NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems to me that the New Age movement is just repackaging old ideas in shiny new boxes and selling it to the gullible. Pouring old wine into new bottles, as it were.

Can anyone give me an alternative interpretation? I'm truly interested in trying to understand their viewpoint.

I do not think that they understand their view points.....

I do not think that they understand their view points.....
Perhaps the poll is lacking a "who cares" option?

Just another fad. Like the 80's. :D

Perhaps the poll is lacking a "who cares" option?

I didn't figure anyone who didn't care one way or the other would bother to read the thread, much less vote in the poll. :D

Just another fad. Like the 80's. :D

But isn't this fad kinda dangerours. Big hair never killed anyone, after all. Some New Age practices have.

Try lying on your side in the water on a very shallow beach. Open your one submerged eye and look to see infinity. The New Age is like seeing into infinity along a narrow band, with one eye open, from a shallow perspective.

Mind the sand fleas.

Try lying on your side in the water on a very shallow beach. Open your one submerged eye and look to see infinity. The New Age is like seeing into infinity along a narrow band, with one eye open, from a shallow perspective.

Mind the sand fleas.

So, what, your view on New Ageism is that it actually has some relevance, just not as much as is potentially possible?

No. New Ageism is like getting sand in your bathing suit. :)

No. New Ageism is like getting sand in your bathing suit. :)

So would that make Shamanism like getting mud in your eye?

New age shit is exactly that.

What is the New Age movement?

Big hair never killed anyone, after all.

Obviously you've never been to a Whitesnake concert.

What is the New Age movement?

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

That's a good, if partial, listing of things that are contained within the New Age Movement.

It is, essentially, a repackaging of very old concepts, i.e. Goddess Worship, divination, Atlantis, feng shui, etc. into "new" ideas such as the "New Age" therapies (i.e. hypnotherapry, repressed memory therapy, astrotherapy, Primal Scream therapy), the retasking of divination as a self-understanding and personality analysis tool, a belief in auras, Wicca, etc.

I always recommend that you read up on the New Age Therapies. Jung did more to set back the science of psychology than Freud ever did. Archetypes, indeed!

The problem is that some of these New Age concepts aren't just farcical, but dangerous. See this scary account of Attachment Therapy, a very New Age-y kind of thing.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/at.html

At least one child had died of AT.

I also particularly like the article about firewalking at the Skeptic's Dictionary site. It shows how the New Agers take a very simple thing and blow it up into something with DEEP, MYSTICAL significance.

Typically, they then try to sell you a book or a dvd, pat you on the head, and then send you on your merry way.

Obviously you've never been to a Whitesnake concert.

Sorry, but I was a pre-teen when Whitesnake was big. I remember my aunts had hair out to their shoulders, though.

It's just silly. Preposterous superstition for weak minds who want to rebel against organized religion but still want a feel-good ideology to cling to.

It's just silly. Preposterous superstition for weak minds who want to rebel against organized religion but still want a feel-good ideology to cling to.

Wow, Drunk commies! Skeptical much?

Wow, Drunk commies! Skeptical much?
Yep.

Yep.

Read James Randi's commentaries every week, do you?

By the by, did you get Michael Shermer's new book yet? It's really good.

Read James Randi's commentaries every week, do you?

By the by, did you get Michael Shermer's new book yet? It's really good.
Haven't read anything by Randi since Flim Flam. The last book by Shermer that I read was The Borderlands of Science.

I've always found the subject matter to be interesting, although that's about it. Psi has always seemed the most plausible, and most easily provable. Too bad no one has managed it. I'd like to believe, but I don't.

Now, I'll admit to reading and studying the occult, magical gemology, demonology, witchcraft, psi, cryptozoology, astrology, et. al. Have I found anything really convincing? Not really. The best of them boil down to, "This is true! See! Look! Why, you say? Um , well . . . what do you mean, do I have anything to sell?" and "What does the king want to hear? Oh good, that's exactly what the stars say!"

Some claims make sense with a bit of history behind them. Take the gemstone amethyst, for example. Most gemological sources will agree that it is thought to help stave off drunkeness and aid sobriety. Every source I ever read said so. One, however, gave an example of a particular Norse headman that used a goblet of the stuff for his wine, to keep a close, sober eye on his enemies. A bit more research revealed that he most likely used the purple goblet to disguise the fact he was drinking water . . . so his sobriety, while due in part to the gem, had nothing to do with special powers, just clever thought and what I like to term "sneaky-bastardness".

Now, many claims are partially valid if you strip away the hocus-pocus. Yoga, for example, is often cited for its abilities to aid health of mind, body, and soul. Some say it's because of aligning your chakras and purging the imbalances of life. At one point, I read one of the first Yoga manuals published in the U.S. . . . probably around 1945 or so, by a rather famous Yogi. It advocated no spiritual side of Yoga. It described a healthy, specific diet, exercise, breathing control (necessary for much Yoga),meditation, and the familiar poses and movements. Most anyone who followed this would be healthier. Why? Well, a balanced diet is usually good, meditation (the non-Transcendental kind) is recognized as good for mental health, and Yoga, if you have never tried it, is quite a workout. I'm 6' 2", about 290 and built like a tall barrell . . . one beginner Yoga course left me drenched in sweat and breathing hard. So Yoga might align your chakras, or just be a healthy lifestyle. I'd guess the latter.

I'm with James Randi and Co. one this one. The burden of proof for the weird is on the weird, not the disbeliever.

what I like to term "sneaky-bastardness".

You have such a way with words. It brings a tear to my eye. :rolleyes:

Haven't read anything by Randi since Flim Flam. The last book by Shermer that I read was The Borderlands of Science.

He puts up a Commentary every Friday at his website:

www.randi.org

You should check it out. He's still railing on Sylvia Browne It's hilarious. Shermer currently has a monthly article in Scientific American. It's available on his website:

www.skeptic.com

The new book, The Science of Good and Evil gives a pretty good argument for a biological/evolutionary origin for The Golden Rule, and all the other positive and negative social behaviors. The first half of it is absolutely fascinating. The second half, talking about "provisional morality" is a little murkier, but still worth reading.

The problem is that some of these New Age concepts aren't just farcical, but dangerous. See this scary account of Attachment Therapy, a very New Age-y kind of thing.
.

AT sounds more like OT 'spare the rod' shit.

An 'overbelief' in anything is bad.

As I've stated elsewhere, a major problem is the inability to distinguish from belief and what is materially real.

Much of what passes as normal is actually farcical as well (especially when we look back on what was 'normal' in past ages. It is arrogant indeed that the future will look at our age and say 'oh, they had it right'). It is all from one's point of view. The modern scientific way of dealing with child (mis)behaviour - ie psychiatric medicines - have lead to the death of many children (ie heart attacks caused by ADHD stimulants, etc). I don't think that this means psychiatry should be dismissed. People should think critically about everything though and just not accept what is commonly thought of as "how things work."

I also particularly like the article about firewalking at the Skeptic's Dictionary site. It shows how the New Agers take a very simple thing and blow it up into something with DEEP, MYSTICAL significance.

Typically, they then try to sell you a book or a dvd, pat you on the head, and then send you on your merry way.
And you don't think that's any sort of generalization?

That's a good, if partial, listing of things that are contained within the New Age Movement.
And you honestly believe each of these links is an accurate representation of the topic?

EDIT: Re the Skeptics' link.

New age, to me, is a bunch of morons. People who believe anything because their lives are that worthless.

And that comming from I, an Polytheist (I refrain from using "Pagan" due to new-age connotations.. and I simply abhor those new-age people.)

Much of what passes as normal is actually farcical

Right on. I happen to believe that science will be viewed in the future the way magic is now.

AT sounds more like OT 'spare the rod' shit.

Exactly my point about New Ageism. It takes old ideas, reworks them, and then tries to sell them to an unsuspecting, and non-critical thinking public.

An 'overbelief' in anything is bad.

Can't argue with this.

As I've stated elsewhere, a major problem is the inability to distinguish from belief and what is materially real.

Yes, and New Agers use that inability to sell worthless, crackpot ideas to people either ignorant of their fallacies or so desperate for something "new" to believe in that they'll latch onto anything.

Much of what passes as normal is actually farcical as well (especially when we look back on what was 'normal' in past ages. It is arrogant indeed that the future will look at our age and say 'oh, they had it right'). It is all from one's point of view.

I don't know that I agree with this. We look back at the Renaissance and say, wow, they were really moving in the right direction. True, they were wrong in some of their particulars, but they were at least trying to pull themselves up out of the Dark Ages (no that they thought of them as the "Dark Ages", or course).

The modern scientific way of dealing with child (mis)behaviour - ie psychiatric medicines - have lead to the death of many children (ie heart attacks caused by ADHD stimulants, etc).

Yes, and this is not only poor medical practice but also poor parenting and bad science. American culture is a pill-popping one. (And this comes from somone who uses Wellbutrin.) There is a tendency in psychiatry today to overmedicate, instead of seeking out a blend of medication and behavioral therapy, which has been shown to work extremely well for cases of ADD & ADHD. Remember, a regular GP can prescribe Ritalin. This is a bad idea.

Believe me, I know all the horror stories about poor medication. My wife is a school teacher, and she has to deal with medicated children all the time. Far too many parents use Ritalin and the other ADD drugs to control their children instead of instilling discipline. This isn't to say that there aren't cases that require it, but these stimulants are WAY over-prescribed. And the medical field is starting to take notice of this. Several studies have come out recently backing this up, and there is a movement to reign in this over-prescription.

I'm all for better living through chemistry. I'm living proof that it works. But I have a genuine, legitimately diagnosed problem. If I could have the same quality of life without the drugs as with them, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But hey, we're all victims of our brain chemistry.

I don't think that this means psychiatry should be dismissed. People should think critically about everything though and just not accept what is commonly thought of as "how things work."

Again, I can't disagree with this. Psychiatry has made great strides, especially considering its first two "big names" were Freud and Jung, both of which have been proven categorically wrong. Hurray for science!

As to critical thinking, that's exactly why New Ageism fluorishes. People have a tendency to only think critically until they reach a conclusion that pleases them, and then stop. And that's assuming that they ever try to think critically at all. True critical thinking requires a constant reevaluation of opinions and values. This is just too much effort for the average, lazy Westerner.

James Randi has a one million dollar prize available for anyone who can , under proper observing conditions, provide evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. This includes all forms of divination, telepathy, telekinesis, homeopathy, spirit channelling, etc. If any of this New Age junk was legitimate, he wouldn't still have that million dollars sitting in the bank. And yet, do people think about that when they see John Edwards "talking to the other side"? No, all they think is, "Grandma?"

And you don't think that's any sort of generalization?

No, it's not. New Agers are out for a buck, sister. A VERY few of them may actually believe what they are saying, especially the originators like Jung, just like a very few psychics learn how to "cold read" without knowing what they are doing. But anyone trying to sell astrology, Primal Scream therapy or "crystal power" in this day and age is out for one thing: the contents of your pocketbook. There are websites out there that sell self-hypnosis cds that claim to cause penis enlargement! As Penn & Teller say, Bullshit! And if you call these people on the carpet, what do they do? Wiggle and jiggle and dance their way out of it. Sylvia Browne accepted James Randi's million dollar challenge a long time ago on national television (Larry King, to be precise). Has she ever actually tried to win the prize? No. Why not? Because she knows she's a fake! Just like the rest of the New Age nuts out there.

Oh, I'll admit that there are a few who try to dress it up as pseudo-scientific claptrap, where it's all about the "symbology that leads one to a deeper understanding of one's self". See the astrotherapy entry on skepdic.com for a good description of this one. All that is, is a repackaging of Junging ideas that were shown to be BS a long time ago. Jung was mentally ill, for goodness sake! He freely admitted it. Do we really want to take the word of a sick mind? I don't, that's for sure.

Now, that being said, does the New Age nonsense hurt people? Usually, no. Usually, it's just as harmless as any other useless pastime. But occasionally, well, occasionally, it'll ruin a life, or take one.

And you honestly believe each of these links is an accurate representation of the topic?

EDIT: Re the Skeptics' link.

Yes, I do. If you care to refute, feel free. Links, please.

Right on. I happen to believe that science will be viewed in the future the way magic is now.

As Arthur C. Clarke said, "Any science, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic." In other words, if you don't understand something, it appears magical. Once you do, you can move it from the realm of the spiritual or supernatural to the realm of the purely natural. This is why David Copperfield is so fun. You don't know how he does the things he does, and they appear magical. The difference between him and some New Age guru is that he freely admits that he's after your money, and only there to entertain, as opposed to people like Uri Geller, who try to sell you some kind of "enlightenment" that's utter BS.

No, it's not. New Agers are out for a buck, sister. A VERY few of them may actually believe what they are saying, especially the originators like Jung, just like a very few psychics learn how to "cold read" without knowing what they are doing. But anyone trying to sell astrology, Primal Scream therapy or "crystal power" in this day and age is out for one thing: the contents of your pocketbook. There are websites out there that sell self-hypnosis cds that claim to cause penis enlargement! As Penn & Teller say, Bullshit! And if you call these people on the carpet, what do they do? Wiggle and jiggle and dance their way out of it. Sylvia Browne accepted James Randi's million dollar challenge a long time ago on national television (Larry King, to be precise). Has she ever actually tried to win the prize? No. Why not? Because she knows she's a fake! Just like the rest of the New Age nuts out there.

Oh, I'll admit that there are a few who try to dress it up as pseudo-scientific claptrap, where it's all about the "symbology that leads one to a deeper understanding of one's self". See the astrotherapy entry on skepdic.com for a good description of this one. All that is, is a repackaging of Junging ideas that were shown to be BS a long time ago. Jung was mentally ill, for goodness sake! He freely admitted it. Do we really want to take the word of a sick mind? I don't, that's for sure.

Now, that being said, does the New Age nonsense hurt people? Usually, no. Usually, it's just as harmless as any other useless pastime. But occasionally, well, occasionally, it'll ruin a life, or take one.
You are speaking of the charlatans. So we agree.

I agree entirely on those who try to pass off fakery as pseudo-science.

One question: if you call someone using a subjective methodology "out on the floor" and ask them to prove themselves objectively, what else do you expect?

Oh, another question: are things that are allocated to New Age automatically suspect?

EDIT: Another question: is anyone "out to make a buck" automatically suspect? Isn't that "anti-American"?

As to critical thinking, that's exactly why New Ageism fluorishes. People have a tendency to only think critically until they reach a conclusion that pleases them, and then stop. And that's assuming that they ever try to think critically at all. True critical thinking requires a constant reevaluation of opinions and values. This is just too much effort for the average, lazy Westerner.
This is exactly true; and this is exactly why the charlatans win again and again.

You are speaking of the charlatans. So we agree." I agree entirely on those who try to pass off fakery as pseudo-science.

They are, for the most part, all charlatans. The only ones who aren't are the ones I mentioned who don't realize they are peddling BS.

One question: if you call someone using a subjective methodology "out on the floor" and ask them to prove themselves objectively, what else do you expect?

What is this in response to? Define subjective methodology. Psychiatry, by definition, deals with subjective topics, but it can be defined objectively in terms of its success rate, increased quality of life of patients, etc. The New Age therapies ( which I'm guessing is what you're talking about, astrotherapy, etc.) have never been shown to have any significant positive impact on its patients that haven't been achieved more cheaply and safely with more conventional means.

Oh, another question: are things that are allocated to New Age automatically suspect?

You're looking at it backwards. Things don't become suspect because they are allocated to New Ageism. They are allocated to New Ageism because they are already suspect.

EDIT: Another question: is anyone "out to make a buck" automatically suspect? Isn't that "anti-American"?

Anyone "out to make a buck" is not automatically suspect. Michael Shermer runs Skeptic magazine and sells books. That's how he makes his living. James Randi sells books and does lecture tours. That's how he makes his living. I think everyone can agree that neither of them are New Age.

The problem with New Agers being out to make a buck is that they make their money and give nothing back to (or worse, harm) their patients. Again, this is not an "every time" event. Plenty of people buy a crystal or a book on astrology or have their houses realigned by feng shui. The most they are out is the cost of the crystal, book or feng shui master's visit. (Heck, most modern day designers use feng shui in some way. It's become a common design fad. Trading Spaces, anyone?) However, for people who really need help, the New Age Therapies are at best useless and at worst harmful. See the Attachment Therapy post above for an example. And that's not the only one. There's a documentary by Ofra Bikel called "Divided Memories" that shows several of the biggest names in the New Age Therapy scene showing themselves for what they truly are. They don't care about their patients, and don't care if their patients get anything good out of the snake oil they're peddling, as long as they get paid.

That's not anti-American. That's inhumane, to take someone who's in desperate need of real help and bilk them out of their money. They're con artists and flimflam men, whether they realize it or not.

If an otherwise rational, reasonably sane human being wants to contemplate his or her navel aided by his or her horary, then no harm is done. If someone who is ill is told that doing so will cure them, that's criminal, because it won't.

This is exactly true; and this is exactly why the charlatans win again and again.

I can't disagree with you here. However, I believe you and I would disagree on the definition of just who the charlatans are.

You're looking at it backwards. Things don't become suspect because they are allocated to New Ageism. They are allocated to New Ageism because they are already suspect.
Ahh, so it is those on the outside and not those on the inside who created "New Age". That makes a bit more sense.

well to make a point for no reason without reading anything

the older the wine, the better. what would pouring old whine into a new bottle do? and how would you do it? maybe it would depreciate its value?

Ahh, so it is those on the outside and not those on the inside who created "New Age". That makes a bit more sense.

Nope, sorry. The term "New Age" was invented by those cooking up these schemes. And it has been thoroughly adopted by the New Agers themselves. At least some of them. See:

http://www.newageinfo.com/

So, does it still make sense?


There are a lot of people selling New Age ideas that don't claim to be New Age, though. Probably because it has been so well discredited among the better informed segment of the populace. These are the ones to be especially careful around. Think about it.

Con Artist: "Hey, I'm here to sell you this astrology book."

Skeptic: "Isn't that just New Age baloney?"

Con Artist: "My stuff's not New Age! It's not about REALLY-REAL astrology. It's about increasing your self-awareness. It's not really astrology. It's, ummmm, hehe, ummmm, astrotherapy! Yeah, astrotherapy."

Skeptic: "But it says the same things as the astrology books."

Con Artist: "Go away, kid. You bother me."

well to make a point for no reason without reading anything

the older the wine, the better. what would pouring old whine into a new bottle do? and how would you do it? maybe it would depreciate its value?

I couldn't find the origin of this phrase, but it is used to delineate someone who is trying to make something look newer than it really is.

They are, for the most part, all charlatans. The only ones who aren't are the ones I mentioned who don't realize they are peddling BS.

The charlatans are the ones who ask people to "believe".

The charlatans are the ones who ask people to "believe".

Every New Ager asks you to "believe" something. The only difference is how well they dress it up in pseudo-scientific language. And yes, that includes Geoffrey Cornelius. He founded the Company of Astrologers, and their website lists coursework involving spirituality. Since there is no evidence of a spirit existing, the implication is that you must believe in one first.

Nope, sorry. The term "New Age" was invented by those cooking up these schemes. And it has been thoroughly adopted by the New Agers themselves. At least some of them. See:

http://www.newageinfo.com/

So, does it still make sense?
No, none of this makes sense. But if it's true that things "are allocated to New Ageism because they are already suspect" that explains how I suddenly became a part of the "New Age movement" apart from my will or knowledge; I mentioned practice of a "suspect" topic, so I became suspect and *poof*, I'm part of this movement, and a guru no less. You, someone on the outside, allocated me to being a part of this group.

There are a lot of people selling New Age ideas that don't claim to be New Age, though. Probably because it has been so well discredited among the better informed segment of the populace. These are the ones to be especially careful around. Think about it.

Con Artist: "Hey, I'm here to sell you this astrology book."

Skeptic: "Isn't that just New Age baloney?"

Con Artist: "My stuff's not New Age! It's not about REALLY-REAL astrology. It's about increasing your self-awareness. It's not really astrology. It's, ummmm, hehe, ummmm, astrotherapy! Yeah, astrotherapy."

Skeptic: "But it says the same things as the astrology books."

Con Artist: "Go away, kid. You bother me."
I get it; You simply refuse to believe that real astrologers exist, and that's your right. I would just like to ask that you please stop referring to me as a "New Ager".

Ullshitby, Ullshitbay!!


Age of grumpf...

Every New Ager asks you to "believe" something. The only difference is how well they dress it up in pseudo-scientific language. And yes, that includes Geoffrey Cornelius. He founded the Company of Astrologers, and their website lists coursework involving spirituality. Since there is no evidence of a spirit existing, the implication is that you must believe in one first.
That's what the other thread was all about: science will never "prove" or even demonstrate the existence of a spirit or spiritual things. They are entirely subjective relative to the individual.

An individual's belief in their own spirit is not the same as a charlatan asking others to believe in what they say/do. The individual has all the evidence he or she needs.

Every New Ager asks you to "believe" something. The only difference is how well they dress it up in pseudo-scientific language. And yes, that includes Geoffrey Cornelius. He founded the Company of Astrologers, and their website lists coursework involving spirituality. Since there is no evidence of a spirit existing, the implication is that you must believe in one first.

And what evidence do you have of things such as a conciousness or a conscience existing? What evidence do you have of a mood existing?

Why can't you accept that 'spirit' is just a synonym, or a different way of looking at these very same phenomena - the totality of mental process.

No, it's not. New Agers are out for a buck, sister. A VERY few of them may actually believe what they are saying, especially the originators like Jung, just like a very few psychics learn how to "cold read" without knowing what they are doing. But anyone trying to sell astrology, Primal Scream therapy or "crystal power" in this day and age is out for one thing: the contents of your pocketbook. There are websites out there that sell self-hypnosis cds that claim to cause penis enlargement! As Penn & Teller say, Bullshit! And if you call these people on the carpet, what do they do? Wiggle and jiggle and dance their way out of it. Sylvia Browne accepted James Randi's million dollar challenge a long time ago on national television (Larry King, to be precise). Has she ever actually tried to win the prize? No. Why not? Because she knows she's a fake! Just like the rest of the New Age nuts out there.

Oh, I'll admit that there are a few who try to dress it up as pseudo-scientific claptrap, where it's all about the "symbology that leads one to a deeper understanding of one's self". See the astrotherapy entry on skepdic.com for a good description of this one. All that is, is a repackaging of Junging ideas that were shown to be BS a long time ago. Jung was mentally ill, for goodness sake! He freely admitted it. Do we really want to take the word of a sick mind? I don't, that's for sure.

Now, that being said, does the New Age nonsense hurt people? Usually, no. Usually, it's just as harmless as any other useless pastime. But occasionally, well, occasionally, it'll ruin a life, or take one.

I find it extremely funny that you are bashing Jung when in a different thread you suggested the usefulness of Myers-Briggs personlity type things which are BASED on Jung's work (and as such is also bashed by your pet web-site). Is Jung's work full and complete in and of itself? No. Does that mean it has been de-bunked? No, not any more than the "discovery" of open-systems debunks the classic definiton of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Discovering the limitations of is not equiavalent to proving that something is horse-shit.

As for not taking the word of Jung because he was mentally-ill, well a lot of physical scientist have been mentally ill, too. Does that mean their contributions don't count? Should I discount everything you say because you take Wellbutrin?

Speaking of which, the medical scientists don't yet know why or exactly how that particular medication works. Does this make it any less effective? Does the fact that the people who can "cold-read" not know how they are able to do it (my theory would be a much greater than average sensitivity to things like body language, tone, and pheremones) any how stop them from actually doing it? No.

Now the people who claim that this crystal or essential oil absolutely positively WILL do this are full of shit and peddling snake-oil. But then again, so are the psychiatrists who hand pills to grieving widows in order to "cure" their grief (some it improves their mood, some it makes worse - but the same thing would happen if they picked up an oz. of coke from the corner drug peddlar). In the labs, there is some evidence to back up the science of psychiatry. In practice, medical psychiatry is nothing more than a repackaging of the age old knowledge that psychotropic drugs will have an effect on mood and behavior. Yet it escapes being pushed into your "New Age Quackery" group because the study of chemicals has been in the purview of science for a long time, where as much of the New Age stuff affects people in ways that science is just now beginning to touch. However, much of it is simply being dismissed (as you are doing) as less-than-nothing because when Science became King, there was no way yet to study it. It was all discredited.

The scientific truth is that experience shapes the brain and the brain chemistry. Deep trauma can be mapped (maybe it is easier, or maybe we were looking for it first since it leads to illness). Nutritional deprivation in childhood can be mapped. Someone who has learned multiple languages (especially as a child) will have a physically different brain structure. Behavioural therapy actually changes the morphology and the chemistry of the brain (more slowly and less dramatical than chemical changes, but also more enduring as well - it is a different kind of change). Love, emotions -oops, there go those brain chemicals again. A lot of the basis for "New Age" stuff is the just know being scientifically acknowledged fact that experience shapes our health and mental wellbeing. Now, most of the packaging is full of shit, since it is offered as quick-cure nonsense, but that doesn't mean the underlying principles are non-sense themselves.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/96/103943.htm

Now this suggests that either long term meditation as a lifestlye (not a quick cure) effects the brain, or at least effects the brain of the people pre-disposed (as with all predispositions by their own brain) to do so.

Originally Posted by Mickonia
As to critical thinking, that's exactly why New Ageism fluorishes. People have a tendency to only think critically until they reach a conclusion that pleases them, and then stop. And that's assuming that they ever try to think critically at all. True critical thinking requires a constant reevaluation of opinions and values. This is just too much effort for the average, lazy Westerner.
This is exactly true; and this is exactly why the charlatans win again and again.
I can't disagree with you here. However, I believe you and I would disagree on the definition of just who the charlatans are.
I think you misunderstood. What the charlatans are winning is credence from people like you. They succeed in casting this palor of fakery over everything they touch by promoting incorrect method, impossible theories (including "belief" as method) and misinformation (which the links on the Skeptic site demonstrate) in books and media, through commercialism and "being out make a buck" as you put it. It is people like you who allow the fakery to win. You give credence to these people by believing that the BS is all there is to the topics. You do not use critical thinking when looking at "New Ageism"; you have convinced yourself that it is all bunk and not worthy of your time (dispite being told otherwise in another thread), so you close your mind and stop your investigation there.

www.randi.org

I think it's kind of ironic that this guy is peddling DVDs and other crap on his website.
I would have to say that if it's true that quacks are "just trying to make a buck" then it's also true that the anti-quacks are doing the same.

No, none of this makes sense. But if it's true that things "are allocated to New Ageism because they are already suspect" that explains how I suddenly became a part of the "New Age movement" apart from my will or knowledge; I mentioned practice of a "suspect" topic, so I became suspect and *poof*, I'm part of this movement, and a guru no less. You, someone on the outside, allocated me to being a part of this group.


I get it; You simply refuse to believe that real astrologers exist, and that's your right. I would just like to ask that you please stop referring to me as a "New Ager".

I agree that none of it makes sense. That's my point. I've been waiting for someone to refute me. No one's biting.

I have not once called you a guru on this thread that I can remember or find. If you will quote it, I'll apologize for calling you one. As to your being a New Ager apart from your will or knowledge, again, I can't recall calling you a New Ager in this thread. Quote it, and I'll apologize for it. As to mentioning a suspect practice, well, it's suspect in my eyes because it makes no sense to me. I, in part, started this thread to gain some insight. So long, no one's offered any. Do you belong to the New Age movement? I don't know. Do you practice "astrotherapy"? If so, you belong to the New Age movement whether you know it or not.

As to "real astrologers", well, I'm sure they exist. There are plenty of people out there that make a claim to astrology. You're definition is a little less offensive than some I've seen, but I still find that it whiffs of pseudo-science. I've asked you more than once to refute, and you refuse to do so. All you do is stamp your foot and pout at me. REFUTE ME! I dare you. Provide links, and definitions, and good, credible sources. That's all I ask.

about That's what the other thread was all about: science will never "prove" or even demonstrate the existence of a spirit or spiritual things. They are entirely subjective relative to the individual.

An individual's belief in their own spirit is not the same as a charlatan asking others to believe in what they say/do. The individual has all the evidence he or she needs.

You mean that other thread that I quit posting to because I thought you made no sense? The one where I SAID that I thought you made no sense? The one where I asked for some kind of proof, and you couldn't back yourself up? The one where you made a claim to an ancient Goddess cult that predates the Hebrews in Canaan, even though there's some evidence that the Hebrews never even LEFT Canaan in the first place? That thread?

What is your spirit, Willamena? Care to define that? Can you take it out and show me? Can you explain to me what my spirit is? Can you make me believe in my spirit? A "charlatan" asks you to believe him, without any scientific evidence to back him up. A "charlatan" asks you to accept as true his word, based solely on his word, with nothing to back him up other than....his word. Oh, and your feeling that he's talking about the same kind of subjective (and thus, by your own admission, unknowable to anyone else) experiences. Don't you think it's absolutely amazing that "astrotherapy" and all the other New Age stuff out there speaks about the subjective like they are authorites on it, even though it's subjective and thus unknowable to anyone else? Where's the logic in that?

And what evidence do you have of things such as a conciousness or a conscience existing? What evidence do you have of a mood existing?

Why can't you accept that 'spirit' is just a synonym, or a different way of looking at these very same phenomena - the totality of mental process.


Because "spirit" is not a synonym for the totality of mental process. "Spirit" means ghost, buddy-boy. If you want to redefine spirit, do it on your own time. Don't splash it all over my thread.

And what evidence do I have that a mood exists? Simple, I can measure it's effects on myself, or another. I can repeat it. Heck, they are even building stereo systems that detect your mood and automatically play the music they have "learned" you like when you are in a given mood. If a simple radio can detect a mood, I think modern science has a decent chance of doing the same.

I find it extremely funny that you are bashing Jung when in a different thread you suggested the usefulness of Myers-Briggs personlity type things which are BASED on Jung's work (and as such is also bashed by your pet web-site). Is Jung's work full and complete in and of itself? No. Does that mean it has been de-bunked? No, not any more than the "discovery" of open-systems debunks the classic definiton of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Discovering the limitations of is not equiavalent to proving that something is horse-shit.

As for not taking the word of Jung because he was mentally-ill, well a lot of physical scientist have been mentally ill, too. Does that mean their contributions don't count? Should I discount everything you say because you take Wellbutrin?

Speaking of which, the medical scientists don't yet know why or exactly how that particular medication works. Does this make it any less effective? Does the fact that the people who can "cold-read" not know how they are able to do it (my theory would be a much greater than average sensitivity to things like body language, tone, and pheremones) any how stop them from actually doing it? No.

Now the people who claim that this crystal or essential oil absolutely positively WILL do this are full of shit and peddling snake-oil. But then again, so are the psychiatrists who hand pills to grieving widows in order to "cure" their grief (some it improves their mood, some it makes worse - but the same thing would happen if they picked up an oz. of coke from the corner drug peddlar). In the labs, there is some evidence to back up the science of psychiatry. In practice, medical psychiatry is nothing more than a repackaging of the age old knowledge that psychotropic drugs will have an effect on mood and behavior. Yet it escapes being pushed into your "New Age Quackery" group because the study of chemicals has been in the purview of science for a long time, where as much of the New Age stuff affects people in ways that science is just now beginning to touch. However, much of it is simply being dismissed (as you are doing) as less-than-nothing because when Science became King, there was no way yet to study it. It was all discredited.

The scientific truth is that experience shapes the brain and the brain chemistry. Deep trauma can be mapped (maybe it is easier, or maybe we were looking for it first since it leads to illness). Nutritional deprivation in childhood can be mapped. Someone who has learned multiple languages (especially as a child) will have a physically different brain structure. Behavioural therapy actually changes the morphology and the chemistry of the brain (more slowly and less dramatical than chemical changes, but also more enduring as well - it is a different kind of change). Love, emotions -oops, there go those brain chemicals again. A lot of the basis for "New Age" stuff is the just know being scientifically acknowledged fact that experience shapes our health and mental wellbeing. Now, most of the packaging is full of shit, since it is offered as quick-cure nonsense, but that doesn't mean the underlying principles are non-sense themselves.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/96/103943.htm

Now this suggests that either long term meditation as a lifestlye (not a quick cure) effects the brain, or at least effects the brain of the people pre-disposed (as with all predispositions by their own brain) to do so.

I only put forth Myers-Briggs as a system that TRIED to use statistical analysis to get at some of those subjective things we were talking about in that other thread. I also remember saying that it wasn't a very good PREDICTOR, just a good explainer. That makes it non-scientific, by definition. And Myers-Briggs has a link to Jung, but is not completely based on his theories. Jung did a lot of good things before his breakdown. That's undeniable. But after it, Jung decided that people were lacking because they were missing religion, and so he invented a religion of archetypes to fill up that void. He invented it out of whole cloth, just like his teacher, Freud, invented a lot of things to prop up his pet theories.

As to not taking my word for anything, I have something very important to say, so please pay attention:
I never asked you to come and read anything on this thread, nor did I ask you to post anything! I don't EVER ask you to take my word for anything. That's the difference between me and the New Agers. I ALWAYS try to provide links to what I'm talking about, and if I can, I provide multiple ones. You don't have to listen to a damn word I say. No one's twisting your arm and making you read anything here, much less believe it. However, I think that what I have to say has serious merit. That's why I'm saying it. I have asked and asked and asked people to refute me. No one has. All they do is yell at me because I don't agree with them. REFUTE ME! Links, please.

As to cold reading, do you even know what that is? It's what John Edwards does when he's speaking to the "other side". It's BS. I only mentioned that some people learn to do it by accident, and thus may really believe they are psychic. These people are innocent of any wrong-doing. They just need to be educated as to what they are doing. John Edwards and his ilk, however, are flim-flam men and con artists. I don't think any rational, sane human being would trust him as far as a five year boy could throw him.

Modern psychiatry has a lot of problems, I freely admit to that. But it at least tries to deal with a person's problems in a rational and reasonable, and yes, scientific manner. Any therapist that thrusts a handful of pills into a widow's hands to "cure" her grief should have his license revoked. And you know it. He's not a responsible doctor.

I have no problem with studying how all the things you mentioned above affect us. Science is doing just that, on many fronts. But something that you said was very telling. Most of the packaging is full of shit and it should be shouted from the rooftops that it is! The sad truth is that the New Agers aren't in possession of truths that science is just now getting to, but that the New Agers are tapping into the newest findings of science in an attempt to sell their pretty, shitty packaging.

Science has known for YEARS that meditation does no harm, and can be beneficial. No decent doctor in the world will tell you not to meditate if it seems to help you feel better.

I will say it again. If you think I'm wrong, refute me. I liked your WebMD link. But you'll notice it doesn't say anything about the New Age-y parts of meditation.

I think you misunderstood. What the charlatans are winning is credence from people like you. They succeed in casting this palor of fakery over everything they touch by promoting incorrect method, impossible theories (including "belief" as method) and misinformation (which the links on the Skeptic site demonstrate) in books and media, through commercialism and "being out make a buck" as you put it. It is people like you who allow the fakery to win. You give credence to these people by believing that the BS is all there is to the topics. You do not use critical thinking when looking at "New Ageism"; you have convinced yourself that it is all bunk and not worthy of your time (dispite being told otherwise in another thread), so you close your mind and stop your investigation there.

Astrologers have never won my credence. I think they are full of crap. I don't let the fakers get away with anything. I don't let them "win". The people who let them "win" are the ones who talk about astrology in any serious manner what-so-ever. If someone sees a person they respect reading an astrology book, no matter how high-minded and self-awareness seeking its contents may be, they think: Hmmmm. Astrology, eh?

If your version of astrology is being overtaken by charlatans, then change the name! Simple as that.

I think it's kind of ironic that this guy is peddling DVDs and other crap on his website.
I would have to say that if it's true that quacks are "just trying to make a buck" then it's also true that the anti-quacks are doing the same.

The difference is that Randi doesn't ask you to believe anything he says. He WANTS you to check things out for yourself. The New Agers demand that you accept what they say before you can reach Enlightenment/Nirvana/etc.

...

As to "real astrologers", well, I'm sure they exist. There are plenty of people out there that make a claim to astrology. You're definition is a little less offensive than some I've seen, but I still find that it whiffs of pseudo-science. I've asked you more than once to refute, and you refuse to do so. All you do is stamp your foot and pout at me. REFUTE ME! I dare you. Provide links, and definitions, and good, credible sources. That's all I ask.
I didn't define astrology.

I have said more than once that divination has nothing to do with science, in more ways than one, too. As to refuting, what is it you would like me to refute? The misinformation put forth on sites like the Skeptics? I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to give them any credence.

My points about divination were made, in the other thread; you didn't listen.

I didn't define astrology.

I have said more than once that divination has nothing to do with science, in more ways than one, too. As to refuting, what is it you would like me to refute? The misinformation put forth on sites like the Skeptics? I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to give them any credence.

My points about divination were made, in the other thread; you didn't listen.

Okay, one, this isn't the other thread. Why don't you make them here, for the people who weren't reading the other thread.

Two, you made ASSERTIONS on the other thread about divination. You didn't back up one thing you said about divination. I think you are full of crap about how the ancients used divination. There is not one shred of evidence for it. You yourself said so. I, however, have plenty of evidence for how people used divination 4000 years ago. It's in the Bible, among other things. I also have plenty of evidence for how modern day primitives use divination. And before you say anything about them being "patrilineal", I say, so what? Most primitive tribes are patrilineal. When the male is physically stronger, and you are living in a Stone Age society, it only makes sense that you would look to the males to lead, because they FEED YOU and PROTECT YOU. As to your assertion on the other thread that they aren't "geographically relevant", what does geography have to do with the uses of divination? What, did the people growing up in the desert use divination one way, and the rest of the world another? Ridiculous claims from a ridiculous source. Oh wait, you don't HAVE any sources, or else you would have posted links to them.

I find it absolutely amazing that you are willing to berate me for my thoughts on this matter, but won't back yourself up, because you don't want to give "credence" to the skeptics. More likely, you can't refute, and you know it. Just like you can't find anywhere on this thread where I called you a guru, and you know it, even though you accused me of it. What, can't you be bothered to go back and make sure what you're saying is accurate before you post it? I've noticed over the course of these two threads that you are really good at picking out specific points to argue about and completely ignoring the ones that you KNOW you're wrong on. You don't cede points where you know you're wrong, you just ignore them.

That's why I quite the last thread. You don't want a discussion. You don't want a dialogue. You want me to agree with your assertions because they are, in your own mind, so self-evidently correct that only "people like me" could possibly disagree. Well, chickadee, "people like me" are creating the things that make your life easier, and will make you live longer than your grandparents, and will, in general, make your life a better one. So, don't knock "people like me" and all the other science-minded people on this forum and in this world, because we work in piss-poor working conditions, underfunded, underpaid and overworked while the New Age homeopathy nuts get government protection from the FDA, and can mix up a little vegetable matter in a sea of distilled water and sell it as a "cure" that is no better for you than tap water. And silly people believe them, because a few pseudo-intellectuals such as yourself are seen to give "credence" to some bit of New Age revisionist bullshit in some way, shape or form, and so they think it must be real. An otherwise smart person wouldn't believe in that junk unless it was true, right?

All I ask, all I asked from the get-go on this thread, was for someone to explain New Ageism to me. I wanted their perspectives. All I have gotten is kicked in the teeth (by a couple of spoiled brats that followed me from another thread) for my definition of New Ageism. I don't see anybody else putting forth a definition or an explanation. I will admit that V&K made some good points earlier, and I addressed them, both those I agreed with and those I didn't. But other than that one post, I don't see anybody refuting my definition. Willamena, you just *pooh pooh* it because it doesn't fit your worldview.

Well, guess what, there are plenty of things that haven't fit my worldview over the years. But as I grew up, I had to change my worldview to fit the world. I can't make the world fit my worldview. Maybe if you tried to adjust to reality a little, and stopped making assertions you CAN'T BACK UP then I wouldn't disagree with you so much.

Is the ability to back up what you say too much to ask? Or, like the New Agers we are arguing about, must I take what you say on faith?

You mean that other thread that I quit posting to because I thought you made no sense? The one where I SAID that I thought you made no sense? The one where I asked for some kind of proof, and you couldn't back yourself up? The one where you made a claim to an ancient Goddess cult that predates the Hebrews in Canaan, even though there's some evidence that the Hebrews never even LEFT Canaan in the first place? That thread?
So your saying the Hebrews are Canaanites? Cool!

What is your spirit, Willamena? Care to define that? Can you take it out and show me? Can you explain to me what my spirit is? Can you make me believe in my spirit? A "charlatan" asks you to believe him, without any scientific evidence to back him up. A "charlatan" asks you to accept as true his word, based solely on his word, with nothing to back him up other than....his word. Oh, and [a] feeling that he's talking about the same kind of subjective (and thus, by your own admission, unknowable to anyone else) experiences. Don't you think it's absolutely amazing that "astrotherapy" and all the other New Age stuff out there speaks about the subjective like they are authorites on it, even though it's subjective and thus unknowable to anyone else? Where's the logic in that?
Glad we agree. :-)

You are right; I have no interest in debating this topic, nor responding to your baiting. The other topic was at least interesting.

And if it makes you feel better to think that my lack of response means you win something, then go ahead.

I only put forth Myers-Briggs as a system that TRIED to use statistical analysis to get at some of those subjective things we were talking about in that other thread. I also remember saying that it wasn't a very good PREDICTOR, just a good explainer. That makes it non-scientific, by definition. And Myers-Briggs has a link to Jung, but is not completely based on his theories. Jung did a lot of good things before his breakdown. That's undeniable. But after it, Jung decided that people were lacking because they were missing religion, and so he invented a religion of archetypes to fill up that void. He invented it out of whole cloth, just like his teacher, Freud, invented a lot of things to prop up his pet theories.

As to not taking my word for anything, I have something very important to say, so please pay attention:
I never asked you to come and read anything on this thread, nor did I ask you to post anything! I don't EVER ask you to take my word for anything. That's the difference between me and the New Agers. I ALWAYS try to provide links to what I'm talking about, and if I can, I provide multiple ones. You don't have to listen to a damn word I say. No one's twisting your arm and making you read anything here, much less believe it. However, I think that what I have to say has serious merit. That's why I'm saying it. I have asked and asked and asked people to refute me. No one has. All they do is yell at me because I don't agree with them. REFUTE ME! Links, please.

As to cold reading, do you even know what that is? It's what John Edwards does when he's speaking to the "other side". It's BS. I only mentioned that some people learn to do it by accident, and thus may really believe they are psychic. These people are innocent of any wrong-doing. They just need to be educated as to what they are doing. John Edwards and his ilk, however, are flim-flam men and con artists. I don't think any rational, sane human being would trust him as far as a five year boy could throw him.

Modern psychiatry has a lot of problems, I freely admit to that. But it at least tries to deal with a person's problems in a rational and reasonable, and yes, scientific manner. Any therapist that thrusts a handful of pills into a widow's hands to "cure" her grief should have his license revoked. And you know it. He's not a responsible doctor.

I have no problem with studying how all the things you mentioned above affect us. Science is doing just that, on many fronts. But something that you said was very telling. Most of the packaging is full of shit and it should be shouted from the rooftops that it is! The sad truth is that the New Agers aren't in possession of truths that science is just now getting to, but that the New Agers are tapping into the newest findings of science in an attempt to sell their pretty, shitty packaging.

Science has known for YEARS that meditation does no harm, and can be beneficial. No decent doctor in the world will tell you not to meditate if it seems to help you feel better.

I will say it again. If you think I'm wrong, refute me. I liked your WebMD link. But you'll notice it doesn't say anything about the New Age-y parts of meditation.

1)You seem to be operating from the standpoint (correct if I am wrong) that things which are non-scientific, or at this moment outside the purview of science, hold no validity. Culture is non-scientific (at least from a hard science view point, the social sciences are not able to operate on the same basis as the physical sciences because a _different type of thing_ is being studied). Most of the things humans consider "common knowledge" has no scientific basis.

2)I know what cold reading is. It happens. The fact that John Edwards uses cold reading while invalidly claiming that he is getting the info from the "otherside" doesn't make the fact that some people are really, really good at picking up on other people's shit any less true. I can cold read to some extent. I am in now way claiming that this is a "psychic" ability. It is just an ability to pick up on non-verbal cues that most people are oblivous to (whether on picking up or the fact that they are giving them off).

As for the people who are not trying to swindle others but who have this ability but are not aware that what they are doing is reading really subtle physical cues, why do you feel that they have to be 'educated' as to how they are doing it? Do artist have to be educated as how and why their brain works in order to let them create in a way that most people can't (and do we punish people like Brittany who claim to have artistic talent in order to fleece people out of their money or do we let the people decide for themselve if they want to believe her crap is art)? It seems as though you have picked a certain type of not-fully by current science to pick on.

3)I agree that doctor's who hand out pills for things like that aren't responsible. But nowadays anti-psycotics are being handed out to people who have trouble sleeping. There have been articles urging dermatoligists to hand out psych-meds since stress produces rashes. Pediatricians are handing out stims. It has really gotten out of hand. If we were to revoke all of those licenses, the medical profession would lose a huge chunk of its practitioners. Again, its the packaging. It is taking something that is useful within a limited range and pushing it into areas where it doesn't belong, making claims far beyond the area where it is valid. The fact that medicine is based on current science doesn't excuse this. But it makes it easier for most people to overlook the bad packaging somehow - or at the very least say the bad packaging doesn't invalidate the basic claim. If we were to judge psychiatry on the packaging - like some people do with many of the things that are at the base of what is called "New Age" then we would be calling all of it BS instead of just the abuses BS.

4)Perhaps I am just confused about what you are calling "New Age-y." Perhaps I am totally wrong in my assesment that if science had not yet found out that meditation could be beneficial then you would be throwing meditaiton itself in the dumpster along with the outrageous claims that get packaged along with it. The TRUTH is that meditation was beneficial long before science understood how or why. The TRUTH is that not so long ago the idea that meditiation could be beneficial was considered complete bunk by all but the practitioners of meditation because science had not yet verified that it could be beneficial.

Again, perhaps I am wrong, but you seem intent on denying that the *underlying basics* of any and everything that is associated with New Age (and not just the bullshit thrown on top of those underlying basics) can even be valid because science has not yet gotten around to finding a way to study them.

Rail against the ridiculous bullshit claims and I will join you. Say that a lot of it has yet to be proven in any way and I will agree. But if you say something is all a bunch of bull just because it can't be scientifically proven right now, then I'll tell you that in the 1700's, the notion that sub-atomic particles existed would have souded really insane.

Because I have no interest in debating this topic, nor responding to your baiting. The other topic was at least interesting.

And yes; if it makes you feel better to think that my lack of response means you win the debate, then go ahead.

Willamena, Willamena, Willamena, Please pay attention to details. What Mickonia is asking of you is not a debate. He is merely looking for evidence for divination and other spiritual powers. So, do you have evidence? Proof? PLEASE PROVIDE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES. THANK YOU!!! :)

Willamena, Willamena, Willamena, Please pay attention to details. What Mickonia is asking of you is not a debate. He is merely looking for evidence for divination and other spiritual powers. So, do you have evidence? Proof? PLEASE PROVIDE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES. THANK YOU!!! :)
Ooh! someone polite. :-)

The evidence of divination is in the practice. Mickonia would rather look at the BS than the actual practice, and I'm not inclined to educate him (besides, I make a lousy teacher). The evidence of spirit is for the individual to decide for himself or herself. I make no claims at all about spiritual powers --I don't believe in them.

Because "spirit" is not a synonym for the totality of mental process. "Spirit" means ghost, buddy-boy. If you want to redefine spirit, do it on your own time. Don't splash it all over my thread.

And what evidence do I have that a mood exists? Simple, I can measure it's effects on myself, or another. I can repeat it. Heck, they are even building stereo systems that detect your mood and automatically play the music they have "learned" you like when you are in a given mood. If a simple radio can detect a mood, I think modern science has a decent chance of doing the same.

Dictionary.com/spirit (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spirit)

spir.it
1. a. The vital principle or animating force within living beings.
b. Incorporeal consciousness.


I'm not redefining at all. One meaning of spirt may be ghost, but another is more or less the totality of mental process.

And as we were talking about spirituality

Every New Ager asks you to "believe" something. The only difference is how well they dress it up in pseudo-scientific language. And yes, that includes Geoffrey Cornelius. He founded the Company of Astrologers, and their website lists coursework involving spirituality. Since there is no evidence of a spirit existing, the implication is that you must believe in one first.

Just because it was long thought that the "animating force" was outside does not change the fact that spirituality spoke to that animating force- (ie the mind). The reason that 'spirit' was first seen as a separate entity was because the functions and the working of the brain were not understood. Just because we now know that the animating force is the biochemical functions of the brain and the nervous system does not mean that the "animating force" that spirituality addressed has ceased to exist.

Ooh! someone polite. :-)

The evidence of divination is in the practice. Mickonia would rather look at the BS than the actual practice, and I'm not inclined to educate him (besides, I make a lousy teacher). The evidence of spirit is for the individual to decide for himself or herself. I make no claims at all about spiritual powers --I don't believe in them.


Evidence is in the Practice? Please elaborate because I simply don't get it.

The evidence of spirit is up to the individual to decide? What evidence did you find that led you to believe in the existence of your own spirit?

Evidence is in the Practice? Please elaborate because I simply don't get it.

The evidence of spirit is up to the individual to decide? What evidence did you find that led you to believe in the existence of your own spirit?
The evidence of divination presents itself to the individual who practices it and sees how it works for them. Similar for the evidence of religousness. Don't know as I can say much more about that.

The spirit is evident to those who open their minds enough to recognize that they are spirit. In other words, it is an experiential, subjective thing. The individual must decide for themselves if they are spirit and matter, or just matter.

The evidence I have of my spirit is that I am conscious and I exist, I think, I feel, I make relationships, I determine my actions, I build on what went before and grow, spiritually, and I accept my limitations. (These are the symbols used in the divination called astrology.)

The evidence of divination presents itself to the individual who practices it and sees how it works for them. Similar for the evidence of religousness. Don't know as I can say much more about that.

The spirit is evident to those who open their minds enough to recognize that they are spirit. In other words, it is an experiential, subjective thing. The individual must decide for themselves if they are spirit and matter, or just matter.

The evidence I have of my spirit is that I am conscious and I exist, I think, I feel, I make relationships, I determine my actions, I build on what went before and grow, spiritually, and I accept my limitations. (These are the symbols used in the divination called astrology.)

*Conscious*
a. "Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts."
b. "Mentally perceptive or alert; awake."

#1 question: you say that, "The evidence I have of my spirit is that I am conscious and I exist..."
-so what you're saying here is those who are unconscious do not have a spirit, right? Because, does an unconcious person think, feel, make relationships etc. etc? So when one goes into a coma, where does his spirit go?

Also:
1. Do babies have spirits?

2. Do you think that they are aware of their own existences?

3. were you aware of your exsistence when you were born? If you don't know, does that mean you were born without a spirit?

4. If you were born without a spirit, where did it come from? Did it just magically appear one day when you became concious of your exsistence?

For me, your answer is not proof enough. Good try though.

*Conscious*
a. "Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts."
b. "Mentally perceptive or alert; awake."

#1 question: you say that, "The evidence I have of my spirit is that I am conscious and I exist..."
-so what you're saying here is those who are unconscious do not have a spirit, right? Because, does an unconcious person think, feel, make relationships etc. etc? So when one goes into a coma, where does his spirit go?
If I'm unconscious, then I am unaware of the presence of my spirit, and consequently have no evidence of it.

Also:
1. Do babies have spirits?

2. Do you think that they are aware of their own existences?
Yes. Awareness does not equate to consciousness.
EDIT: Things that one is conscious of one is not always aware of; hence we have the term "subconcious".

3. were you aware of your exsistence when you were born? If you don't know, does that mean you were born without a spirit?
I think you're mistaking consciousness for memory. When I was a child, I think I would have been unaware of my consciousness, because my mental capacity was not sufficient to grasp the concept.

4. If you were born without a spirit, where did it come from? Did it just magically appear one day when you became concious of your exsistence?
I was born with a spirit. It is inherent in life-forms.

For me, your answer is not proof enough. Good try though.
Good on you. As I said, we should each decide for ourselves.

My view on New Age: Crap. It has good points taken from real religions, but most of it, either invented nonsense, misinterpreted or dangerous. For me it is just another form of Angel worship.

My view on New Age: Crap. It has good points taken from real religions, but most of it, either invented nonsense, misinterpreted or dangerous. For me it is just another form of Angel worship.
Query: so would you say that it's all about religion of some sort?

[QUOTE=Willamena]If I'm unconscious, then I am unaware of the presence of my spirit, and consequently have no evidence of it.


If you have no evidence of it, does that mean it ceases to exsist?

If you have no evidence of it, does that mean it ceases to exist?
No. Existence is, of course, dependant upon our conscious awareness of things, but not being aware of spirit does not imply that one is not conscious of it.

[QUOTE=Willamena] Yes. Awareness does not equate to consciousness.

I disagree with this statement.

If you remember, I just gave you the definition of conscious. I didn't make this up. It is in the dictionary. Look it up yourself.

"having an Awareness of one's environment and one's own exsistence."

[QUOTE=Willamena] Yes. Awareness does not equate to consciousness.

I disagree with this statement.

If you remember, I just gave you the definition of conscious. I didn't make this up. It is in the dictionary. Look it up yourself.

"having an Awareness of one's environment and one's own exsistence."
I am aware of the inaccuracies in the American Heritage Dictionary. Thank you. You should perhaps scroll down the page a bit, or look up "subconscious."

[QUOTE=Willamena] I think you're mistaking consciousness for memory. When I was a child, I think I would have been unaware of my consciousness, because my mental capacity was not sufficient to grasp the concept.

Nope. Not confusing the two. I know that memory refers to, "the mental faculty of retaining and recalling past experience." This has nothing to do with being aware of yourself.

Nope. Not confusing the two. I know that memory refers to, "the mental faculty of retaining and recalling past experience." This has nothing to do with being aware of yourself.
Right, okay, but you had asked if *I* (me, here, now, today) was aware of a spirit when I was born. This has no impact at all on whether I was a spirit when I was born.

I am aware of the inaccuracies in the American Heritage Dictionary. Thank you. You should perhaps scroll down the page a bit, or look up "subconscious."

I beg your pardon. I didn't realize I was talking to the autority on the subject. Nor did I realize that your superior knowledge far surpasses that of the "Heriage Dictionary." So please, enlighten me, enlighten all of us, What is the proper definition of concious????

Oh, and one more thing, give me a RELIABLE source. I don't want what you pull out of that hat of yours. Because frankly, my dear, most of what you're saying comes from that hat. being as you still haven't given any PROOF to back your claims. As far as I can see, you just ramble on like you know everything

So whence does this knowledge come from, old enlightened one???

Geez, go away for a couple of days and someone ELSE gets into a fight with you, Willamena! That's quite a talent you have there. :)

So your saying the Hebrews are Canaanites? Cool!

I'm saying there is some evidence that the Hebrews were residents of Canaan much earlier than previously suspected. It's in no way confirmed, but it is a very real possibility.

Glad we agree. :-)

Why do you feel this incessant need to make it appear as if we agree on things, Willamena? You do this all the time, when it is patently obvious that we don't. When I agree with you on somehthing, I'll say so. If you agree with me on something, just say "I agree with you" and leave it at that.

It seems to me that the New Age movement is just repackaging old ideas in shiny new boxes and selling it to the gullible. Pouring old wine into new bottles, as it were.

Can anyone give me an alternative interpretation? I'm truly interested in trying to understand their viewpoint.

Surely you should put NEW wine into REALLY OLD bottles to raise the vintage?

You are right; I have no interest in debating this topic, nor responding to your baiting. The other topic was at least interesting.

And if it makes you feel better to think that my lack of response means you win something, then go ahead.

If you find this thread uninteresting, then I invite you to leave it.

1)You seem to be operating from the standpoint (correct if I am wrong) that things which are non-scientific, or at this moment outside the purview of science, hold no validity. Culture is non-scientific (at least from a hard science view point, the social sciences are not able to operate on the same basis as the physical sciences because a _different type of thing_ is being studied). Most of the things humans consider "common knowledge" has no scientific basis.

Not at all. Things outside the purview of science are just that, outside the purview of science. The reality of God, for example, is beyond science, and by definition, will always be beyond it. That doesn't mean that a belief in God is bad or holds no validity. Personally, I need evidence. I realize that most people don't, or at least not the same kind of evidence I need. I even realize why. I don't dump on a belief in God. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't dump on it. Things don't have to be within the purview of science to be valid. However, when science has conclusively proven something FALSE, then it becomes bullshit, at least to me.

2)I know what cold reading is. It happens. The fact that John Edwards uses cold reading while invalidly claiming that he is getting the info from the "otherside" doesn't make the fact that some people are really, really good at picking up on other people's shit any less true. I can cold read to some extent. I am in now way claiming that this is a "psychic" ability. It is just an ability to pick up on non-verbal cues that most people are oblivous to (whether on picking up or the fact that they are giving them off).

As for the people who are not trying to swindle others but who have this ability but are not aware that what they are doing is reading really subtle physical cues, why do you feel that they have to be 'educated' as to how they are doing it? Do artist have to be educated as how and why their brain works in order to let them create in a way that most people can't (and do we punish people like Brittany who claim to have artistic talent in order to fleece people out of their money or do we let the people decide for themselve if they want to believe her crap is art)? It seems as though you have picked a certain type of not-fully by current science to pick on.

The reason I think people like the ones mentioned above need to be educated about their "cold reading" abilities is because they are laboring under a gross misunderstanding. They think their abilities are in some way supernatural. They're not. Now, for those who realize what they are doing, like you, that's great! That shows me that you, and the others like you, have a pretty good understanding of human nature, and don't automatically assign it to some supernatural cause.

Should artists be educated about how their brains work to create? Sure, if they are interested. It's not necessary, though. My problem is not with the intuitiveness of it, my problem is with it being assigned a "supernatural" cause, because it's not supernatural. It is actually very natural, and should be appreciated for what it is, not assigned some spurious cause.

3)I agree that doctor's who hand out pills for things like that aren't responsible. But nowadays anti-psycotics are being handed out to people who have trouble sleeping. There have been articles urging dermatoligists to hand out psych-meds since stress produces rashes. Pediatricians are handing out stims. It has really gotten out of hand. If we were to revoke all of those licenses, the medical profession would lose a huge chunk of its practitioners.

And your point is? Personally, I think we'd be much better off without 'em.

Again, its the packaging. It is taking something that is useful within a limited range and pushing it into areas where it doesn't belong, making claims far beyond the area where it is valid. The fact that medicine is based on current science doesn't excuse this. But it makes it easier for most people to overlook the bad packaging somehow - or at the very least say the bad packaging doesn't invalidate the basic claim. If we were to judge psychiatry on the packaging - like some people do with many of the things that are at the base of what is called "New Age" then we would be calling all of it BS instead of just the abuses BS.

I never said the medical profession is perfect. Far from it. I don't trust most doctors. I ALWAYS look stuff they tell me up before I buy into it. It's called being an informed patient. I also independently evaluate effects to the best of my ability. Take my Wellbutrin use, for example. I studied up on it before starting to take it. After taking it for a couple of months, I asked my friends and co-workers whether they thought my demeanor and mood had improved. They overwhelming responded in the positive. This matched up with how I perceived things, so I remained on the meds. If I had gotten bad responses, OR I disagreed, I would have come of them. Every patient should do this every time. Doctors are, sadly, no less susceptible to bullshit than anyone else.

4)Perhaps I am just confused about what you are calling "New Age-y." Perhaps I am totally wrong in my assesment that if science had not yet found out that meditation could be beneficial then you would be throwing meditaiton itself in the dumpster along with the outrageous claims that get packaged along with it. The TRUTH is that meditation was beneficial long before science understood how or why. The TRUTH is that not so long ago the idea that meditiation could be beneficial was considered complete bunk by all but the practitioners of meditation because science had not yet verified that it could be beneficial.

What I call "New Age-y" is anything that claims to have benefit when it has been proven patently false. Meditation does not fall into this category. Obviously, no one ever proved that meditation was not beneficial, because it is. Would I tell someone not to practice meditation, even if it had not been proven beneficial? No. Why not? Because it does no harm. My problem with "New Age-y" stuff is only with the parts that have been proven harmful time and time again, or else those things that have just been proven to be false time and time again. The first alarms me and the second just makes me sad. An example of the first would be Attachment Therapy. An example of the second would be homeopathy.

AT is dangerous and should be made illegal. And yet it's not. Why not? Because there is no oversite whatsoever on these New Age therapies. It takes a weekend course to be able to call yourself a "Hypnotherapist". And your telling me that these people are giving beneficial services? Services that couldn't be given by better trained professionals with better oversite?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but homeopathy is bullshit. And yet it is still going strong. This wouldn't bother me in the least if there weren't people out there being duped into believing it will cure them of whatever they are using homeopathy for, when it will not, at least, if it's a real problem and not psychosomatic.



Again, perhaps I am wrong, but you seem intent on denying that the *underlying basics* of any and everything that is associated with New Age (and not just the bullshit thrown on top of those underlying basics) can even be valid because science has not yet gotten around to finding a way to study them.

The underlying basics that remain untested I have no problem keeping an open mind about. The underlying basics that have been tested and proven out, I have no problem with using myself. But it seems to me that you are saying that ALL the underlying basics of New Ageism are valid. I gotta disagree with you there. There are plenty of things in New Ageism, like homeopathy and AT, along with a plethora of other things, that have been definitively disproven or shown to be harmful. That's not just bullshit thrown on top, pal. That's bullshit at the core of some of these New Age "disciplines". Note that I say some, not all. There are plenty of places where the jury is still out, and I am willing to wait.

Rail against the ridiculous bullshit claims and I will join you. Say that a lot of it has yet to be proven in any way and I will agree. But if you say something is all a bunch of bull just because it can't be scientifically proven right now, then I'll tell you that in the 1700's, the notion that sub-atomic particles existed would have souded really insane.

I do rail against the ridiculous bullshit. I just hope we can come to an agreement about what is ridiculous.

A lot of it has yet to be proven. But, a lot of it has been proven wrong. I hope you can admit to that.

None of it is a bunch of bull because it hasn't been scientifically proven yet. The parts that are a bunch of bull are the parts that have been scientifically disproven.

And I know my scientific history quite well, thank you. There were a huge number of things we didn't know 30 years ago, much less 300. The sum total of human knowledge is growing at a tremendous rate.

That's part of the problem. We are quickly demystifying the world, and our monkey brains don't like that, because we are wired to perceive the world mystically. That's why we are redefining things, like the words "spirit" (thanks for correcting me on that, btw) and "spirituality" and even "astrology" and "divination". My only problem with those redefinitions is that they still carry a tinge of the mystical about them. Maybe not for you, but for most people. And I hate for people to labor under delusions and falsehoods.

Take Willamena, for example. She claims over and over again that astrology and other forms of divination were originally used for the things she uses them for. That the "charlatans" have somehow "taken over" astrology and don't represent how it is actually practiced.

What she doesn't realize is that what she is calling the "charlatans" is what ALL astrologers and diviners were, from time immemorial. She has bought into the New Age concept that the ancients had knowledge that we are only now coming to understand again. This phenomenon is not new. In fact, most of this kind of idea can be traced back to the Renaissance, when the "ancients" really DID know more than the average bloke on the mudlined road. The problem is that now, that's just not the case. But the idea of "ancient knowledge" has become so ingrained in our collective conciousness, our culture, that we continue to seek it out, whether it's really there or not.

Until relatively recently, all astrology could be divided into two categories. The first category actually became a science, astronomy. The second continues to this day as what we all call astrology, i.e. drawing up horaries (et al) to divine the future of the target.

Recently, however, certain people have hijacked the term astrology and tried to turn it into a (pseudo-scientific) practice that claims to draw from psychology, sociology and a host of other so-called soft sciences. The thing about the "soft" sciences is that they are still sciences, and use the scientific method. What these hijackers present, however, doesn't use the scientific method. It has no basis in reality, much less science, even though it uses convincing jargon and seems, to the unsuspecting, to be valid.

That's why I keep asking Willamena to back up her claims. I want her to show me some evidence that her assertions are accurate, that the ancients used divination the way the New Agers claim, i.e. as a tool to self-knowledge, and not as a tool to tell the future. And she won't. Why not? Because she can't. There is no such evidence. Only a few books by people out to bilk the unsuspecting. That's why I assign Willamena's astrology to the New Age movement. It makes claims counter to what science (archeology, sociology, heck--even theology) have discovered. It's not just that science hasn't yet found any links to this New Age astrology's validity, but that it makes claims that are counter to the current understanding of historians and other scientists everywhere. That's why I ask for proof. I'm not going to go against the considered opinons of people who dedicate their lives to the study of this stuff without more proof than one girl's assertions that it's true.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

Just because it was long thought that the "animating force" was outside does not change the fact that spirituality spoke to that animating force- (ie the mind). The reason that 'spirit' was first seen as a separate entity was because the functions and the working of the brain were not understood. Just because we now know that the animating force is the biochemical functions of the brain and the nervous system does not mean that the "animating force" that spirituality addressed has ceased to exist.

I agree. But can't we drop the mystical "spirit" tag and just call it mind or psychology?

I realize it's just semantics, and that to those with some sense, it's unimportant, but to those who don't look below the surface, our word choices are extremely important. The media would jump all over the use of the word "spirit" if used in conjunction with psychology. And they would misinterpret it ruthlessly. There's enough confusion in the world as it is without adding to it.

My view on New Age: Crap. It has good points taken from real religions, but most of it, either invented nonsense, misinterpreted or dangerous. For me it is just another form of Angel worship.

Wouldn't Angel worship fall within New Ageism?

No. Existence is, of course, dependant upon our conscious awareness of things, but not being aware of spirit does not imply that one is not conscious of it.

In what way is existance dependant upon our conscious awareness of things? Do rocks cease to exist if we aren't aware of their existance? So, all those stars we are discovering with our new high power telescopes didn't exist until we became aware of them? Even though we posited their existance before we had proof of them?

Right, okay, but you had asked if *I* (me, here, now, today) was aware of a spirit when I was born. This has no impact at all on whether I was a spirit when I was born.

But didn't you say that you had to make a decision as to whether you were spirit and matter, or just matter? So, until you could make the decision, then you couldn't have a spirit, right?

I beg your pardon. I didn't realize I was talking to the autority on the subject. Nor did I realize that your superior knowledge far surpasses that of the "Heriage Dictionary." So please, enlighten me, enlighten all of us, What is the proper definition of concious????

Oh, and one more thing, give me a RELIABLE source. I don't want what you pull out of that hat of yours. Because frankly, my dear, most of what you're saying comes from that hat. being as you still haven't given any PROOF to back your claims. As far as I can see, you just ramble on like you know everything

So whence does this knowledge come from, old enlightened one???

She CAN be irritating, can't she?

Surely you should put NEW wine into REALLY OLD bottles to raise the vintage?

My wife pointed out this other phrase to me the other day. :headbang:

I beg your pardon. I didn't realize I was talking to the autority on the subject. Nor did I realize that your superior knowledge far surpasses that of the "Heriage Dictionary." So please, enlighten me, enlighten all of us, What is the proper definition of concious????

Oh, and one more thing, give me a RELIABLE source. I don't want what you pull out of that hat of yours. Because frankly, my dear, most of what you're saying comes from that hat. being as you still haven't given any PROOF to back your claims. As far as I can see, you just ramble on like you know everything

So whence does this knowledge come from, old enlightened one???
:-) I like the use of colour to convey indignation.

From dictionary.com:

Main Entry: con·scious
Pronunciation: 'kän-ch&s
Function: adjective
1 : capable of or marked by thought, will, design, or perception : relating to, being, or being part of consciousness <the conscious mind> <conscious and unconscious processes>
2 : having mental faculties undulled by sleep, faintness, or stupor <became conscious after the anesthesia wore off> —con·scious·ly /-lE/ adverb

I am not going to quote a source. Since you are asking me for my opinions, I am the source.

I'm saying there is some evidence that the Hebrews were residents of Canaan much earlier than previously suspected. It's in no way confirmed, but it is a very real possibility.
And I am saying that the Canaanites were the one with the religion descended from the Goddess worshiping religions. So if you want to argue semantics about who came first, the chicken or the egg, it doesn't really change my point any.

Why do you feel this incessant need to make it appear as if we agree on things, Willamena? You do this all the time, when it is patently obvious that we don't. When I agree with you on somehthing, I'll say so. If you agree with me on something, just say "I agree with you" and leave it at that.
I simply said that I can disagree with nothing in your paragraph, the way you wrote it. Now, if the paragraph, the way you wrote it, was nothing you agree with, then my bad. Sorry.

If you find this thread uninteresting, then I invite you to leave it.
I said I find the topic of "New Agism" uninteresting. There are other sub-threads going on that interest me, namely people specifically asking me for my opinions on things.

In what way is existance dependant upon our conscious awareness of things? Do rocks cease to exist if we aren't aware of their existance? So, all those stars we are discovering with our new high power telescopes didn't exist until we became aware of them? Even though we posited their existance before we had proof of them?
If I am unaware of the existence of a rock, then any existence it has for me is purely speculative, hypothetical, until I actually find such a rock, then it becomes "real". All those stars that were theorized could not be claimed as certainty until they were actually observed, by man and his machines, for the benefit of man's consciousness.

If I take a rock and put it in a locked box (like in the old Schrödinger's Cat paradox) it has an existence for me based upon my knowledge that I was the one that put it in there. If someone else had put it in the box and told me about it, it has a high probability of existence for me (dependant upon how much I believe in their word) but I cannot be sure until I open the box and examine it for myself to come to my own conclusion. Then it comes a certainty, a reality, and its existence ceases to be speculative.

But didn't you say that you had to make a decision as to whether you were spirit and matter, or just matter? So, until you could make the decision, then you couldn't have a spirit, right?
Not quite. I had said that every individual has to decide if the evidence of his own spirit is sufficient to convince him of its existence. Generally we do that when we are old enough, and properly programmed enough, to begin to question such things. Babies and children don't think about these things --they just revel in being.

Take Willamena, for example. She claims over and over again that astrology and other forms of divination were originally used for the things she uses them for.
I claimed, once, that Western astrology was originally a tool of spiritual enlightenment, used by priests in support of the religion(s) of Sumeria. Is that what you're referring to? You're so big on support: I don't see any support for your wild claim that astrology has not changed at all "since time immemorial". Where do you get this idea from?

That the "charlatans" have somehow "taken over" astrology and don't represent how it is actually practiced.
No, the "take over" claim was made by you on my behalf, no doubt through my intimate association with this "New Age movement". :rolleyes: I simply said that there is BS, and then there is astrology, and the Skeptics link you pointed to was not representative the latter.

I tried quoting a source to you once; you called him a quack, knowing nothing about him, his ideas or teachings. So what's the point, really?

:-) I like the use of colour to convey indignation.

From dictionary.com:

Main Entry: con·scious
Pronunciation: 'kän-ch&s
Function: adjective
1 : capable of or marked by thought, will, design, or perception : relating to, being, or being part of consciousness <the conscious mind> <conscious and unconscious processes>
2 : having mental faculties undulled by sleep, faintness, or stupor <became conscious after the anesthesia wore off> —con·scious·ly /-lE/ adverb

I am not going to quote a source. Since you are asking me for my opinions, I am the source.

Willamena,

While it's true that some of your answers can irritate the shit out of me, I am not angry. I was merely trying to make a point.

Do you think that Dictionary. com is the best source of information from which you are NOT quoting? :D

I am not going to quote a source. Since you are asking me for my opinions, I am the source.
Do you think that Dictionary. com is the best source of information from which you are NOT quoting? :D
This line was a response to your second paragraph.

I claimed, once, that Western astrology was originally a tool of spiritual enlightenment, used by priests in support of the religion(s) of Sumeria. Is that what you're referring to? You're so big on support: I don't see any support for your wild claim that astrology has not changed at all "since time immemorial". Where do you get this idea from?


No, the "take over" claim was made by you on my behalf, no doubt through my intimate association with this "New Age movement". :rolleyes: I simply said that there is BS, and then there is astrology, and the Skeptics link you pointed to was not representative the latter.

I tried quoting a source to you once; you called him a quack, knowing nothing about him, his ideas or teachings. So what's the point, really?


How's this for starters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_astrology

Pay special attention to the History section, which goes back 5000 years. Oh, and if you'll notice, astrology has been traced back to Babylonia, not Sumer. The details have indeed changed, though. Astrology used to be used almost exclusively for the good of the STATE! So, did they use it to help Sumer reach spiritual enlightenment? What, exactly, does a spiritually enlightened kingdom do? Oh yeah, that's right, crumble into dust and be overtaken by other nations! You have to go down-history past Babylonia and Assyria before you get to the use of astrology as applied to individuals.

Oh, and the Sumerians didn't have a lunar Goddess cult. They had a moon God: Nanna, also called Sin. Sargon of Sumeria (not a Sumerian himself) called himself the protege of Ishtar (also called Inanna, daughter of Nanna), a fertility & war goddess:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_mythology

Could you be confusing the two?

The Canaanites' and the Akkadians' myths/religions (because they're the same thing, folks) reflect the Sumerian ones pretty closely, too.

So, since this takes us back to the beginning of recorded history, I'd say there's no chicken and egg problem here. You're just wrong.

Oh, and did you or did you not post this:
I think you misunderstood. What the charlatans are winning is credence from people like you. They succeed in casting this palor of fakery over everything they touch by promoting incorrect method, impossible theories (including "belief" as method) and misinformation (which the links on the Skeptic site demonstrate) in books and media, through commercialism and "being out make a buck" as you put it.

I believe it's post #47. It looks to me like you are saying the charlatans are taking over astrology. I admit you didn't use those exact words, but I'd say your meaning is pretty clear. "Palor of fakery" is such a memorable term, after all.

Not at all. Things outside the purview of science are just that, outside the purview of science. The reality of God, for example, is beyond science, and by definition, will always be beyond it. That doesn't mean that a belief in God is bad or holds no validity. Personally, I need evidence. I realize that most people don't, or at least not the same kind of evidence I need. I even realize why. I don't dump on a belief in God. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't dump on it. Things don't have to be within the purview of science to be valid. However, when science has conclusively proven something FALSE, then it becomes bullshit, at least to me.


I will agree that when science has proven something false then it is false *in the ways and up to the point that it was tested and proven false* (which is not to say that all the rest should be assumed to be true. What is untested should be clearly known as untested).

With certain subjects, however, there are those who have a tendancy to call the entire thing bullshit, when science has only proven that certain aspects or claims arising from it are bullshit. Perhaps it is because of the failing on the part of a lot of people to insist that belief and physical reality have to coincide in order to be valid.

Hmm. The underlying basis of a lot of stuff that is thought of as 'New Age' is a lot like a belief in God - outside the perview of science. Now some of the *claims* that arise from New Age stuff are just like the claims of the flat-earthers or the strict creationists - easily disproven. But the *basis* is no more or less valid than a belief in God - provided that there is no insistence that it is correct for everyone or that it somehow gives rise to some sort of universal objective reality.

If you are solely against (or defining) New Age as stuff that insists that doing A will in all cases result if done and thought of properly result in B then I am with you. However, there is also a lot of stuff that doesn't get lumped with New Age that make the same sort of ridiculous claims. Like wrinkle-reducing products, and at least half of everything else that gets a commercial made about it.

The reason I think people like the ones mentioned above need to be educated about their "cold reading" abilities is because they are laboring under a gross misunderstanding. They think their abilities are in some way supernatural. They're not. Now, for those who realize what they are doing, like you, that's great! That shows me that you, and the others like you, have a pretty good understanding of human nature, and don't automatically assign it to some supernatural cause.

Should artists be educated about how their brains work to create? Sure, if they are interested. It's not necessary, though. My problem is not with the intuitiveness of it, my problem is with it being assigned a "supernatural" cause, because it's not supernatural. It is actually very natural, and should be appreciated for what it is, not assigned some spurious cause.

Okay, I agree. People -those who can do it and those who can't- should be taught that things like cold-reading are natural. It would stop frauds like John Edwards and it would keep those who can do it from being called things like weird or scary because they can naturally do what a lot of people think doesn't or shouldn't exist. I think I over-reacted and read 'educated' as to how it works to mean 'educated to stop doing it.' Sorry.


And your point is? Personally, I think we'd be much better off without 'em.

I never said the medical profession is perfect. Far from it. I don't trust most doctors. I ALWAYS look stuff they tell me up before I buy into it. It's called being an informed patient. I also independently evaluate effects to the best of my ability. Take my Wellbutrin use, for example. I studied up on it before starting to take it. After taking it for a couple of months, I asked my friends and co-workers whether they thought my demeanor and mood had improved. They overwhelming responded in the positive. This matched up with how I perceived things, so I remained on the meds. If I had gotten bad responses, OR I disagreed, I would have come of them. Every patient should do this every time. Doctors are, sadly, no less susceptible to bullshit than anyone else.


My point was just that it isn't only things like New Age, spiritual stuff, or religions that get undue amounts of faith put into them. If you had disregared *all* of psychiatry because of the amount of BS quackery that goes on in that field, then you wouldn't have found the medicine that helped you. Now granted, medicine is aimed at the physical, and sooner or later all humans will need some form of medical attention. Meanwhile the *basis* of most New Age stuff is largely spiritual/psychological and as such only certain bits will 'help' (perhaps enhance would be a better word) certain people. However, some people may be outright dismissing things that MAY help them be happier, etc because *all* of what is considered New Age is automatically derided as BS instead of just the parts that are actully BS.


What I call "New Age-y" is anything that claims to have benefit when it has been proven patently false. Meditation does not fall into this category. Obviously, no one ever proved that meditation was not beneficial, because it is. Would I tell someone not to practice meditation, even if it had not been proven beneficial? No. Why not? Because it does no harm. My problem with "New Age-y" stuff is only with the parts that have been proven harmful time and time again, or else those things that have just been proven to be false time and time again. The first alarms me and the second just makes me sad. An example of the first would be Attachment Therapy. An example of the second would be homeopathy.

AT is dangerous and should be made illegal. And yet it's not. Why not? Because there is no oversite whatsoever on these New Age therapies. It takes a weekend course to be able to call yourself a "Hypnotherapist". And your telling me that these people are giving beneficial services? Services that couldn't be given by better trained professionals with better oversite?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but homeopathy is bullshit. And yet it is still going strong. This wouldn't bother me in the least if there weren't people out there being duped into believing it will cure them of whatever they are using homeopathy for, when it will not, at least, if it's a real problem and not psychosomatic.


Well yeah. Things that have been proven to be harmful should be stopped. Or at least the practices and ways that have been proven harmful should be, whether part of New Age or not.

As for false, I think the false claims should be curbed. As stated above, I don't think the totality of something should be called false because part of something has proven to be false.

As for homeopathy, I don't know anything about it beyond what has been on the forums (and I didn't even read all of that). Sounds like what anthropologists would classify as sympathetic magic. Quite a lot of physical problems are psychosomatic however (like a lot of things directly related to stress before they reach the point of actually harming any of the systems), and the placebo effect can be VERY powerful (which is when sypmathetic magic actually "works"). It seems it would be only a problem if it stopped people from seeking more help when needed. I would put things like hypnotherapy here too. It is something that helps people accomplish a goal by changing mindset - just like listening to a motivational speaker. It becomes problematic when people think that it will accomplish the goal for them. As such how does one regulate it other than stop false advertising?


The underlying basics that remain untested I have no problem keeping an open mind about. The underlying basics that have been tested and proven out, I have no problem with using myself. But it seems to me that you are saying that ALL the underlying basics of New Ageism are valid. I gotta disagree with you there. There are plenty of things in New Ageism, like homeopathy and AT, along with a plethora of other things, that have been definitively disproven or shown to be harmful. That's not just bullshit thrown on top, pal. That's bullshit at the core of some of these New Age "disciplines". Note that I say some, not all. There are plenty of places where the jury is still out, and I am willing to wait.


I never claimed all were valid. I don't even claim to know half of what gets passed off as New Age (outside of this thread I had never heard of AT and haven't even heard of a lot of the other stuff over on the skeptics (sp?) link).



I do rail against the ridiculous bullshit. I just hope we can come to an agreement about what is ridiculous.

A lot of it has yet to be proven. But, a lot of it has been proven wrong. I hope you can admit to that.

None of it is a bunch of bull because it hasn't been scientifically proven yet. The parts that are a bunch of bull are the parts that have been scientifically disproven.

Oil of Olay is ridiculous on the level that it will not, as the commercials claim, make wrinkles go away. It is not bullshit on the level that lotion is somewhat beneficial for skin. Apply that same type of logic to the things called New Age and you will have a good idea of which bits I think are valid and which bits I think are not.


And I know my scientific history quite well, thank you. There were a huge number of things we didn't know 30 years ago, much less 300. The sum total of human knowledge is growing at a tremendous rate.

That's part of the problem. We are quickly demystifying the world, and our monkey brains don't like that, because we are wired to perceive the world mystically. That's why we are redefining things, like the words "spirit" (thanks for correcting me on that, btw) and "spirituality" and even "astrology" and "divination". My only problem with those redefinitions is that they still carry a tinge of the mystical about them. Maybe not for you, but for most people. And I hate for people to labor under delusions and falsehoods.

Take Willamena, for example. She claims over and over again that astrology and other forms of divination were originally used for the things she uses them for. That the "charlatans" have somehow "taken over" astrology and don't represent how it is actually practiced.

What she doesn't realize is that what she is calling the "charlatans" is what ALL astrologers and diviners were, from time immemorial. She has bought into the New Age concept that the ancients had knowledge that we are only now coming to understand again. This phenomenon is not new. In fact, most of this kind of idea can be traced back to the Renaissance, when the "ancients" really DID know more than the average bloke on the mudlined road. The problem is that now, that's just not the case. But the idea of "ancient knowledge" has become so ingrained in our collective conciousness, our culture, that we continue to seek it out, whether it's really there or not.

Until relatively recently, all astrology could be divided into two categories. The first category actually became a science, astronomy. The second continues to this day as what we all call astrology, i.e. drawing up horaries (et al) to divine the future of the target.

Recently, however, certain people have hijacked the term astrology and tried to turn it into a (pseudo-scientific) practice that claims to draw from psychology, sociology and a host of other so-called soft sciences. The thing about the "soft" sciences is that they are still sciences, and use the scientific method. What these hijackers present, however, doesn't use the scientific method. It has no basis in reality, much less science, even though it uses convincing jargon and seems, to the unsuspecting, to be valid.

That's why I keep asking Willamena to back up her claims. I want her to show me some evidence that her assertions are accurate, that the ancients used divination the way the New Agers claim, i.e. as a tool to self-knowledge, and not as a tool to tell the future. And she won't. Why not? Because she can't. There is no such evidence. Only a few books by people out to bilk the unsuspecting. That's why I assign Willamena's astrology to the New Age movement. It makes claims counter to what science (archeology, sociology, heck--even theology) have discovered. It's not just that science hasn't yet found any links to this New Age astrology's validity, but that it makes claims that are counter to the current understanding of historians and other scientists everywhere. That's why I ask for proof. I'm not going to go against the considered opinons of people who dedicate their lives to the study of this stuff without more proof than one girl's assertions that it's true.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

I don't think the question of astrology and divination are quite as cut and dry as either of you make it out to be. In a sense, I think that you are both correct, in different ways. Even if the rituals of divination were done with the ostensible purpose of trying to predict a physical effect, the very fact that the symbols used in those rituals were known to those using them and part of their culture means that they also had the type of psychological/spiritual effect that Willamena uses them for. Now were they developed out of a desire to predict and control the natural universe or as a way for humans to understand themselves and their interactions with that universe? I would say both. Just as science is used today.

I agree that people in general are somewhat starved for the mystical. Science is undeniably better at predicting and describing the natural world and our place in it as physical beings. However, by its very nature, science has to remain detached from the deeper psychological processes in order to objectively study the world. And for most it can be hard to understand, especially on that deeper, intuitive level that myths and symbols so speak to so easily. So while science can help us intellectually understand the world and our place in it, it is not so good at helping us understand these things on an _emotional_ level. And humans have a need to operate on *both* levels
The ancient systems operated on both levels (just a hell of alot better on the emotional than the objective - the reverse of science). I doubt the ancients realized that they had this knowledge, but they acted on it regardless.

I agree. But can't we drop the mystical "spirit" tag and just call it mind or psychology?

I realize it's just semantics, and that to those with some sense, it's unimportant, but to those who don't look below the surface, our word choices are extremely important. The media would jump all over the use of the word "spirit" if used in conjunction with psychology. And they would misinterpret it ruthlessly. There's enough confusion in the world as it is without adding to it.

It would do much good for people to realize that the spirit is the mind and de-mystify the whole thing, yes.

Part of the problem is that when the physical, scientific aspects of psychology got discovered and people discarded the notion of the spirit, they also tended to discard all the things labelled as 'spiritual', thinking them as unreal as the spirit itself; the problem with that being that the spirt as mystically defined never existed. So what happened was a whole host of stuff that was psychologically important got trashed because somehow very few people (in the West at least) have grasped that what was called the spirit was really the mind all along. Maybe this would be less imporant if the science of psychology wasn't in its infancy and knew better how to take care of the mind, but that is just not the case.

Anyway, I think if people could accept that the spirtual and the mind were equivalent then a lot of the ludicrous claims that go along with New Age or religon would sort of wear themselves out for the most part. The spirit is important BECAUSE it is the mind yet people have been told that it isn't important because it is not 'real.' No wonder there are so many claims *in spite of science* that what should be symbols and metaphors are "really-real." Each person's internal landscape - their mental processes - are very real and very important to that person. It kinda makes a sad sort of sense that in a world that calls only the physical/objective real that many are trying to "objectify" the subjective in order to validate themselves in a way that they wouldn't have to if subjective/emotional reality were considered as valid on a personal level as the physical/objective is on a universal level.

Not quite. I had said that every individual has to decide if the evidence of his own spirit is sufficient to convince him of its existence. Generally we do that when we are old enough, and properly programmed enough, to begin to question such things. Babies and children don't think about these things --they just revel in being.

And I quote:

The individual must decide for themselves if they are spirit and matter, or just matter.

Post #64

Violets and Kitties, does this mean we can kiss and make up?

I actually have nothing to say in response to your last post. I don't necessarily agree with a few of the finer points, especially about astrology (since it was originally developed to use for the state's benefit, not the individual's) but I can't find enough things in your post to disagree with to justify a post.

Does this mean you're going to stop coming by?!? :confused:

I hope not.

If I am unaware of the existence of a rock, then any existence it has for me is purely speculative, hypothetical, until I actually find such a rock, then it becomes "real". All those stars that were theorized could not be claimed as certainty until they were actually observed, by man and his machines, for the benefit of man's consciousness.

If I take a rock and put it in a locked box (like in the old Schrödinger's Cat paradox) it has an existence for me based upon my knowledge that I was the one that put it in there. If someone else had put it in the box and told me about it, it has a high probability of existence for me (dependant upon how much I believe in their word) but I cannot be sure until I open the box and examine it for myself to come to my own conclusion. Then it comes a certainty, a reality, and its existence ceases to be speculative.

You are aware that by this reasoning, your very existance is suspect, yes?

Schrödinger's Cat was an example of how ridiculous the theory of wave-form collapse was if taken too literally.

You are aware that by this reasoning, your very existance is suspect, yes?
No, my existence is not "suspect" because, while explaining the subjective perspective to you, I do not let go of the objective perspective. The rock still has objective reality.

And I quote:
Post #64
That discussion was about the evidence of spirit.

Violets and Kitties, does this mean we can kiss and make up?

I actually have nothing to say in response to your last post. I don't necessarily agree with a few of the finer points, especially about astrology (since it was originally developed to use for the state's benefit, not the individual's) but I can't find enough things in your post to disagree with to justify a post.

Does this mean you're going to stop coming by?!? :confused:

I hope not.

Still here :)

I think spiritual forms that came about to fit the state still had spiritual/psychological impact on the general population, though. I mean Judaism was very much a state religion - it is why even now when religion has much less of an after-life/salvation theme. In the OT if a person didn't do all the rituals, chances are Jehova wasn't going to come gunning for them personally, He was gonna nuke everyone. Same with the major religion in Imperial Rome - just different dieties. The rituals still spoke to the psychology of the people (how could they not) but provided a different message than that which spoke to the psychology as means of personal enlightenment/salvation. When astrology reached civilizations that had other state religions, something about the message/rituals must have held enough meaning that it got transformed into a personal system (<----ADMITTEDLY THEORIZING HERE - NOT CLAIMING AS KNOWN/PROVEN FACT), much like the way many Imperial Romans followed mystery cults (which seem largely based on the Eastern ideas of personal enlightenment) in addition to the state religion.

Off topic, but I think part of the reasons why Christianity and Islam became so wide spread, are so volatile, easily manipualated for political means, and seem so internally schizophrenic is that they are really strange mergers of state religion with personal salvation religion.

Hmm. I wonder how much the fact that the culture is dominated by a religion that is built on and in many ways seems to act like a state religon regardless of the separation clause as well as being a message of personal salvation has to do with why many people who follow New Age stuff buy into the physical BS (psychological equivalent of state religion where the mystical power punishes and rewards in a very earthly way) along with the more mystical aspects (psychological equivalent of a personal enlightenment religion).

How's this for starters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_astrology

Pay special attention to the History section, which goes back 5000 years. Oh, and if you'll notice, astrology has been traced back to Babylonia, not Sumer. The details have indeed changed, though. Astrology used to be used almost exclusively for the good of the STATE! So, did they use it to help Sumer reach spiritual enlightenment? What, exactly, does a spiritually enlightened kingdom do? Oh yeah, that's right, crumble into dust and be overtaken by other nations! You have to go down-history past Babylonia and Assyria before you get to the use of astrology as applied to individuals.

Oh, and the Sumerians didn't have a lunar Goddess cult. They had a moon God: Nanna, also called Sin. Sargon of Sumeria (not a Sumerian himself) called himself the protege of Ishtar (also called Inanna, daughter of Nanna), a fertility & war goddess:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_mythology

Could you be confusing the two?

The Canaanites' and the Akkadians' myths/religions (because they're the same thing, folks) reflect the Sumerian ones pretty closely, too.

So, since this takes us back to the beginning of recorded history, I'd say there's no chicken and egg problem here. You're just wrong.

Oh, and did you or did you not post this:


I believe it's post #47. It looks to me like you are saying the charlatans are taking over astrology. I admit you didn't use those exact words, but I'd say your meaning is pretty clear. "Palor of fakery" is such a memorable term, after all.
Yes; you're right, you win.

Yes; you're right, you win.

I was never trying to win, Willamena. I was trying to understand. You made a bunch of claims, but never backed them up.

You asked me to back up my claims. I did so.

Hmm. I wonder how much the fact that the culture is dominated by a religion that is built on and in many ways seems to act like a state religon regardless of the separation clause as well as being a message of personal salvation has to do with why many people who follow New Age stuff buy into the physical BS (psychological equivalent of state religion where the mystical power punishes and rewards in a very earthly way) along with the more mystical aspects (psychological equivalent of a personal enlightenment religion).

I don't know. I still think that the rise of the kooky stuff has more to do with the demystification of the world than anything else. There's been a big stir lately about how we are wetwired for religiosity. Add in the pattern-seeking programs, a dash of hard-science-discrediting-long-held-beliefs, and the willingness of some to dupe the unsuspecting and, voila! BS, both the New Age and non-New Age kind.

No, my existence is not "suspect" because, while explaining the subjective perspective to you, I do not let go of the objective perspective. The rock still has objective reality.

Fair enough. Let me rephrase:

You are aware that by this reasoning, your subjective experience is suspect, aren't you? :p

That discussion was about the evidence of spirit.

Right, but if I decide whether my spirit exists or not (because the existance of my spirit has no objective reality), then if I decide it doesn't, then it doesn't right?

Or does the spirit have an objective reality independent of subjective observation?

Right, but if I decide whether my spirit exists or not (because the existance of my spirit has no objective reality), then if I decide it doesn't, then it doesn't right?

Or does the spirit have an objective reality independent of subjective observation?
Everything that "exists" has an objective reality independent of subjective experience, because our culture, language and consciousness programming allocate what is "real" to the objectively physical universe. This is the way that we understand the universe. Existence of the objective variety is default in our language.

When I put forth a subjective perspective, it is not at the expense of an objective one.

That said, something having subjective existence is not required to have objective existence. The answer to your question is that it exists for the individual.

If a person "decides" that there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief in their spirit, that is for them alone ("their business" as we say), and whether or not it can be proven to or observed by an objective observer is irrelevant to its subjective existence.

You are aware that by this reasoning, your subjective experience is suspect, aren't you? :p
To you, perhaps. To me, it is me.

Right, but if I decide whether my spirit exists or not (because the existance of my spirit has no objective reality), then if I decide it doesn't, then it doesn't right?

Or does the spirit have an objective reality independent of subjective observation?
I am going to try this once more.

When you ask me, an objective obeserver, if you have spirit, I can only say, "I don't know; you do?" I know the spirit is subjectively experienced (sorry, I don't believe in ghosts) and that means by the individual for him or her self. It is not my place to be saying that you have no spirit.

If you tell me you've decided you don't, and so concluded you don't, I can only assume that you haven't yet recognized something within yourself that you would call your spirit. I believe you have one.

OK, so, what I'm seeing from this last exchange between you two, Willamena, you believe that there objectively exists a spirit in each person, however, that spirit is only detetable through the subjective experience of each individual, and only in regards to that particular individual.

Is this correct?

If so, then I think I'm finally making sense of both sides here.

OK, so, what I'm seeing from this last exchange between you two, Willamena, you believe that there objectively exists a spirit in each person, however, that spirit is only detetable through the subjective experience of each individual, and only in regards to that particular individual.

Is this correct?

If so, then I think I'm finally making sense of both sides here.
Close enough, although "objectively exists" to me indicates something that could be separated from the person, taken out and objectively examined, and replaced. But if you look at it in the sense that it subjectively exists for other objects, then yes. The spirit is the mind/heart/soul of the person, inseparable from their person, therefore it is only conceivable that it be understood subjectively and from a subjective perspective.

It's a continuation of a discussion that began on another thread regarding science and religion, where my stance was that god and religion are meant to be understood subjectively.

Close enough, although "objectively exists" to me indicates something that could be separated from the person, taken out and objectively examined, and replaced. But if you look at it in the sense that it subjectively exists for other objects, then yes. The spirit is the mind/heart/soul of the person, inseparable from their person, therefore it is only conceivable that it be understood subjectively and from a subjective perspective.

It's a continuation of a discussion that began on another thread regarding science and religion, where my stance was that god and religion are meant to be understood subjectively.

Same thing as I said to V&K: Isn't this just the mind?

I am going to try this once more.

When you ask me, an objective obeserver, if you have spirit, I can only say, "I don't know; you do?" I know the spirit is subjectively experienced (sorry, I don't believe in ghosts) and that means by the individual for him or her self. It is not my place to be saying that you have no spirit.

If you tell me you've decided you don't, and so concluded you don't, I can only assume that you haven't yet recognized something within yourself that you would call your spirit. I believe you have one.

I knew you were going to say this. :D

....

I agree that people in general are somewhat starved for the mystical. Science is undeniably better at predicting and describing the natural world and our place in it as physical beings. However, by its very nature, science has to remain detached from the deeper psychological processes in order to objectively study the world. And for most it can be hard to understand, especially on that deeper, intuitive level that myths and symbols so speak to so easily. So while science can help us intellectually understand the world and our place in it, it is not so good at helping us understand these things on an _emotional_ level. And humans have a need to operate on *both* levels
The ancient systems operated on both levels (just a hell of alot better on the emotional than the objective - the reverse of science). I doubt the ancients realized that they had this knowledge, but they acted on it regardless.

....


Off at a tangent I know, but, from personal observation, something I find interesting about science/analytical practitioners is that those that fail to balance it with a healthy emotional life seem to become emotionally attached to their work, in fact to objectivity or rationality itself. This is a characteristic of the archetypical 'ivory tower' academic, but I've also seen it in more workaday professionals.

That can have damaging consequences: they challenge others' beliefs without holding back, failing to realise that their challenge may be seen as a personal attack (because to them their challenge is reason-based and therefore cannot be personal). Paradoxically, challenges to their intellectual or professional position can be taken extremely personally, because, although they don't acknowledge it, the challenge is to beliefs emotionally held.

Some of the worst mental bullying I've seen has come from managerial analysts taking on younger professional assistants who inadvertently present a threat through their new knowledge or ways of doing things.

I don't know. I still think that the rise of the kooky stuff has more to do with the demystification of the world than anything else. There's been a big stir lately about how we are wetwired for religiosity. Add in the pattern-seeking programs, a dash of hard-science-discrediting-long-held-beliefs, and the willingness of some to dupe the unsuspecting and, voila! BS, both the New Age and non-New Age kind.
The New Age movement is not something I know that much about, but it seems to me to be more of a consequence of the fact that it is now more difficult to believe that any one formal religion holds a monopoly of the truth. (Or indeed, given modern physics and logic, that science/reason alone can provide the answer to every thing or every speculative thought.) That, with cultural mixing and the cult of the individual, motivates people to find their own, custom-made version of spirituality. In both evolutionary and economic language, the phenomenum looks to me like specialisation in a mature system.

The paraphenalia associated with New Age beliefs I don't see as being that new. People have always acquired visible symbols of their beliefs; it's a way of building them into your lifestyle, of identifying fellow members of the group. There's a wider distribution of spare resources in Western Civilisation than historical norms, hence the paraphenalia cost money.

Off at a tangent I know, but, from personal observation, something I find interesting about science/analytical practitioners is that those that fail to balance it with a healthy emotional life seem to become emotionally attached to their work, in fact to objectivity or rationality itself. This is a characteristic of the archetypical 'ivory tower' academic, but I've also seen it in more workaday professionals.

That can have damaging consequences: they challenge others' beliefs without holding back, failing to realise that their challenge may be seen as a personal attack (because to them their challenge is reason-based and therefore cannot be personal). Paradoxically, challenges to their intellectual or professional position can be taken extremely personally, because, although they don't acknowledge it, the challenge is to beliefs emotionally held.

Some of the worst mental bullying I've seen has come from managerial analysts taking on younger professional assistants who inadvertently present a threat through their new knowledge or ways of doing things.

Ah, One True Way Disease. It is widespread. One way of thinking, feeling, and doing is upheld and infused with emotional and rational belief at the expense of all other aspects of life. As such any outside challenges will be met with over-reaction and intolerance.

The lack of balance is really damaging. Rationality itself suffers and stagnates as the emotional response stops true analysis -including the evaluating of new ideas. And the emotional side suffers because it is not recognized and nurished for what it truly is, in ways that would best benefit. Mental processes which should be working together and feeding each other instead attack and feed off of each other.

Same thing as I said to V&K: Isn't this just the mind?
Since consciousness is the tool used to generate the symbols used to detect it, there is no appreciable difference.

L. Ron Hubbard said at a backyard barbecue to another science fiction writer that the best way to get rich was to invent a religion.

The next year, he wrote Dianetics, and look what happened.

I think a lot of this New Age crap is peddled by people who wish they could recreate Hubbard's success (or disaster).

It has always struck me as faintly moronic.