Logical issues with belief.

[Habitat]

35 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Are you suggesting that someone said dreams aren't real, or that prophetic dreams aren't real?

He was being characteristically crafty, seeming to allow that prophetic dreams exist, but in reality believes it purely a matter of coincidence. An entirely different interpretation. 

[danydandan]

Ah.

Edited March 7, 2019 by danydandan

[danydandan]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

He was being characteristically crafty, seeming to allow that prophetic dreams exist, but in reality believes it purely a matter of coincidence. An entirely different interpretation. 

Hindsight is always a hundred percent correct. 

[SHaYap]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

The more capacious, the less need for "out" labels, much can be left "undecided", and especially if there is no pressing need to do otherwise. In the contest between what has repeatedly demonstrated itself to me, convincingly, and "conventional wisdom" that says it isn't so, the former has to prevail. I don't out-source first hand observation. If you don't trust your own senses, best to retire to the corner of the room, curl up into a ball, and start rocking back and forth. Or watch Sean Carroll fan-gathering speech videos.

What happened to your 'fence' and 'courses' for your horses ? You are cooking up a big pot of a priori over a very small pile of coals. As salacious as you try to make out your recipe to be the proof is in the pudding without the eating, I won't stick my finger in it even if you say I'll pull out a plum. 

All you are saying here apparently, is that the fence is all that there is to the capaciousness because the fence is all you have, somewhat tenuous when neither can hold on to space or time in the mind.

~

[Habitat]

Just now, danydandan said:

Hindsight is always a hundred percent correct. 

That I doubt. I once had a dream that seemed so ridiculous, that when I awoke from it, I actually vocalized, "As if that could ****ing happen ! " It did, in fine detail, several years later. That was about the time I realised, somewhat belatedly (I had already had a number of these types of dreams), that this is real.

[+Hammerclaw]

2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

What happened to your 'fence' and 'courses' for your horses ? You are cooking up a big pot of a priori over a very small pile of coals. As salacious as you try to make out your recipe to be the proof is in the pudding without the eating, I won't stick my finger in it even if you say I'll pull out a plum. 

All you are saying here apparently, is that the fence is all that there is to the capaciousness because the fence is all you have, somewhat tenuous when neither can hold on to space or time in the mind.

For some reason, when I read that, I heard it in Maureen O'Hara's voice.

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

For some reason, when I read that, I heard it in Maureen O'Hara's voice.

Did it make any sense in that voice ?

[+Hammerclaw]

Just now, Habitat said:

Did it make any sense in that voice ?

Well, it sounded delightfully Irish. 

[SHaYap]

Just now, Hammerclaw said:

For some reason, when I read that, I heard it in Maureen O'Hara's voice.

Maybe its because I was hearing  " God has a most wicked sense of humor. " when I was replying

~

[Habitat]

6 minutes ago, third_eye said:

What happened to your 'fence' and 'courses' for your horses ? You are cooking up a big pot of a priori over a very small pile of coals. As salacious as you try to make out your recipe to be the proof is in the pudding without the eating, I won't stick my finger in it even if you say I'll pull out a plum. 

All you are saying here apparently, is that the fence is all that there is to the capaciousness because the fence is all you have, somewhat tenuous when neither can hold on to space or time in the mind.

~

No real idea what your point is, could be a translation thing, not sure how "salacious" applies to anything here.

[SHaYap]

Just now, Habitat said:

No real idea what your point is, could be a translation thing, not sure how "salacious" applies to anything here.

I meant it as your far reaching stretch into the titillating prophetical, never mind, it was just my attempt at delineating how the capaciousness is being defined

~ 

[Habitat]

Just now, third_eye said:

I meant it as your far reaching stretch into the titillating prophetical, never mind, it was just my attempt at delineating how the capaciousness is being defined

~ 

I think the point is this, there is no need to be making decisions about any contentious matters in this life, unless you have to make a call one way or the other, and that "pressure" to do so, can come from within, or without, and in the case of the anti-woo warrior, that pressure is from within, there is no external compulsion operating. The lack of capaciousness that creates that pressure comes from excessive reliance on the rational faculty, which has no application at all to the "unmanifest", and dictates a version of reality that totally excludes what cannot be apprehended, rationally. I can't comprehend rationally that dreams can 'accurately predict future happenings, well beyond the explanations of the "law of large numbers", no-one can, but I'm not captive to a compulsion to explain it, and those that think there must be a rational explanation, or it isn't real, won't except it could be real, on that basis.

[SHaYap]

Just now, Habitat said:

I think the point is this, there is no need to be making decisions about any contentious matters in this life, unless you have to make a call one way or the other, and that "pressure" to do so, can come from within, or without, and in the case of the anti-woo warrior, that pressure is from within, there is no external compulsion operating. The lack of capaciousness that creates that pressure comes from excessive reliance on the rational faculty, which has no application at all to the "unmanifest", and dictates a version of reality that totally excludes what cannot be apprehended, rationally. I can't comprehend rationally that dreams can 'accurately predict future happenings, well beyond the explanations of the "law of large numbers", no-one can, but I'm not captive to a compulsion to explain it, and those that think there must be a rational explanation, or it isn't real, won't except it could be real, on that basis.

Right, let's be clear about some of the key issues that you brought up here in this particular passage and pull the blanket out from over the so called virgin territory. The conspicuous overview to me seems to point out the glaring misnomer regarding what is or is not actually virginal. The capricious demarcation that you draw around woo and the rational doesn't draw on or around anything either, except what you accept as definitively sound to you. You forget that you are casting your logic net over a wide terrain and then when coming up empty, says that the net is too small or that the fish was too big, or when you come up with a fish, you say that all the fishes are there in your net because that's all the fish there is, and all and every fish that there exists are the same. That's the extent of your numbers against the numbers of those that do not have nets, but not the extent of those numbers who, though have no nets, or not entirely oblivious to what nets are.

Where you are running up against is this wall of so called 'anti woo' that you keep banging your head against, maybe there are such apparitions of such anti woo brigades, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that everything not without an apathy to woo is also anti woo, sometimes woo is just an irrational perspective to what is commonly known as a set of unique and basic situation or circumstance. To make more of it teeters it over to the woo. There is nothing wrong with believing that there is something more to anything and everything, that's how science and the rational gains greater knowledge of what is already clear cut definitive information. It must add and not detract, from what is firm knowledge and understanding is what I am saying, if your woo manifesto has to tear down common sense before it makes any headway along some imagined fence demarcating the capacious mental provisional logic gap, I am afraid it is all nothing more than Atlantis calling from the mists of misnomers.

~ 

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Right, let's be clear about some of the key issues that you brought up here in this particular passage and pull the blanket out from over the so called virgin territory. The conspicuous overview to me seems to point out the glaring misnomer regarding what is or is not actually virginal. The capricious demarcation that you draw around woo and the rational doesn't draw on or around anything either, except what you accept as definitively sound to you. You forget that you are casting your logic net over a wide terrain and then when coming up empty, says that the net is too small or that the fish was too big, or when you come up with a fish, you say that all the fishes are there in your net because that's all the fish there is, and all and every fish that there exists are the same. That's the extent of your numbers against the numbers of those that do not have nets, but not the extent of those numbers who, though have no nets, or not entirely oblivious to what nets are.

Where you are running up against is this wall of so called 'anti woo' that you keep banging your head against, maybe there are such apparitions of such anti woo brigades, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that everything not without an apathy to woo is also anti woo, sometimes woo is just an irrational perspective to what is commonly known as a set of unique and basic situation or circumstance. To make more of it teeters it over to the woo. There is nothing wrong with believing that there is something more to anything and everything, that's how science and the rational gains greater knowledge of what is already clear cut definitive information. It must add and not detract, from what is firm knowledge and understanding is what I am saying, if your woo manifesto has to tear down common sense before it makes any headway along some imagined fence demarcating the capacious mental provisional logic gap, I am afraid it is all nothing more than Atlantis calling from the mists of misnomers.

~ 

Of course there is a surfeit of BS that is not only irrational, but also non-existent in any realm of reality, and avidly seized upon by those with the agenda I speak of , to tar all "supernatural" stories with the same brush. They want a "weedkiller" that kills the whole damn lot, stone dead. The treatment is "rational thinking", applied liberally. Unfortunately  for those of that mindset, it turns out not to be 100% efficacious. It has fallen to me, to know better than to accept rationalist hegemony, and I am surprised that anyone that would be reading books about mysticism, which you say you do, who think much differently.

[SHaYap]

Just now, Habitat said:

Of course there is a surfeit of BS that is not only irrational, but also non-existent in any realm of reality, and avidly seized upon by those with the agenda I speak of , to tar all "supernatural" stories with the same brush. They want a "weedkiller" that kills the whole damn lot, stone dead. The treatment is "rational thinking", applied liberally. Unfortunately  for those of that mindset, it turns out not to be 100% efficacious. It has fallen to me, to know better than to accept rationalist hegemony, and I am surprised that anyone that would be reading books about mysticism, which you say you do, who think much differently.

Ahhh well ... if you still have your copy, maybe you'd want to look up Chapter X - The Unitive Life

Pay some attention to - The Doctrine of Deification -

Good Luck

~

[Habitat]

3 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Ahhh well ... if you still have your copy, maybe you'd want to look up Chapter X - The Unitive Life

Pay some attention to - The Doctrine of Deification -

Good Luck

~

I still have my copy, but I want to hear your version of how "no woo" is compatible with mysticism.

[SHaYap]

10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I still have my copy, but I want to hear your version of how "no woo" is compatible with mysticism.

I can't help you any until you can help yourself, I am no Jesus or a Christ, I have no supernatural or paranormal abilities, I have no inner sights or greater insights

Mysticism is as far from woo as is woo from common sense, that there is where we depart on our paths, though we may have some similarity to some perspective, you seems to know exactly where you are on that path and where you are heading, I share no such lofty and contentious belief

~

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, third_eye said:

I can't help you any until you can help yourself, I am no Jesus or a Christ, I have no supernatural or paranormal abilities, I have no inner sights or greater insights

Mysticism is as far from woo as is woo from common sense, that there is where we depart on our paths, though we may have some similarity to some perspective, you seems to know exactly where you are on that path and where you are heading, I share no such lofty and contentious belief

~

No, there is no "religious" path being trod here, I don't take much credit for whatever inspirations I have received on the subject, but I absolutely would never have appeared on these boards but for happenings that convinced me, and would have convinced  any intelligent person, that the "beyond" is real beyond doubt, Mysticism, though, is "woo" of the highest order, it involves suspension of the rational faculty, the complete withdrawal of attention from that which employs discrimination, of any kind, whether to external or internal stimuli, including memory, to being "dead to the world". That to provide the the clean slate that God may deign to write upon, in mystical union. Who knows whatever that may be, but he who ventures there. And no-one can fake their way to it.

[SHaYap]

Just now, Habitat said:

No, there is no "religious" path being trod here, I don't take much credit for whatever inspirations I have received on the subject, but I absolutely would never have appeared on these boards but for happenings that convinced me, and would have convinced  any intelligent person, that the "beyond" is real beyond doubt, Mysticism, though, is "woo" of the highest order, it involves suspension of the rational faculty, the complete withdrawal of attention from that which employs discrimination, of any kind, whether to external or internal stimuli, including memory, to being "dead to the world". That to provide the the clean slate that God may deign to write upon, in mystical union. Who knows whatever that may be, but he who ventures there. And no-one can fake their way to it.

This much I can agree wholeheartedly , " And no-one can fake their way to it. "

As for the rest, it is too convoluted for my beliefs, woo is woo and to extract the woo from the path is what the Unitive Life means as I understand it. That much you and I disagree, and that's all there is to it

~

[Habitat]

5 minutes ago, third_eye said:

This much I can agree wholeheartedly , " And no-one can fake their way to it. "

As for the rest, it is too convoluted for my beliefs, woo is woo and to extract the woo from the path is what the Unitive Life means as I understand it. That much you and I disagree, and that's all there is to it

~

I think the idea that God is accessible in this life, would be regarded by a great many people as extreme "woo", what is, say, a ghost sighting, by comparison, but the merest nothing. 

[SHaYap]

Just now, Habitat said:

I think the idea that God is accessible in this life, would be regarded by a great many people as extreme "woo", what is, say, a ghost sighting, by comparison, but the merest nothing. 

I disagree with that, God is always accessible depending on what accessibility means, ghost sightings has nothing to do with God regardless of what sighting implies or how ghosts are defined, its a convoluted plot and it means nothing in terms of relating spirituality to religiosity.

~

Woo isn't one side against another, woo is that part of the everything that is the unconventional that detracts from the common sense of its sum parts, there is Scientific Woo, Medical Woo, History Woo , Religion Woo , Political Woo

and so on and so forth

~

[Habitat]

4 minutes ago, third_eye said:

I disagree with that, God is always accessible depending on what accessibility means, ghost sightings has nothing to do with God regardless of what sighting implies or how ghosts are defined, its a convoluted plot and it means nothing in terms of relating spirituality to religiosity.

~

Woo isn't one side against another, woo is that part of the everything that is the unconventional that detracts from the common sense of its sum parts, there is Scientific Woo, Medical Woo, History Woo , Religion Woo , Political Woo

and so on and so forth

~

I think not, "woo" is just a sarcastic slang term for the supernatural, or that which credits the supernatural as real.

Edited March 7, 2019 by Habitat

[SHaYap]

Just now, Habitat said:

I think not, "woo" is just a sarcastic slang term for the supernatural, or that which credits the supernatural as real.

Then we don't share the same definition of Woo ... or anything that can be credited as 'real' in regards to the supernatural come to think of it

~

[Habitat]

"the paranormal, pseudoscientific, and the supernatural," often collectively referred to by Randi as "woo-woo."

[SHaYap]

James Randi does his background research, and what he has proved as woo has been established as woo and worse

~