On the other hand, if there are also the many Neo-Pagan groups with very little literal belief and mega amounts of ritual and they seem to form a splinter every other day or so. But then again, one could argue that they first came to be in a "post-belief" era.

Part of what first started me thinking about the ritual vs belief theory is that The Romans of the empire area didn't _care_ whether the Christians or anyone else believed in the divinity of the gods, including the Emperor, but it was punishable by death not to participate in the public sacrifices, because then it became treason because the gods might punish the Empire (that and it was treason since the Emperor was one of the gods). I have also been told by some Jewish people that a belief in God is virtuous but not necessary as long as one follows the Laws, because otherwise, God might get pissy. It seems sort of a half-belief, or at least a placing ritual before belief (unlike most denominations of Christianity which hold belief as foremost if not the only required thing).

I will definitely have to think about this more.

2)Of course rituals are myth. Mythic poetry in motion.

3)Timewise came into being between Catholism and the Protestant Reformation... will factor that into my thinking along with the other things in point number 1.

Interesting... it seems to be a difference in definitions, just. Or a difference in expressions.

Using a simple example - an orange. If there is an orange sitting on the table, which different people can see/feel, everyone agrees that "there is an orange on the table in front of me" is truth, an objective verifiable truth.

The orange as a roundish, edible thing could be objectively verified. The table, however, is soley a learned and not an objective fact. The physical structure is objective truth, but it could very well be a raised podium for standing on sitting on, etc.

This is even before the "orange experience" (tasty, smiles, sunshine, rain, rainbows, and puppies - yes I am weird) gets factored in. Now with an orange, it is somewhat easy to separate the experience form the object. However the orange could also be a ball or a decoration as well as food. Different people may or may not realize how their feelings about an orange affect their mindset (or even that it does). The "table experience" is a bit more difficult - most people will absolutely insist that the object's inherent truth is its use and not its physical structure.


Now, say you go outside into an open field, close your eyes, and think of an orange on a table in front of you - in that case, if you said "there is an orange on the table in front of me," that would not be truth in any sense of the word. What WOULD be truth is the statement "I'm imagining an orange on a table in front of me" or "I see an orange on the table in front of me" or something to that effect.


If the idea of an orange on a table has enough meaning to a person it could be a form of truth even if "only" imagined. That is the essence of myth, of internal truth.

Now if that very same person would actually expect a random stranger also walking through that field to see an orange on a table, that goes into mistaking internal truth for physical, objective truth (ie, what happens when certain religious types insist that their god is real for everyone).


...also implicit in the way I think of "truth" is the idea that "truth" only applies to a statement - one can determine whether a claim is true or false... something like "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" is either TRUTH or NOT truth, but trying to determine whether the sentence "go forth and multiply" is truth or not is meaningless. But the statement "I feel as if the walls are closing in on me" is as much "truth" as "on Earth, objects fall down at approximately nine point eight meters per second." Science chooses to deal with the latter more than the former because it's easier - we can find out what the truth is, as opposed to 'subjective' truths that we can't find out, in the general case.

Definitions, definitions... I don't think we're on the same page here. :(

It's silly to argue about facets of "truth" when we don't even agree on what "truth" is...

Well, it seems as though we mostly (except for uberpeas somewhere back there) agree that the physical world is real, and therefore truth.

We all also seem to agree -although perhaps to differing degrees -that individual perceptions are true, and that we can't reasonably expect anyone else to have these same truths.

The biggest difference seems to be on the relative importance of these types of truths and whether or not they are actually two different type of truth or just one type of truth as viewed from different perspectives.

I like how you refer to "not even all American Christians" we may have a large number but they really are not that much more fanatical then Christians everywhere (they are just currently causing a ruckus)

Well, I didn't want to speak about a group of people I have exactly zero contact with.

And as to how many Christians we have, well, considering anywhere from 75% to 90% of Americans self-report as Christians (and yes, that's a wide gap), that still gives us a significant portion of the world's Christian population of 1 - 1.5 billion.

Then I think you should get better mythology instructors. ;-)

Okay, just how arrogant do you have to be to imply that my mythology instructors were in some way deficient? That's about the snottiest thing I've ever seen you write, and that's saying something.

Right; myth does not require any independent objective truely-true truth for it to work and do its job.

The fact that you use the phraise I bolded in your quote shows that even you don't really believe the things you have been saying, Willamena. Is there a truly-untrue truth out there somewhere?

Using a simple example - an orange. If there is an orange sitting on the table, which different people can see/feel, everyone agrees that "there is an orange on the table in front of me" is truth, an objective verifiable truth.

Now, say you go outside into an open field, close your eyes, and think of an orange on a table in front of you - in that case, if you said "there is an orange on the table in front of me," that would not be truth in any sense of the word. What WOULD be truth is the statement "I'm imagining an orange on a table in front of me" or "I see an orange on the table in front of me" or something to that effect.
Yes, good example; the language we use is also geared towards expressing only objectivity as what is real and truthful. This is the limitation we must work within to get our spiritual ideas out. We must qualify the orange in the imagination "truthfully" as imagination in order to be understood, because stating it plainly implies it has objective reality. Yet the thought of it exists, there in the imagination, every bit as real for the person who imagines it as a real orange on a table, albeit overlayed on reality, and once expressed as imagination it can be appreciated by listeners only as imagination.

And the poet in the same field would say, "This lovely field, in its orange-blossomed glory, is a round orange on a table in front of me that I shall relish!" He uses objectivity and subjectivity at the same time to express a truth that goes beyond simply stating the existence (in prose) of material things, that paints an image in metaphor. Notice that the use of this skill is to express things that are entirely subjective: his delight in the colour of orange, his joy, appreciation of beauty, etc --in other words, spiritual things.

...also implicit in the way I think of "truth" is the idea that "truth" only applies to a statement - one can determine whether a claim is true or false... the statement "I feel as if the walls are closing in on me" is as much "truth" as "on Earth, objects fall down at approximately nine point eight meters per second." Science chooses to deal with the latter more than the former because it's easier - we can find out what the truth is, as opposed to 'subjective' truths that we can't find out, in the general case.

Definitions, definitions... I don't think we're on the same page here. :(

It's silly to argue about facets of "truth" when we don't even agree on what "truth" is...
Yes; subjectively expressed statements, such as "I feel the walls closing in" are as "true" as objectively stated ones, but they are true only for the individual who states them. Where it makes a difference is in the weight a listener would give them; on one hand the listener has, "okay, you feel bad, there's nothing I can do about it, there-there, go have some chocolate and you'll feel better tomorrow, " and pats on the head; and on the other hand, one has "yes, finally some facts! let's go play science with them and make magnificent inroads into human existence!"

Religion (and divination, and other such spiritual endeavours) has as much to offer in its own way as science. Our collective consciousness is moving away from that, even for religously-inclined folk in today's world, because of the objectivity bias (and other factors).

Modern-day myths have no relation to the ancient myths that were written for, and to support, religions. The modern common definition of myth is equivalent to "a lie that is commonly accepted as true". There are no parallels to the ancient myths in modern stories, although efforts like Star Wars have come very close to it (even spawned it's own mock religion).

See, now you're starting to talk about Joseph Campbell's "Myth As Metaphor" concept. And he is probably spinning in his grave right now! Never once did he put forward that definition. Have you ever actually read Campbell? And let's get our definitions sorted out right now. By read, I mean have you picked up a book, looked inside the cover, seen words, started reading them and then stopped when you got to the other cover? If not, I recommend The Hero With A Thousand Faces. It's a little dense, but if you persevere, you'll get through it eventually. It helps if you have at least a passing familiarity with Jung, as well.

Definintion of myth from the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. a) A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
b) Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.

2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.

3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).

So, if your definition is the commonly held one today, why is it at the bottom of the list?

Answer: Because your definition is not the commonly held one today. It is the one used in psych and philosophy classes, because that's where Jung and Campbell belong. And yes, I know that the subjective world is very much a psych/philosophy kind of topic.

But to state categorically that ancient myths were written only to support religion is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. When JC put forward his concept of "Myth As Metaphor" he was speaking of his studies of the old myths, i.e. Greek, Norse, Judeo-Christian, even several African tribal and American Indian (quite controversial guy, old Joe) myths. While he never once said that those old myths were not believed by the people that originated them, he also was speaking of them in his psychological theories. That's why we can teach Campbell in literature classes.

BTW, he did also see the inklings of modern day myths taking shape. The Star Wars universe (as you mentioned) and the movie Willow were good examples of what he was talking about. But come on, Willamena, do you really think people accept as truth the fact that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father? No. And role playing doesn't count. That's an entirely different concept.

But there are plenty of modern parallels to the ancient stories. Look at Wicca. Founded in the 50's by a (male, interestingly enough) member of the Golden Dawn, he created a religion out of whole cloth. And it's weathered the test of time pretty well, I'd say. It has certainly hit a growth spurt here lately. And what is Wicca based on? Nothing! It's a completely made up religion. Oh, it claims roots that go back thousands of years, but that's bushwah. Modern Wiccan beliefs have nothing to do with ancient pagan beliefs. They share deity figures, but that's about it.

The fact that you use the phraise I bolded in your quote shows that even you don't really believe the things you have been saying, Willamena. Is there a truly-untrue truth out there somewhere?
It was just a paraphrase of "really-real" reality. :-)

Ah, but only if I have failed to develop the self-discipline required not to allow myself to feed the pain. :p

Not true. Your brain will still register the pain impulses from your skin. You haven't trained yourself not to feel it. All you have done is trained yourself to ignore it. Interestingly enough, the unconcious parts of your body will still react as if you are experiencing the pain. Respiration and heart rate increase, blood flow to the area affected increases, etc.

Okay, just how arrogant do you have to be to imply that my mythology instructors were in some way deficient? That's about the snottiest thing I've ever seen you write, and that's saying something.
Alright, I won't imply it, I will state it. Your instructors have a thing or two to learn about what mythology is all about. There is more to it, and you, as their student, have missed out. Your loss. *shrug*

I think the magical realists would be upset to be compared to Stephen King, but I think you're right in that they're writing the supernatural or magical elements of their stories from their imaginations rather than their beliefs. Not that I'm any great authority on the genre (hence my question).

Wouldn't Laurell K. Hamilton fit into the "Magical Realist" school?

It may just be my way of reading but the implication that I see is that an (indeterminate article) lower case "t" truth is lesser than (capital determinate article) uppercase "t" truth.

Now a truth is a fact, verity, reality, etc.

Furthermore I see an implication that humans are somehow able to know The Truth (or else why distinguish). Meaning that there is one real truth out there. While I will say that there is one real material world, I do not think that it is possible for humans to know it. In otherwords, humans are not capable of thinking completely objectively about anything. So it sets up a false dichotomy between using myth to discover a truth as opposed to things like observing friends to discover a truth.

Thinking that there is a "The Truth" that humans can know (or at least know without totally devoiding themselves of all emotion and preconcieved ideas and embedded learning) leads people for some reason to assert that their truth is The Truth.

See, that's interesting, because when I read the quote, I see something more like this:

A myth can help us to find self-knowledge, but it doesn't contain the Secrets of the Universe, if there is such a thing.

There's that subjective thing again.

Interesting... it seems to be a difference in definitions, just. Or a difference in expressions.

Using a simple example - an orange. If there is an orange sitting on the table, which different people can see/feel, everyone agrees that "there is an orange on the table in front of me" is truth, an objective verifiable truth.

Now, say you go outside into an open field, close your eyes, and think of an orange on a table in front of you - in that case, if you said "there is an orange on the table in front of me," that would not be truth in any sense of the word. What WOULD be truth is the statement "I'm imagining an orange on a table in front of me" or "I see an orange on the table in front of me" or something to that effect.

...also implicit in the way I think of "truth" is the idea that "truth" only applies to a statement - one can determine whether a claim is true or false... something like "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" is either TRUTH or NOT truth, but trying to determine whether the sentence "go forth and multiply" is truth or not is meaningless. But the statement "I feel as if the walls are closing in on me" is as much "truth" as "on Earth, objects fall down at approximately nine point eight meters per second." Science chooses to deal with the latter more than the former because it's easier - we can find out what the truth is, as opposed to 'subjective' truths that we can't find out, in the general case.

Definitions, definitions... I don't think we're on the same page here. :(

It's silly to argue about facets of "truth" when we don't even agree on what "truth" is...

I like your definition, especially about it being applied only to statements. The "I feel" statement is a truth, and it can be studied by science, though. Not very effectively yet, but give us time. We already have drugs that alter how we feel. It won't be long before we better understand the emotions attached to all the "subjective" things in our lives. That won't make those "subjective" things any less so. That just can't happen. But we are learning more and more about the "subjective" world every day.

So, I have said it before and I will say it again. Science does not discard the subjective. It seeks to minimize the subjective on the part of the observer so that we can be reassured about the veracity of his/her observations. Science does not claim that the subjective is irrelevant or unimportant. Many mathematicians will tell you that they use their imaginations to visualize things that don't exist in the material world. That's a subjective activity, but it leads to objective results, i.e. new mathematical formulae.

This is even before the "orange experience" (tasty, smiles, sunshine, rain, rainbows, and puppies - yes I am weird) gets factored in.

Of all the things you listed in your "orange experience" only one of them is actually experienced. Tasty. The rest are either memories induced by the orange or else representations of emotions attached to the memories induced by the orange. Memory is not experience. Memory is data retrieval.

other words, spiritual things.

Not spiritual. Emotional. There's a huge difference. Or none at all. And if none at all, then spirituality is a non-concept.

Religion (and divination, and other such spiritual endeavours) has as much to offer in its own way as science. Our collective consciousness is moving away from that, even for religously-inclined folk in today's world, because of the objectivity bias (and other factors).

You still haven't proven to me that there is an "objectivity bias".

Not spiritual. Emotional. There's a huge difference. Or none at all. And if none at all, then spirituality is a non-concept.



You still haven't proven to me that there is an "objectivity bias".

Lol and here I though objectivity is the lack of bias

Alright, I won't imply it, I will state it. Your instructors have a thing or two to learn about what mythology is all about. There is more to it, and you, as their student, have missed out. Your loss. *shrug*

Bulls**t. You want to use myth as a metaphor in your pysch classes? Go right ahead. Joseph Campbell and Karl Jung (and their followers) were very good at linking mythic archetypes to deep structures in our brains that throw these things into the morass that is human religion.

But that doesn't change the fact that your statement that the originators of those myths possessed some secret spiritual knowledge is crap, from front to back. Divination was not used to seek self-Enlightenment. Other so-called "spiritual" things weren't either. The only people selling that snake oil are the New Age "gurus" looking to make a quick buck off a mark.

Look at modern day, non-Western influenced mythology. The people who created those myths BELIEVE them. The Yanomamo medicine men try to heal the sick with their sympathetic magic. It doesn't work, but they try. Why? Because they think it will! They don't waste resources on a dying man that could be used elsewhere unless they think they can heal him. Why not? Because they don't have the resources to spare!

If you can prove that wrong, go right ahead. Links, please.

As to me being a student that is lacking, well, I'll ask again. Have you ever read Joseph Campbell? I have. And the pseudo-Campbellian garbage you are spewing all over this thread would make him spin in his grave! I have been helping my wife teach mythology for going on five years now. We've never gotten a complaint from any of her students' follow-on teachers, so don't you dare call me lacking in anything until you know the facts, little miss thing.

Just because I disagree with you, and can back myself up with sources, doesn't give you the right to be rude.

Since Star Wars was brought up, I will use that as my example myth.

The vast majority of people will readily agree that Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, and Co, never existed in the flesh. But does that make them any more or less real than most other things? The answer is it depends.

For someone like my mother, who fell asleep halfway through the first Star Wars movie, and never even bothered to see the entire film or any of its sequels, the answer would be no, Star Wars is not real.

For someone who has seen each movie 20+ times, on whom the imagery of Star Wars has had a deep mental and emotional impact, a person who's internal landscape, thoughts, and values have been altered by the myth that is Star Wars then the answer is yes, Star Wars is real.

For such a person Star Wars is as real as the fact that a table is a table and not a podium, that a cat is a pet and not an option for lunch - in other words as real as any of the unconcious, unwarranted (in terms of actual physical properties) assumptions people make everyday about oh so many physically real objects.

See, that's interesting, because when I read the quote, I see something more like this:

A myth can help us to find self-knowledge, but it doesn't contain the Secrets of the Universe, if there is such a thing.

There's that subjective thing again.

What makes you think that the secrets of the universe can't be contained within self-knowledge? Many scientists have choosen to work on problems and thoughts that had always fascinated them so much that they felt driven to test those thoughts with mathematical formulas and chemical equations to find out if their gut-feeling about how things worked, if their inner-truths could be found in the real world. Being scientists above all, many walked away disappointed. Others became famous and we read about their discoveries in text books.

(many things that we know we don't realize we know until we find words or expressions for them, and then it makes much more sense. if someone observes physical phenomena enough it would seem that they "know" the science before they find a way to express the science)

*this tirade was not related to myths but rather to the nature of self-knowledge in general. at most, it is suggesting that for scientist, nature and physical phenomena may play a role equivalent to myth in fleshing out and informing their inner land-scapes

Of all the things you listed in your "orange experience" only one of them is actually experienced. Tasty. The rest are either memories induced by the orange or else representations of emotions attached to the memories induced by the orange. Memory is not experience. Memory is data retrieval.

Well yes. But those are things that keep it from being just a vaguely spherical fruit with a coloring (of whatever range). Now the concept of orange is not so deeply ingrained that I think the smile, etc are inherent properties of the orange - but that doesn't mean I don't experience them mentally when coming into contact with or thinking about an orange. My point humans make all kinds of associations. Many we realize are personal. But some are culturally taught and many never question those.

Now if that very same person would actually expect a random stranger also walking through that field to see an orange on a table, that goes into mistaking internal truth for physical, objective truth (ie, what happens when certain religious types insist that their god is real for everyone).
That's the ticket. Worse when the stranger mistakes that the subjective statement, made *as truth*, is assumed to have physical reality because it is stated as truth.

See, now you're starting to talk about Joseph Campbell's "Myth As Metaphor" concept. And he is probably spinning in his grave right now! Never once did he put forward that definition. Have you ever actually read Campbell? And let's get our definitions sorted out right now. By read, I mean have you picked up a book, looked inside the cover, seen words, started reading them and then stopped when you got to the other cover? If not, I recommend The Hero With A Thousand Faces. It's a little dense, but if you persevere, you'll get through it eventually. It helps if you have at least a passing familiarity with Jung, as well.
I make no claims that any of the ideas I have expressed are Campbell's.

Definintion of myth from the American Heritage Dictionary:
So, if your definition is the commonly held one today, why is it at the bottom of the list?
It's not. It's first on the list. We only seem to disagree on what "world view" is being expressed.

...

BTW, he did also see the inklings of modern day myths taking shape. The Star Wars universe (as you mentioned) and the movie Willow were good examples of what he was talking about. But come on, Willamena, do you really think people accept as truth the fact that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father? No. And role playing doesn't count. That's an entirely different concept.
Um, no. I never claimed that people accept myth as literal truth.

I like your definition, especially about it being applied only to statements. The "I feel" statement is a truth, and it can be studied by science, though. Not very effectively yet, but give us time. We already have drugs that alter how we feel. It won't be long before we better understand the emotions attached to all the "subjective" things in our lives. That won't make those "subjective" things any less so. That just can't happen. But we are learning more and more about the "subjective" world every day.

So, I have said it before and I will say it again. Science does not discard the subjective. It seeks to minimize the subjective on the part of the observer so that we can be reassured about the veracity of his/her observations. Science does not claim that the subjective is irrelevant or unimportant. Many mathematicians will tell you that they use their imaginations to visualize things that don't exist in the material world. That's a subjective activity, but it leads to objective results, i.e. new mathematical formulae.
"On the part of the observer" is all that matters to science. If things cannot be objectively, independantly verified, they are of no use to science.

Your sticking wires in brains to measure sparks on machines is not going to bring you any closer to understanding the subjective, because you are still on the outside attempting to look in, where the subjective, by definition, is looking out from the inside.

But that doesn't change the fact that your statement that the originators of those myths possessed some secret spiritual knowledge is crap, from front to back.
It is no less supported than your implications that the developers of the myths were ignorant "noble savages" who couldn't see past the end of their noses. There is no "real" (read "objective") support for either of us as myths developed long before the written record.

2) Doesn't it cheapen a belief structure to change long lasting ideas and tennants (gay marrage, priestly marrage, prohibition, ect...) just because the attitude of society and the socio-political atmosphere believes that they should be changed.

It does not. Religion has had to change with each collective advance and regression in in understanding. Social conscience naturally behaves the same way. These are cultural trends which reflect varying ideals in a given society. No one experiences things the same, so this kind of flux is normal. It's simply evidence of what thoughts are best communicated at a certain time and place.

Mickonia, I apologize for being rude, and I'm sorry that what I said in my initial statement that sparked this latest round of disagreement seemed arrogant; it was meant whimsically. All subsequent rudeness was in response to yours in same. I obviously took something away from mythology classes in learning that you didn't; I can respect that you got something different out of it than I did.

Originally Posted by Violets and Kitties
This is even before the "orange experience" (tasty, smiles, sunshine, rain, rainbows, and puppies - yes I am weird) gets factored in.
Of all the things you listed in your "orange experience" only one of them is actually experienced. Tasty. The rest are either memories induced by the orange or else representations of emotions attached to the memories induced by the orange. Memory is not experience. Memory is data retrieval.
Memory is not the equivalent of first-hand experience through the senses, but memories are experienced; to claim otherwise is to claim that we do not have memories (to have = to experience). The "orange experience" above includes associations of images and feelings that are subconsciously experienced by the invidivdual, for the individual, along with the visual representation of an orange and the taste sensation of an orange. Furthermore, they are probably never shared with anyone, except in the context of discussions such as this. They are not "actual" experience (which my dictionary defines as objectively real), but they are experience none-the-less.

Again, this demonstrates a bias that is inherent in our culture and language, that what is real is to be allocated entirely to the objective, physical world. You claimed that science does not dismiss the subjective, just "minimize" it so that it can see things as they really are. There is no significant difference; in both ideas, the subjective is pushed to the side in favour of the objective being the only real. This is the bias that defeats understanding the world through spiritual eyes.

....

*this tirade was not related to myths but rather to the nature of self-knowledge in general. at most, it is suggesting that for scientist, nature and physical phenomena may play a role equivalent to myth in fleshing out and informing their inner land-scapes
This last sentance contains the idea I'm interested in.

Mickonia, I apologize for being rude, and I'm sorry that what I said in my initial statement that sparked this latest round of disagreement seemed arrogant; it was meant whimsically. All subsequent rudeness was in response to yours in same. I obviously took something away from mythology classes in learning that you didn't; I can respect that you got something different out of it than I did.
It's curious how words on a screen are intepreted by different readers. You always come across to me as one of the most deliberately civil posters on this forum.

The question can never be answered unbiasedly or impersonallyso it is irrelevant to argue over it. Just by imposing the question, the endless debate is feuled evenmore so. But by all means, continue if you wish.

First off, Willamena, I also apologize. For some reason, you have an amazing ability to get under my skin. I have not controlled this as much as I should have.

Secondly, if you are going to quote me, then actually quote me. If you will reread my post about the "noble savage" concept, I claimed it was false. I never put forward the idea that there was ever such a thing as a noble savage.

Thirdly, I notice that every time I give examples of how we CAN know if primitive peoples actually believed their myths to be true, you completely ignore it. Never once have you responded to my posts about the Yanomamo. I can assure you, they really do believe their myths. And they are a Stone Age level tribe. I think it is reasonable to give at least temporary agreement to the concept that primitive tribes actually believed their own mythology since current day primitives do so.

Fourthly, if there is a "objectivity bias" in the English language, then it predates the English language. Read Beowulf in the original Middle English. It has just as many instances of what you are calling "objectivity bias" as modern English does. As do all the other Germanic languages, and, for that matter, most Indo-European languages. So, you can't blame this so-called bias on science. Science arose because of it, not the other way around.

Fifthly, whether you claim to be using Campbell's theories or not, you are. Where ever you got this guff, it was ripped off of Campbell in a big way. That's why I suggest you actually read one of his books. The bad thing is, whoever did this ripping off is being highly selective in what he chooses to pull from Campbell and Jung, judging from what you have said you were taught about mythology. They pull the stuff that supports "Myth As Metaphor" (since you brought that concept up). But they ignore the rest of it, how there is a physical basis for all these things in the structure of the human brain. If you read up on the originals, you may find that your "subjective" worldview is actually described in very objective terms. Science does not marginalize the subjective. Hell, psychology and psychiatry are sciences! And that's ALL they deal with. What science does is say: "The subjective is different for every person. This is un-reproducible, and thus not an effective field of objective study." In what way is this inaccurate?

To all of you New Agers that are trying to be "anti-Establishment" by bashing science, leave off. It's not going to work. Science is effective. Your crystal-toting, gibberish-spouting, pyramid-loving BS isn't. Homeopathy doesn't work. The list goes on and on.

Sixthly, I quit. You have managed to successfully drive me off this thread. Congratulations. Trying to discuss this stuff with you is worse than trying to discuss religion with a fundamentalist Christian. You dance and wiggle and jiggle to try to make the world fit your view of it. You selectively quote, and misquote, me in attempt to make your ideas palatable. I have neither the time, inclination nor energy to put up with that kind of behavior. Enjoy yourselves.

For someone who has seen each movie 20+ times, on whom the imagery of Star Wars has had a deep mental and emotional impact, a person who's internal landscape, thoughts, and values have been altered by the myth that is Star Wars then the answer is yes, Star Wars is real.


What do you mean by saying that Star Wars is real to this individual? Do you mean factually true? Does this mean that the Star Wars myth exists physically for this person? Or do you mean that the myth exists as an emotionally moving story?

To me, just because somebody is emotionally moved by a myth doesn't make it more real, it just means that that person has a greater emotional response to it. A strong emotional response to a myth doesn't make it any more real than a weak emotional response. It just means a greater emotional response causes the myth to have a greater significance in one's life. And significance does NOT equal reality.

We need to come to a consensus of the definition for the word "real".

First off, Willamena, I also apologize. For some reason, you have an amazing ability to get under my skin. I have not controlled this as much as I should have.

Secondly, if you are going to quote me, then actually quote me. If you will reread my post about the "noble savage" concept, I claimed it was false. I never put forward the idea that there was ever such a thing as a noble savage.

Thirdly, I notice that every time I give examples of how we CAN know if primitive peoples actually believed their myths to be true, you completely ignore it. Never once have you responded to my posts about the Yanomamo. I can assure you, they really do believe their myths. And they are a Stone Age level tribe. I think it is reasonable to give at least temporary agreement to the concept that primitive tribes actually believed their own mythology since current day primitives do so.
I don't see the relevance of pointing at a modern tribe as evidence of ancient people's mindsets and beliefs, regardless of their level of development. The fact that they are Stone Age does not magically give them parallels to the creators of the myths that led to our modern religions. They are not even geographically significant... they live in a totally different climate; heck, they're even patrilineal.

Fourthly, if there is a "objectivity bias" in the English language, then it predates the English language. Read Beowulf in the original Middle English. It has just as many instances of what you are calling "objectivity bias" as modern English does. As do all the other Germanic languages, and, for that matter, most Indo-European languages. So, you can't blame this so-called bias on science. Science arose because of it, not the other way around.
What I said: the objectivity bias is inherent in our language. I was not placing "blame" anywhere for this simple fact; merely stating in an attempt to demonstrate the bias.

Fifthly, whether you claim to be using Campbell's theories or not, you are. Where ever you got this guff, it was ripped off of Campbell in a big way. That's why I suggest you actually read one of his books. The bad thing is, whoever did this ripping off is being highly selective in what he chooses to pull from Campbell and Jung, judging from what you have said you were taught about mythology. They pull the stuff that supports "Myth As Metaphor" (since you brought that concept up). But they ignore the rest of it, how there is a physical basis for all these things in the structure of the human brain. If you read up on the originals, you may find that your "subjective" worldview is actually described in very objective terms. Science does not marginalize the subjective. Hell, psychology and psychiatry are sciences! And that's ALL they deal with. What science does is say: "The subjective is different for every person. This is un-reproducible, and thus not an effective field of objective study." In what way is this inaccurate?
It is not inaccurate. It is, in fact, what I've been saying to support the idea that science is not the correct tool with which to investigate religion.

Whatever physical basis there is for thought and consciousness in the structure of the brain is irrelevant to the ideas I was putting forth, which have to do with the subjective perspective, and understanding that myth and religion (and yes, even divination) come from that perspective, and that it is necessary to regain weight for that perspective in order to properly understand and use them effectively.

Psychology and psychiatry are sciences; no one said otherwise. Psychiatry is a medical practice that treats medical illnesses; it does begin to touch on the subjective in the way I've been discussing. Psychology is the most promising scientific study that might lead to a scientific understanding of religion.

To all of you New Agers that are trying to be "anti-Establishment" by bashing science, leave off. It's not going to work. Science is effective. Your crystal-toting, gibberish-spouting, pyramid-loving BS isn't. Homeopathy doesn't work. The list goes on and on.
I didn't see anyone bash science. Did you Vi--? *looks around*

Science is effective for investing the objective. No argument there.

Sixthly, I quit. You have managed to successfully drive me off this thread. Congratulations. Trying to discuss this stuff with you is worse than trying to discuss religion with a fundamentalist Christian. You dance and wiggle and jiggle to try to make the world fit your view of it. You selectively quote, and misquote, me in attempt to make your ideas palatable. I have neither the time, inclination nor energy to put up with that kind of behavior. Enjoy yourselves.
I have to say I'm sorry, but only because I was unable to put forth my ideas in a way that was clearly understood.

They are not even geographically significant... they live in a totally different climate; heck, they're even patrilineal.


That's interesting. I never knew the patrilineal ancient hebrews didn't actually believe their religion was literal.

Also intriguing, I never knew that where someone was born determined whether or not he or she actually believed that his or her religion was literal or not.

So, were the Sephardic Jews geographically significant enough to warrant them taking their beliefs literally?

That's interesting. I never knew the patrilineal ancient hebrews didn't actually believe their religion was literal.

Also intriguing, I never knew that where someone was born determined whether or not he or she actually believed that his or her religion was literal or not.

So, were the Sephardic Jews geographically significant enough to warrant them taking their beliefs literally?
The discussion was about myths, though if it's your claim that myths exist to support the religions then I say, Bully! Well done.

The myths of the Hebrews were not invented by the Hebrews but borrowed from surrounding indigneous cultures. While the older cultures were not necessarily matriarchal, they were certainly not patriarchal in structure; that was introduced to the region with the invading Aryans and Semites. So the foundation of the myths lies in the old Goddess mythology, the lunar mythology, and by the time writing came along, the myths had already evolved much to fit the new patriarchal culture.

Or something like that.

It is my claim that the myths were origionally understood figuratively and that the reality they held was not literal, yes. This attitude has been carried forward to the present day in the traditions of modern Western religions, with some notable exceptions (as mentioned in earlier posts).

The force is strong in this one...
how can u tell?

ok on myths historians believe that the city of the viking gods called asgard was actualli a city and that the story of its destruction may hav actualli happened.

and now on new-agers pashin science- when hav any new-agers done that? you were actualli bashin there religion when you insulted them

[/QUOTE]Just because I disagree with you, and can back myself up with sources, doesn't give you the right to be rude.[/QUOTE]

you tell the stupid person

so, i have a question that has been bothering me for some time, I guess its probably a 2 parter

1) a) Why, if religion and science are two seperate structures of truth, do the religious people feel that their beliefs need to be validated by science?

b) Why does the scientific community think that it is necessary for religion to agree with them, or more pointedly, why is science critical of religion for not having the same beliefs about the origins of truth as they have?

2) Doesn't it cheapen a belief structure to change long lasting ideas and tennants (gay marrage, priestly marrage, prohibition, ect...) just because the attitude of society and the socio-political atmosphere believes that they should be changed.

Being a good old fashioned agnostic, I am going to play the Devil's Advocate for this thread.

Religion and science are not neccesarily two different structures of truth, that is to be determined upon how you define a "structure of truth".

By "structure of truth" I am making an assumption that you mean "knowledge", which would logically be a series of supposed "truths" built from axioms and developed further than the presupposed truths.

If you attended an epistemology class, you would possibly remember what defines something as knowledge, and the ways one goes about obtaining knowledge.

Plato claimed knowledge was a justified, true belief, or K=JTB. I will comment on this definition later. *

The methods for obtaining knowledge are as polar as can be. Advocates of empiricism like David Hume support knowledge's roots in sensory experience, claiming purely rational concepts deviod of purposeness or utility. Whereas Rationalists like Emmanual Kant believe firmly in the truth obtained by the rational mind, free from the falsities of our perceptions and bias.

You are most likely wondering how this pertains to your question. I apoligize for using an explanation that requires so much detail.

Essentially, what you are describing is not "science versus religion", because both science and religion rely upon both means of obtaining knowledge.

i.e.
Religious arguments include those of the deists, claiming that the fundamental properties of reality are representations of the omnipotency of a higher power. A highly empirical argument. Others, like Descartes, attempted (without avail) to prove God's existence by purely rational means, so admired in its day, the Vatican accepted Descartes philosophy as religious "truth".

Everything, including our ideas, has a cause.

We have an idea of God.

Nothing less than God is adequate to be the cause of our idea of God.

Therefore, God exists.

or simply:

Descartes knew that he did not know everything with certainty. Therefore

He acknowledged himself to be imperfect (and he had the concept of imperfection in his mind).

For Descartes to have the idea of imperfection, he also had to have the idea of perfection.

The idea of perfection could not have been in his mind unless there were a perfect being.

Therefore, Therefore a perfect being exists - God

Scientists perform the same proccesses of obtaining knowledge. Consider the Scientific method. Purely empirical. Now consider the basis of empiricism. David Humes most famous phrase "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of passion" was only justifiable through rational justification. Therefore justification for empiricism was obtained through rational means! (how ironic)

Getting back to the subject, this merely serves as proof that allignment between "religion and science" is purely arbitrary. What you should really be questioning is the conflict of empiricism and rationalism.

Save that for another thread.

Now that I havve thuroughly debunked your differentiation between religion and science, through extreme skepticism I will demonstrate what makes knowledge.

*As mentioned before, K=JTB. (knowledge is a justified true belief.)

Now I do not expect all of you to follow me on what I'm about to say, I am very agnostic, and it is visible in my rationalizations.

To justify is to demonstrate the validity or rightiousness of something. This however is hardly possible as extreme skepticism (especially that of Descartes) says that any physical phenomenon can be a mere fault of the perception. Many Existentialists also like to play up the possibility of being a dream, or a female african girl in a coma, and we do not exist. This also disproves Rational justification, as Descartes kindly points out that even our most trusted a priory (or axioms) can be false without our knowing.

So by a little epistemology, justiification serves to real purpose but to ease our own egos.

Truth is a statement proven to be or accepted as true. We have just finished demonstrating that justification or "proof" is purposeless because we can never justify and believe our own senses. Basically, Truth can never be known, as we have no genuine means of justification. The only alternative is acceptence.

Belief. The acceptance of the truth, or justification in something (be it true or not). Truth, which I also refer to as "Faith" is something that although we may not realize it, we all share on some fundamental level. The acceptance of something...anything to be true, despite how little we know about it.

Belief, being etherial and abstract, is incapable of rationalizing by definition (although belief itself can be catylized by rationalization). Though belief can also be doubted like anything else. This itself is the true loss of faith. (Though through a cartesian loop, one cannot avoid having faith on some level, unless they avoid prosetylization. An impossible task....?)

Essentially, all this boils down to K=B. Belief is the universal Knowledge. Though this removes any kind of universal concept of what is knowledge. We expect knowledge to be universal, applicable to everything. We dislike the concept that we all live personal realities separate from all others by our own flawed perception. We deny this painful loneliness and attempt to relate our extremely personal and individualistic realities to others, forcing our beliefs upon others.

NOW, if you have made it this far (if so, give yourself a pat on the back) the point is that both science and religion are structures of pure Faith, be it a rationalized faith, or devout and phenomenalogical.

Therefore, I answer your question by saying you started with the wrong pretenses. Science and religion are not separate structures of truth at all, just different ways of getting to that same truth, which is personal Faith.

~~~~~~~~~

As for cheapening a belief structure...I figure since there is only ONE belief structure, you really cannot weaken it. Sure you can change your perception of it, but a rose by any other name....

The point remains that people still believe. Everything else is just surface ripples in the great lake of the Ultimate Mind.

~Wizdro out

The discussion was about myths, though if it's your claim that myths exist to support the religions then I say, Bully! Well done.

The myths of the Hebrews were not invented by the Hebrews but borrowed from surrounding indigneous cultures. While the older cultures were not necessarily matriarchal, they were certainly not patriarchal in structure; that was introduced to the region with the invading Aryans and Semites. So the foundation of the myths lies in the old Goddess mythology, the lunar mythology, and by the time writing came along, the myths had already evolved much to fit the new patriarchal culture.

Or something like that.

It is my claim that the myths were origionally understood figuratively and that the reality they held was not literal, yes. This attitude has been carried forward to the present day in the traditions of modern Western religions, with some notable exceptions (as mentioned in earlier posts).

I don't exactly share this view. myths were understood literally in every more or less ancient religion we know enough about. It's only in recent times that myths in western religions are not taken literally by the majority. This is not a tradition in western religions. hence the crusades, the burning of witches, the worshipping of saints, the creationism issue... As a result of this it is likely that the people that helped in the creation of those myths believed them. I mentioned the worshipping of saints. Legends of saints only came into existance after christ. (A lot of) people in medieval times believed in those stories. I think they are a bit comparable to modern day urban legends (hence the 'legends') as these stories evolve in time and usually have very little, if any, real base. The difference lies in the more skeptical nature of modern day culture. But even then these urban legends continue being passed on by people who think they might be true.

ok on myths historians believe that the city of the viking gods called asgard was actualli a city and that the story of its destruction may hav actualli happened.
That's very cool; I would love to see that uncovered. It'd make a wonderful vacation tour. :)

Originally Posted by Willamena
It is my claim that the myths were origionally understood figuratively and that the reality they held was not literal, yes. This attitude has been carried forward to the present day in the traditions of modern Western religions...I don't exactly share this view. myths were understood literally in every more or less ancient religion we know enough about. It's only in recent times that myths in western religions are not taken literally by the majority. This is not a tradition in western religions...
I was referring to the traditions of Western religions, not suggesting that taking myth literally or non-literally is a tradition of sorts. For instance, in Catholicism there is the tradition of Communion that involves the sacrament of the Eucharist, where an intiate eats a waffer and drinks wine symbolic of the body and blood of the Christ, taking the Christ into oneself. The symbolic nature of it is a non-literal interpretation. The ritual, combined with people's faith in a real, literal Christ, opens the mind to be one body and one mind with the Christ. This tradition is based on the myths embodied in the story of the Last Supper.

Yes, modernly* many people do believe in a literal interpretation, more so with each passing century as they move further and further away from the origin of the myths they embrace. Witches are a good example; the image of the witch does have a base, they are a hold-over of an image of the hag from Goddess worshiping religions.

* modernly being in the last 2,500 years, give or take a few centuries.

I was referring to the traditions of Western religions, not suggesting that taking myth literally or non-literally is a tradition of sorts. For instance, in Catholicism there is the tradition of Communion that involves the sacrament of the Eucharist, where an intiate eats a waffer and drinks wine symbolic of the body and blood of the Christ, taking the Christ into oneself. The symbolic nature of it is a non-literal interpretation. The ritual, combined with people's faith in a real, literal Christ, opens the mind to be one body and one mind with the Christ. This tradition is based on the myths embodied in the story of the Last Supper.

Yes, modernly* many people do believe in a literal interpretation, more so with each passing century as they move further and further away from the origin of the myths they embrace. Witches are a good example; the image of the witch does have a base, they are a hold-over of an image of the hag from Goddess worshiping religions.

* modernly being in the last 2,500 years, give or take a few centuries.

Any Catholic who has actually studied and deeply follows the religion (as opposed as just doing so because that is how they were raised) will tell you that the Eucharist is not merely symbolic. The wafer and wine are the *actual* body and blood of Jesus while at the same time retaining the *physical objective properties* of wafer and wine. The truth of Communion is both literal and non-literal at the same time, hence its power and its place at the center of the Catholic religion. It is a perfect example of the merger of the symbolic and the objective wherein neither denies the other, and in fact, must exist together.

Hindu belief also says its gods and myths are but aspects of the one truth. Even if the myths are believed in a literal-objective way, this oldest of all major religions acknowledges that the literal objective truth is not the "really-true truth" and that all paths, all persons are seeing reality from their own point of view.

What do you mean by saying that Star Wars is real to this individual? Do you mean factually true? Does this mean that the Star Wars myth exists physically for this person? Or do you mean that the myth exists as an emotionally moving story?

To me, just because somebody is emotionally moved by a myth doesn't make it more real, it just means that that person has a greater emotional response to it. A strong emotional response to a myth doesn't make it any more real than a weak emotional response. It just means a greater emotional response causes the myth to have a greater significance in one's life. And significance does NOT equal reality.

We need to come to a consensus of the definition for the word "real".

There is the problem. Most people mistake consensus for "real" and then go on to mistake that "real" as purely objective "reality."

People live their lives much, much more by "concept-reality" than by "objective-material-reality."

Back to the easiest example I can think of: Most people will look at at a table and insist that it is "really" a table.

In material terms, that table is energy which has become a specific sort of matter, which was then manipulated into the physical structure that we call a "table." The physical structure that we call a table has, in fact, a myriad of uses. However, most people will not consider those uses or will consider most of those uses improper and/or shocking and thus never use tables most of the possible ways a table can be used, because those uses are not part of the reality that is the table-concept.

People's attitudes, emotions, responses to life, etc. change when they come into myths that -for one reason or another- resonate with them. Now we can say that these myths have no objective-material-reality, even though to some extent everything that humans create, including stories and myths, are based on objective-material-reality (if we believe that we even assume a "real" objective-material-reality). But to say that Star Wars isn't "real" to those who it has affected strongly is like saying that a table isn't "real."

Being a good old fashioned agnostic, I am going to play the Devil's Advocate for this thread.

Religion and science are not neccesarily two different structures of truth, that is to be determined upon how you define a "structure of truth".

By "structure of truth" I am making an assumption that you mean "knowledge", which would logically be a series of supposed "truths" built from axioms and developed further than the presupposed truths.

If you attended an epistemology class, you would possibly remember what defines something as knowledge, and the ways one goes about obtaining knowledge.

Plato claimed knowledge was a justified, true belief, or K=JTB. I will comment on this definition later. *

The methods for obtaining knowledge are as polar as can be. Advocates of empiricism like David Hume support knowledge's roots in sensory experience, claiming purely rational concepts deviod of purposeness or utility. Whereas Rationalists like Emmanual Kant believe firmly in the truth obtained by the rational mind, free from the falsities of our perceptions and bias.

You are most likely wondering how this pertains to your question. I apoligize for using an explanation that requires so much detail.

Essentially, what you are describing is not "science versus religion", because both science and religion rely upon both means of obtaining knowledge.

i.e.
Religious arguments include those of the deists, claiming that the fundamental properties of reality are representations of the omnipotency of a higher power. A highly empirical argument. Others, like Descartes, attempted (without avail) to prove God's existence by purely rational means, so admired in its day, the Vatican accepted Descartes philosophy as religious "truth".

Everything, including our ideas, has a cause.

We have an idea of God.

Nothing less than God is adequate to be the cause of our idea of God.

Therefore, God exists.

or simply:

Descartes knew that he did not know everything with certainty. Therefore

He acknowledged himself to be imperfect (and he had the concept of imperfection in his mind).

For Descartes to have the idea of imperfection, he also had to have the idea of perfection.

The idea of perfection could not have been in his mind unless there were a perfect being.

Therefore, Therefore a perfect being exists - God

Scientists perform the same proccesses of obtaining knowledge. Consider the Scientific method. Purely empirical. Now consider the basis of empiricism. David Humes most famous phrase "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of passion" was only justifiable through rational justification. Therefore justification for empiricism was obtained through rational means! (how ironic)

Getting back to the subject, this merely serves as proof that allignment between "religion and science" is purely arbitrary. What you should really be questioning is the conflict of empiricism and rationalism.

Save that for another thread.

Now that I havve thuroughly debunked your differentiation between religion and science, through extreme skepticism I will demonstrate what makes knowledge.

*As mentioned before, K=JTB. (knowledge is a justified true belief.)

Now I do not expect all of you to follow me on what I'm about to say, I am very agnostic, and it is visible in my rationalizations.

To justify is to demonstrate the validity or rightiousness of something. This however is hardly possible as extreme skepticism (especially that of Descartes) says that any physical phenomenon can be a mere fault of the perception. Many Existentialists also like to play up the possibility of being a dream, or a female african girl in a coma, and we do not exist. This also disproves Rational justification, as Descartes kindly points out that even our most trusted a priory (or axioms) can be false without our knowing.

So by a little epistemology, justiification serves to real purpose but to ease our own egos.

Truth is a statement proven to be or accepted as true. We have just finished demonstrating that justification or "proof" is purposeless because we can never justify and believe our own senses. Basically, Truth can never be known, as we have no genuine means of justification. The only alternative is acceptence.

Belief. The acceptance of the truth, or justification in something (be it true or not). Truth, which I also refer to as "Faith" is something that although we may not realize it, we all share on some fundamental level. The acceptance of something...anything to be true, despite how little we know about it.

Belief, being etherial and abstract, is incapable of rationalizing by definition (although belief itself can be catylized by rationalization). Though belief can also be doubted like anything else. This itself is the true loss of faith. (Though through a cartesian loop, one cannot avoid having faith on some level, unless they avoid prosetylization. An impossible task....?)

Essentially, all this boils down to K=B. Belief is the universal Knowledge. Though this removes any kind of universal concept of what is knowledge. We expect knowledge to be universal, applicable to everything. We dislike the concept that we all live personal realities separate from all others by our own flawed perception. We deny this painful loneliness and attempt to relate our extremely personal and individualistic realities to others, forcing our beliefs upon others.

NOW, if you have made it this far (if so, give yourself a pat on the back) the point is that both science and religion are structures of pure Faith, be it a rationalized faith, or devout and phenomenalogical.

Therefore, I answer your question by saying you started with the wrong pretenses. Science and religion are not separate structures of truth at all, just different ways of getting to that same truth, which is personal Faith.

~~~~~~~~~

As for cheapening a belief structure...I figure since there is only ONE belief structure, you really cannot weaken it. Sure you can change your perception of it, but a rose by any other name....

The point remains that people still believe. Everything else is just surface ripples in the great lake of the Ultimate Mind.

~Wizdro out

*applause*

To all of you New Agers that are trying to be "anti-Establishment" by bashing science, leave off. It's not going to work. Science is effective. Your crystal-toting, gibberish-spouting, pyramid-loving BS isn't. Homeopathy doesn't work. The list goes on and on.


I didn't see anyone bash science. Did you Vi--? *looks around*

Science is effective for investing the objective. No argument there.


No. There may have been some terminology problems here and there because of the science=objective type of thought caused by modern day language. I have, however, seen quite a bit of this:

Worse when the stranger mistakes that the subjective statement, made *as truth*, is assumed to have physical reality because it is stated as truth.

Again, because somehow physical reality has been mistaken as the one and only truth within the general mindset, even though no one lives or understands the world in terms of simple physical reality.

*this tirade was not related to myths but rather to the nature of self-knowledge in general. at most, it is suggesting that for scientist, nature and physical phenomena may play a role equivalent to myth in fleshing out and informing their inner land-scapes
This last sentance contains the idea I'm interested in.

The way we learn science -hence the way many people think about science- is by reading about the theories and then reading about experiments or conducting experiments that illustrate how those theroies work.

The people who formulated the theories, however, didn't have a clearly stated idea of how and why things work set in front of them, however. (Such an obvious fact that is so easily overlooked). These people observed phenomena that were unexplained by the science of their time. Thus they created a theory. They then tested the theory with the very same same set of phenomena and tools (ie physical reality and the knowledge of physical reality that had been codified up until that point in time) that gave rise to the theory in the first place. And so science slowly evolves because someone saw a new reality based on physical phenomena.

Compare to religion: Religion is a set of stories to explain the internal landscape - our beliefs about ourselves, our morals, and how they relate to the outside world. Some creates a myth (like a theory) to explain this. These myths then get tested against the personal psyche and the psyche of the people nearby for validity. If the myth explains the way the internal landscape interacts with the external world, then the myth stays and becomes "reality." Over time, myths have evolved and changed to fit the way societies have progressed, new spiritual theories are proposed and tested. This was much more true in largely pre-literate societies (why myths bear so much resemblance and why what we know of the societies 'fit' the myths). The widespread preservation of myth through mass publication, etc. along with the tendancy to think of concensus-accepted subjective reality as objective reality has caused mythology to stagnate. Myths are no longer tested and modified (at least not much, the various ways the different denomination approach the Christian myth as well as the evolution of urban legends show that this still happens somewhat) to fit the internal landscape of people.

1)
a. Stupidity and insecurity.
b. Stupidity and arrogance.

2) Yes.

Wow, that was easy. May I be excused early?

I think this is a fairly accurate answer. The one thing it is missing is the idea of a comprehensive and absolute truth. If truth is absolute/objective, which I believe to be the case, then agreement between the truths found by science and the truths of religion religion becomes necessary.

Of course, I chose to interpret the physical evidence of science through my faith rather than the other way around like most of the rest of the scientific community minus a few notable exceptions. I do believe that in time science will bare out the truths of scripture by default over time. Though with such animosity towards the knowledge of truth that comes by faith in the scientific community at the present time it may take many generations supposing the world lasts that long.

The way we learn science -hence the way many people think about science- is by reading about the theories and then reading about experiments or conducting experiments that illustrate how those theroies work.

The people who formulated the theories, however, didn't have a clearly stated idea of how and why things work set in front of them, however. (Such an obvious fact that is so easily overlooked). These people observed phenomena that were unexplained by the science of their time. Thus they created a theory. They then tested the theory with the very same same set of phenomena and tools (ie physical reality and the knowledge of physical reality that had been codified up until that point in time) that gave rise to the theory in the first place. And so science slowly evolves because someone saw a new reality based on physical phenomena.

Compare to religion: Religion is a set of stories to explain the internal landscape - our beliefs about ourselves, our morals, and how they relate to the outside world. Some creates a myth (like a theory) to explain this. These myths then get tested against the personal psyche and the psyche of the people nearby for validity. If the myth explains the way the internal landscape interacts with the external world, then the myth stays and becomes "reality." Over time, myths have evolved and changed to fit the way societies have progressed, new spiritual theories are proposed and tested. This was much more true in largely pre-literate societies (why myths bear so much resemblance and why what we know of the societies 'fit' the myths). The widespread preservation of myth through mass publication, etc. along with the tendancy to think of concensus-accepted subjective reality as objective reality has caused mythology to stagnate. Myths are no longer tested and modified (at least not much, the various ways the different denomination approach the Christian myth as well as the evolution of urban legends show that this still happens somewhat) to fit the internal landscape of people.
Can I quote you?

:-)

I think this is a fairly accurate answer. The one thing it is missing is the idea of a comprehense and absolute truth. If truth is absolute/objective, which I believe to be the case, then agreement between the truths found by science and the truths of religion religion becomes necessary.
Exactly. If this is the case, then agreement between the truths of science and the truths of religion becomes necessary; so, dependent upon that beginning belief, people search for scientific proof of religion. But if it is not the case, then they search in vain.

On the plus side, this is a major past-time for millions of people today ...kind of like putting together the world's biggest jigsaw puzzle. I hope they're enjoying themselves.

Of course, I chose to interpret the physical evidence of science through my faith rather than the other way around like most of the rest of the scientific community minus a few notable exceptions. I do believe that in time science will bare out the truths of scripture by default over time. Though with such animosity towards the knowledge of truth that comes by faith in the scientific community at the present time it may take many generations supposing the world lasts that long.
What do you mean "by default over time"? must it be inevitable?

Exactly. If this is the case, then agreement between the truths of science and the truths of religion becomes necessary; so, dependent upon that beginning belief, people search for scientific proof of religion. But if it is not the case, then they search in vain.

On the plus side, this is a major past-time for millions of people today ...kind of like putting together the world's biggest jigsaw puzzle. I hope they're enjoying themselves.


What do you mean "by default over time"? must it be inevitable?

It is not a logical requirement that it be inevitable, it is a faith based reality that it is inevitable. And, of course, faith is not built on logical proofs, but rather on evidence. Logicians attempt to harness that evidence and create proofs from that evidence. Hence, science does not prove anything, it provides evidence. As for proofs, they only work if your assumptions are based in absolute/objective truth, something that no human can actually be certain of having, though many claim to.

*applause*

Thank you Violets and Kitties. I appreciate your attention and support.

Funny how you were the only one who heard. *sigh* :(