So, let's take another look at the whole garden incident and its two human prototypes and their overseeing protagonist, "God"---or more specifically, "Yahweh".
First off, Yahweh, who is presumably "omniscient", would've had to have known that the two prototypes would eat the "forbidden fruit". In other words, what we're talking here is a set-up, AKA, a sting operation. Yes, that's right, Yahweh knew damned-well that Adam & Co. would eat the "forbidden fruit", and for contrast, Yahweh knew this with even more certainty than Dateline and Brian Hanson knew that middle-aged man "X" was going to take the "bait", jail bait, that is, when they arranged for said bait to personally call and invite middle-aged man "X" to her house. And it's interesting that, in the latter scenario, "X" can be arrested for mere intent; he need not actually "eat the fruit"(no pun), whereas, in the garden parable, the duo must act on their "will" to constitute an actual "trespass". In other words, "God" realizes that the subjects in his sting operation are going to at least contemplate doing what they were warned not to do. But this is for another discussion.
Entrapment
So, when Yahweh placed the talking snake in the Garden to tempt the ill-fated duo, it's reasonable for us to conclude that this was nothing less than a set-up----**the two didn't stand a chance. To compound the unfairness, the penalty for the duo's "trespass" is all of humankind's penalty---that is, we are all labeled inherently "evil", and worse, we are all held accountable, according to Xian doctrine. But what about Yahweh's "Perfect Justice"? Even if we had all chosen to eat the apple of our own volition, how in the hell does a one-time offense make us inherently "bad" and not worthy of Yahweh's (or anyone else's) trust?!? What... you or I screw up royally one time, and that means that we're destined to repeat it? LOL! I don't think so, albeit, there are clearly some cases where people shouldn't be extended benefit of doubt..e.g..child molesters, serial rapists, etc.
**In a previous post, I talked about how/why "God" is actually dependent on "evil", and in which case, he was not only counting on Adam & Co. to eat the infamous apple, he needed them to eat it.
So, to my onlooking Christian readership, this is an open invitation to put this into terms that make sense. And if the central tenets of Christianity don't make sense, in this case, "Original Sin", I think we are being reasonable to discard them, which is precisely what I have done.
131 comments:
What? No honorable mention for the almighty's first royal cluster flop with Lilith? It would seem more like Lilith refused to be the original patsy so god had to come up with plan B - and that was Eve ...
... if we're to believe such things to begin with
I'll have to investigate the "Lilith" folklore a little more.
In the mean time, since there are actually two separate instances of the creation of homosapiens in Genesis - one of those, Adam and his companion are created at the same time out of "dust"; the other, Adam is created first, and then Eve is "fashioned" out of one of his ribs later on - maybe the former ties in with "Lilith" and the Babylonian texts, which, BTW, predate Christianity.
'Dollars-to-doughnuts, most (if not all) Christians reading this don't even know that there are two separate and conflicting "Adam & Eve" creation accounts in their bibles. Not only that, but the "Enûma Eliš"(Babylonian) is a creation myth that also predates Christianity. These are extremely good clues that the bible's redactors borrowed from other earlier mythology to arrive at the bible's Genesis. Inspired by "God", my culo.
Agreed Jeff ... I didn't know a damn thing about in until maybe a couple years ago. I did a little reading on it and found it just ambiguous enough to think it reasonably possible someone somewhere along the line is tweaking the stories for their own self interest ... and if this can be done with the "true word of god" ... well then one MUST question how god allows mortals to corrupt his word ... unless of course, he's powerless or most likely, non-existent.
Truth be told - i became atheist when i came to the realization that mortals have been ever so selective regarding what the "true word" is and seem to arbitrarily disregard other contemporary writings/gospels and such due to "inconvenience ... gospels of Mary Magdellan and Judas and countless others - in fact there are two completely different books of Danial - the one canonized is the less supernatural one. And then there's a whole story about peter and thekla that somehow wasn't included since it seemed to give women too much independence over their own life choices ... can't have that ... keep peter, axe thekla.
More importantly - is with all the findings by archaeologists and uses of technology ... why no reexamination or serious consideration of new information ... no, instead, anything newly discovered is immediately crucified as a hoax or false or as fiction.. out of hand ... can't upset the apple cart you know ... well if all new things found are somehow not "real" now with all the technology etc ... why should i believe the stuff from 1600 years ago is "real" when there was nothing invented to yet prove it was real?
It's too convenient that nothing ... NOTHING in over 1500 years is possibly seriously considered as possibly god's "word" ... it smells of the greatest conspiracy/cover up of all time
“… that when someone is told not to do something, that this, many times, is practically a guarantee that they will do it. But why is this? Could at least part of it be because of our innate curiosity, which is inherent in our being human? And can other factors come into play, too, like sexual attraction and/or the need for acceptance of others? And what about our past experiences? I say, "yes", to all of the above.”
If I understand you correctly all reasons mentioned here (curiosity, sexual attraction, need for acceptance and past experiences), makes us do the things were are told *not* to do?
Actually the rule applies to *any* “suggestion” using the word “not” since the word “not” is not recognized in our subconsciousness. So if someone tells you to “watch out to *not* fall down the stairs and *not* bump your head (yes those people actually exist), they actually wish you to hurt yourself.
As for this effecting free will: I remember that the need for acceptance and especially past experiences played a roll in your thread, but how about the curiosity and the sexual attraction?
And Jeff… about that picture… they are getting more subtle with every new thread… ;-)
B: “No honorable mention for the almighty's first royal cluster flop with Lilith? It would seem more like Lilith refused to be the original patsy so god had to come up with plan B - and that was Eve ...”
&
J: “Adam and his companion are created at the same time out of "dust"; the other, Adam is created first, and then Eve is "fashioned" out of one of his ribs later on…”
J: “…most (if not all) Christians reading this don't even know that there are two separate and conflicting "Adam & Eve" creation accounts in their bibles.”
Always interesting to learn new facts on this blog! And yes it’s true, I’ve never heard about the version which tells us Adam and Eve both were created the same time out of dust.
B: “It's too convenient that nothing ... NOTHING in over 1500 years is possibly seriously considered as possibly god's "word" ... it smells of the greatest conspiracy/cover up of all time”
That’s probably the biggest problem with the bible. However things did get changed in those same 1500 years as was convenient to the church. How coincidental…
"That’s probably the biggest problem with the bible. However things did get changed in those same 1500 years as was convenient to the church. How coincidental…" - lexje
Most of the "changes" you refer are tweaks in translations ... fudging word and meaning translations etc to further emphasize or diminish certain meanings to be beneficial or minimize negativity based on the needs of the church.
But nothing concrete - and if god's word is so definitive, there's still been a lot of back and forth about many other scriptures and texts like The Septuagint and The Biblical Apocrypha. Some of the Apocryphal text can be found in some bibles today ... which begs the question "why the conflict about the word of god?" but then we can go to the greater question of "why are there multiple religions centered around the same god?"
Surely the word of god is definitive - but yet it's not ... three major religions claim Abraham as their nexus yet are so radically different as to want to kill over ... and then within each of these there are even more factions that war amongst themselves - this is the word of god? ... no - it isn't - this is the work of men trying to gain control by using whatever means necessary.
Now to be fair - there are "warring" factions within the secular/scientific world too.
But the important thing to remember is - "the victorious write the history books" so we'll never truly know what the truth is. but one thing that appears evident, if there is a god, he's got a gambling problem, a blood lust and he's very secretive ... and that don't sound like any god i've ever heard about.
On another blog this little exchange occurred - to be fair - there was a lot more said in between by more than just the two parties that i need to omit but the crux is illustrated chronologically:
Me: "Let me clarify something so there is no misunderstanding – for well over half my life i “believed” unquestioning – i accepted “god” as fact – the bible was the “true word of god” … "
Xian: I admit I have a difficult time believing in the Bible for your reasons stated but I know there’s a God. I have empirical evidence. I have to choose to believe in Jesus. I have to choose that Jesus died for my sins. I have no evidence for that. I’m not going to get the answer from the internet. I’m not going to get the answer from the scientists. And I’m surely not going to get the answer from a book. I will have to choose. I choose YES. I don’t listen to my guts. I wait until I feel God in the core of my being. That is my affirmation in believing in Jesus. For you atheists that have never chosen YES, you may have no idea or can even grasp the idea that feeling of God in the very core of your being. That must be some abstract idea for you. You have to choose YES first. That’s the only way to draw the proverbial path. That is faith. Chicken or the egg, which came first?"
Me: “... I do not doubt your faith in the slightest. I sincerely hope it guides and comforts you.”
Xian: "Typical atheist response. Seriously no clue."
/end of excerpt
But this is Christianity - twisted and warped to such a contorted degree that they cannot accept that people who do not share their faith cannot possibly express sincerity and compassion.
To the Christian - we, as independent thinkers, have no humanity ... i submit to you this is a very similar view that might transpire between Muslim and christian or any combination of Muslim christian and Jew when all else is stripped away ... but god wills it ... evidently
Apologies for blasting off on seemingly random tangents ... i'm sure i had some point to make - but it escapes me at the moment :P
"If I understand you correctly all reasons mentioned here (curiosity, sexual attraction, need for acceptance and past experiences), makes us do the things were are told *not* to do?"
No, you are not understanding me correctly. I am *not* saying that those things MAKE us do anything; I am saying that we are curious by nature and that telling us to not do certain things accentuates our curiosity. For instance, if we encounter a sign that says, "Wet paint! Do not touch!", many if not all of us are inclined touch it.
"So if someone tells you to 'watch out to *not* fall down the stairs and *not* bump your head' (yes those people actually exist) they actually wish you to hurt yourself."
I have no clue what you are trying to express, here. I can't tell if you are asking me something, or telling me something.
In any case, if a parent tells their child, "Please do *not* run with scissors!", surely you're not suggesting that said parent is actually wishing that their child would get hurt.
"[....] how about the curiosity and the sexual attraction?"
See the above "wet paint" analogy for an example of curiosity affecting our will.
As for sexual attraction, consider that we are NOT monogamous by nature. Being monogamous is learned, and it is something that takes willpower. It should be evident that sexual attraction affects our will when it comes to certain people being "off-limits".
~ Jeff
“I am saying that we are curious by nature and that telling us to not do certain things accentuates our curiosity.”
Ok. Fair enough. I guess that most of the time this is very true, especially when it comes to something which might be interesting.
“For instance, if we encounter a sign that says, "Wet paint! Do not touch!", many if not all of us are inclined touch it.”
Actually, I’d try to avoid it. I have no intention to be covered by paint. This may be though because I’ve been trained not to react to such statements (involving “not”) any longer. It’s the same when people would say: “Now, please do *not* think about a “blue elephant”. Most people would see one, I don’t anymore. I know what’s coming.
Me: "So if someone tells you to 'watch out to *not* fall down the stairs and *not* bump your head' (yes those people actually exist) they actually wish you to hurt yourself."
You: “I have no clue what you are trying to express, here. I can't tell if you are asking me something, or telling me something.”
It’s me explaining how it works – unfortunately. And yesterday I had a talk with a client who told me he felt manipulated. When I asked how, he gave these examples. He was right, this person is trying to manipulate him into doing this, though it seems like this person is protecting him. The person is actually saying “fall down the stairs” and “bump your head”.
“In any case, if a parent tells their child, "Please do *not* run with scissors!", surely you're not suggesting that said parent is actually wishing that their child would get hurt.”
The parent wouldn’t do this on purpose. But to the subconscious mind of the child the parent indeed tells their child to do so. That’s why it’s very important to state things in the positive sense. Like for instance: “Walk carefully when holding scissors!”
“As for sexual attraction, consider that we are NOT monogamous by nature. Being monogamous is learned, and it is something that takes willpower. It should be evident that sexual attraction affects our will when it comes to certain people being "off-limits".”
OK. I get what you’re saying here. The forbidden usually is something that has a certain attraction to it. Using the word "not" would enhance that effect.
~ Bobbie
“Most of the "changes" you refer are tweaks in translations ... fudging word and meaning translations etc …”
Actually no I did not refer to these changes. I’m referring to purposely taking out those passages that would refer to the supernatural or women.
“…to further emphasize or diminish certain meanings to be beneficial or minimize negativity based on the needs of the church.”
Agreed.
“... which begs the question "why the conflict about the word of god?" but then we can go to the greater question of "why are there multiple religions centered around the same god?"”
Must have something to do with humans trying to interpret the words of “God” and since humans are human and thus have flaws…
“ ... three major religions claim Abraham as their nexus yet are so radically different as to want to kill over ... this is the work of men trying to gain control by using whatever means necessary.”
It’s sad but true. People are fighting over power. I am keeping in the back of my mind though what example has been set when condoning war as "just", as it’s written in the bible.
“But the important thing to remember is - "the victorious write the history books" so we'll never truly know what the truth is.”
So it’s a coloured truth to begin with, written in favour of the one who won eventually.
“…if there is a god, he's got a gambling problem…”
Ok. I’m missing something here. Please explain.
“…a blood lust and he's very secretive ... and that don't sound like any god i've ever heard about.”
Wasn’t that what we talked about also in the other post? => "The bible says one thing. The way we got taught things in (our) church was another[.....]" ~ L
“Yes, but not just your church. This 'cherry-picking' type of ministry is done in every church, from the most fundamentalist Baptist church, to the most liberal Universalist church.” ~ J
And no, it’s not good. We are somehow led to believe God is a positive force (during sermons), but the bible says differently.
“But this is Christianity - twisted and warped to such a contorted degree that they cannot accept that people who do not share their faith cannot possibly express sincerity and compassion.”
Is it Xianity or just blatant stubbornness wanting to be right?
“To the Christian - we, as independent thinkers, have no humanity…”
Just maybe it’s there defence mechanism. What if you were to be human and have feelings and have a conscious… even when not being a Xian?
“…but god wills it ... evidently…”
Says who? Those who each want to be right apparently do, unfortunately.
"I guess that most of the time this is very true, especially when it comes to something which might be interesting."
Yes, interesting---we're interested in the unknown, but sadly, when we don't know the answer to something, many of us aren't content just saying, "I don't know", so we make sh*t up. I think that this is/was the case with the bible's redactors. We're talking about people who thought "demons" caused mental illness.
"Actually, I’d try to avoid it. I have no intention to be covered by paint."
Not sure how touching a freshly painted wall or guard rail would get you "covered by paint", but you know yourself better than I do.
"This may be though because I’ve been trained not to react to such statements (involving 'not') any longer. It’s the same when people would say: 'Now, please do *not* think about a 'blue elephant'. Most people would see one, I don’t anymore. I know what’s coming"
'Zero clue what you are talking about, and I'm not sure I want to know.
"The parent wouldn’t do this on purpose. But to the subconscious mind of the child the parent indeed tells their child to do so."
So, let me see if I'm understanding you. You're saying that the child essentially does the exact opposite of what the parent says?... or you're saying that there's some special power in the letters "n", "o", and "t"????
"That’s why it’s very important to state things in the positive sense. Like for instance: 'Walk carefully when holding scissors!"
Ah, so, one shouldn't say, "Do not play with matches", but, "Be careful when playing with matches"?
What you are proposing seems...idk, a bit bizarre. Where did you learn this particular bit of psychology?
"OK. I get what you’re saying here. The forbidden usually is something that has a certain attraction to it."
Yes, there's agreement there. Where you're starting to lose me is when you add...
Using the word "not" would enhance that effect.
I agree that telling a child to avoid, refrain, or abstain from doing certain things peeks their curiosity. But again, you seem to be saying that the word "not" has special powers and/or properties. If that's in fact what you mean, I'd like to see your source, if you don't mind.
'Now, please do *not* think about a 'blue elephant'. - l
YOu know - i've read this sentence several times and without any "training" i can't seen to envision a blue elephant - even when trying ... just sayin :P
More to the point - I don't recall mention of a "How not to not" seminar in the book of genesis before god left instructions to NOT eat from the tree of knowledge - seems he should have provided them with one before setting them up to fail.
Sorry - you theory on "not" is bunk - when someone says to "not" touch the stove cuz it's hot - i don't feel compelled to test their truthfulness and touch the stove - ever
Me: “…if there is a god, he's got a gambling problem…”
Lex: Ok. I’m missing something here. Please explain
Start with the Book of Job
Original Gamble:
Put's Tree of Knowledge in Garden of Eden with men - Gambles that they will not eat of it
God needs Gamblers Anonymous - he's been doing this shit (making wagers with people's lives) since the biblical dawn of time
“Yes, interesting---we're interested in the unknown, but sadly, when we don't know the answer to something, many of us aren't content just saying, "I don't know", so we make sh*t up.”
A while ago I read about how easily we just make up stuff and then conceive it to be true, whenever we do not know how something works. That was a pretty frightening thought and made me question whatever it is I am making up myself?
“Not sure how touching a freshly painted wall or guard rail would get you "covered by paint", but you know yourself better than I do.”
I meant it a little less literal than I put it here. But I already dislike having paint on my fingertips (as in my fingertip being covered by paint) and not being able to get it off.
Me: “It’s the same when people would say: 'Now, please do *not* think about a 'blue elephant'. Most people would see one, I don’t anymore. I know what’s coming"
You: “'Zero clue what you are talking about, and I'm not sure I want to know.”
Next time I’ll refer to what’s normally said: “Don’t think of a pink elephant”. If you google it you’ll see what I mean. It’s a very commonly used example. However it shouldn’t matter if I use a blue or a pink elephant. I’ll get into in later on… See *.
Me: "The parent wouldn’t do this on purpose. But to the subconscious mind of the child the parent indeed tells their child to do so."
You: “So, let me see if I'm understanding you. You're saying that the child essentially does the exact opposite of what the parent says?... or you're saying that there's some special power in the letters "n", "o", and "t"????”
**Actually it’s about there being no recognition at all in all sorts of negatives. Negatives are not recognized by the subconscious mind. For one it thinks in images and emotions and secondly it focuses on what it knows. Again see * later on.
“Ah, so, one shouldn't say, "Do not play with matches", but, "Be careful when playing with matches"?”
Hmmm… I’m not sure if that would be an appropriate suggestion either. Especially since we got a store burnt down last summer because a child was playing with matches and next set the whole store on fire…
It’s about positive reinforcement. So you want the child to envision what you actually mean. You do not want the child playing with matches. However by saying so, you give the child the picture of playing with matches. So you want to substitute it with an image that has nothing to do with playing with matches.
“What you are proposing seems...idk, a bit bizarre. Where did you learn this particular bit of psychology?”
*It’s get taught with NLP, Psychology, hypnotherapy. I do not know who started this at first, but Milton Erickson has done some extensive research on how the subconscious mind works. If you search for the “Milton Model” in combination with “negative” (commands), you’ll see what I’m referring to. And I’ve heard it over and over and over again, long before I read Milton Erickson’s books.
“But again, you seem to be saying that the word "not" has special powers and/or properties. If that's in fact what you mean, I'd like to see your source, if you don't mind.”
See above *. And next time I’ll say it more specifically. It’s not that the word “not” enhances the effect. It’s the use of the word that actually reverses the whole meaning of what it is one wants to say. So it creates the opposite effect. Not, because of the use of the word, but because the subconscious mind can’t process that word correctly. See **.
@Bobby
“You know - i've read this sentence several times and without any "training" i can't seen to envision a blue elephant - even when trying ... just sayin :P”
Would you be able to see a blue elephant at all???
;) Lex: Would you be able to see a blue elephant at all???
again with the most minimal details - the most minor point
i suppose there's always the slimmest of possibilities that there might be an enlightened human adult who cannot conjure up the image of an elephant and the color blue
... maybe :P
@Bobbie
“;) Lex: Would you be able to see a blue elephant at all???”
Yes Bobbie, I can see it as easily as I can visualize a purple cat or a green dog.
“again with the most minimal details - the most minor point”
It’s not a minor point. It’s crucial. If you cannot visualize it at all, then the reference with “not” in it won’t work. If refers to you being able to visualize it.
“i suppose there's always the slimmest of possibilities that there might be an enlightened human adult who cannot conjure up the image of an elephant and the color blue”
Sure there are these people who are not visual at all and cannot visualize. Most people have a preference being either audible, sensible or visual. The example about the pink or blue elephant only works for those who are able to visualize it, as does the unconscious mind.
"That was a pretty frightening thought and made me question whatever it is I am making up myself?"
You seem to have a habit of combining statements with questions? When you do so, I have no clue if you're asking me something, or telling me something?(examples)
"You do not want the child playing with matches. However by saying so, you give the child the picture of playing with matches."
If I walk in on a child whom I don't want playing with matches, but yet, he or she is playing with matches when I walk in on them, then said child *already* has a "picture of playing with matches". So, in that scenario, your thought-process falls flat.
"I meant it a little less literal than I put it here. But I already dislike having paint on my fingertips (as in my fingertip being covered by paint) and not being able to get it off."
Okay, so, it sounds like a slight phobia makes you an exception to the rule. The "rule" is that many people(probably most) if they encounter a "wet paint" sign, test the paint out of curiosity without any anxiety whatsoever about whether the possible resultant wet paint will come off their fingertip.
"If you google it you’ll see what I mean."
I Googled it, and the first dozen or so hits pertained to the euphemism for drunken hallucination, and also, actual pink elephants. 'Nothing about someone challenging someone else to *not* think of a "pink elephant".
"**Actually it’s about there being no recognition at all in all sorts of negatives. Negatives are not recognized by the subconscious mind."
It sounds suspect, and as of this moment, it sounds like more pseudo-scientific "woo".
"If you search for the 'Milton Model' in combination with 'negative' (commands), you’ll see what I’m referring to"
Okay, doing it now.
Alright, these key words have led me to sites talking about "hypnosis", and such, which, again, makes me skeptical. On a site called "Transform Destiny", I read...Mind Reading: Claiming to know the thoughts or feelings of another person without saying how you knew, as if you were reading their mind.
Moreover, Wiki had this to say about "NLP":
The balance of scientific evidence reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience. Scientific reviews show it contains numerous factual errors, and fails to produce the results asserted by proponents
So, pretty much as I suspected.
Me: "That was a pretty frightening thought and made me question whatever it is I am making up myself?"
You: “You seem to have a habit of combining statements with questions? When you do so, I have no clue if you're asking me something, or telling me something?(examples)”
I’ll make sure that when I ask you a question, you’ll know. However above was a question I was asking myself out loud.
“If I walk in on a child whom I don't want playing with matches, but yet, he or she is playing with matches when I walk in on them, then said child *already* has a "picture of playing with matches". So, in that scenario, your thought-process falls flat.”
So next you need to replace that image. “Matches are for adults and adults only” and you take it away. But yes I get what you’re saying.
“Okay, so, it sounds like a slight phobia makes you an exception to the rule.”
This could be very true. Phobia would be a big word. When I’m behind my own drawing board working with different materials I do not mind some stains on my hands and fingers, but otherwise nope. I’d be constantly trying to get rid of the paint or other stuff from my hands and fingers. Would you like to play the bass with all junk on your fingertips?
“The "rule" is that many people(probably most) if they encounter a "wet paint" sign, test the paint out of curiosity without any anxiety whatsoever about whether the possible resultant wet paint will come off their fingertip.”
Why would one do so?
“I Googled it, and the first dozen or so hits pertained to the euphemism for drunken hallucination, and also, actual pink elephants. 'Nothing about someone challenging someone else to *not* think of a "pink elephant". “
Did you google the whole sentence? => “Don’t think of a pink elephant”
Just a few examples:
http://trauma-recovery.net/2012/02/05/pink-elephants-and-trauma-recovery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_process_theory
Me: "**Actually it’s about there being no recognition at all in all sorts of negatives. Negatives are not recognized by the subconscious mind."
You: “It sounds suspect, and as of this moment, it sounds like more pseudo-scientific "woo".”
Why is that? Because it has to do with the subconscious mind?
Me: "If you search for the 'Milton Model' in combination with 'negative' (commands), you’ll see what I’m referring to"
You: “Alright, these key words have led me to sites talking about "hypnosis", and such, which, again, makes me skeptical.”
That’s correct. It’s frequently used in hypnotherapy, which in turn I use frequently at my practice, with positive results I might add.
“On a site called "Transform Destiny", I read...Mind Reading: Claiming to know the thoughts or feelings of another person without saying how you knew, as if you were reading their mind.”
Keywords being here: “as if”. The reason for this is one can predict what one thinks about if one really knows how to properly work with the method. I still prefer “feeling” along to know whether I’m right or not, being absolutely “woo”.
“The balance of scientific evidence reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience. Scientific reviews show it contains numerous factual errors, and fails to produce the results asserted by proponents”
NLP is a split-off from the Hypnotherapy and Psychology. It’s been used by a lot of professions, including the “woo” sector.
Did you also look for Milton Erickson himself? A lot of research and studies have been done because of what he’s written/lectured/recorded.
"So next you need to replace that image. 'Matches are for adults and adults only' and you take it away. But yes I get what you’re saying."
I'm not sure you do get it, at least, all of it. I don't buy into this notion that our subconscious minds are geared to hear the opposite of what's being said to us, triggered by such words as "not". Now, I do concede that we are curious by nature and that this prompts us to do things we ought not do at times. But these are two entirely different spheres of thought.
"Would you like to play the bass with all junk on your fingertips?"
Poor analogy. Yes, I generally wash my hands before playing, but this is to preserve string-life; it is not because it gives me anxiety or brings out a phobia.
"Why would one do so?"
Because we don't like uncertainty and because we're curious by nature. I feel like I've said this a dozen times, now.
"Did you google the whole sentence? => 'Don’t think of a pink elephant'."
No.
Regarding "thought suppression", I don't believe it is possible to tell someone to avoid thinking of an object, either real, or abstract, without them thinking of it, since it would require conceptualizing said object to attempt to refrain from thinking of it. If I walk up to you and say, "Do not think of a green bass!", I simply do not believe that you would not, for even a fraction of a second, visualize it.
"Why is that? Because it has to do with the subconscious mind?"
No, because it doesn't satisfy the scientific community, as in, for testability and yielding consistent results. That's why.
"That’s correct. It’s frequently used in hypnotherapy[....]"
I am not a proponent of "hypnotherapy".
"[.....] which in turn I use frequently at my practice, with positive results I might add."
We've been over this. Fortune telling is used frequently and gets positive results, too. IOW, those two things don't prove that people can predict the future. It only proves that people who *want* to believe that someone can know their future, and by which, they can know their own future, feel helped. We're talking feelings again.
"I still prefer 'feeling' along to know whether I’m right or not, being absolutely 'woo'."
As long as we agree it's "woo", I have no issues. The second that you assert that you can actually read another human being's mind via ESP, or whatever, I take issue.
"NLP is a split-off from the Hypnotherapy and Psychology. It’s been used by a lot of professions, including the 'woo' sector".
Okay.
"Did you also look for Milton Erickson himself?"
Yes, I did. He has a Wiki' page, just like L. Ron Hubbard.
This:
;) Lex: Would you be able to see a blue elephant at all???
I an attempt to quote you ... not ask you the same that you asked me ... this should have been reasonably evident by your name and the colon ( : )
It all snowballs out of control from there
EPIC fail
(facepalm)
“I don't buy into this notion that our subconscious minds are geared to hear the opposite of what's being said to us, triggered by such words as "not".”
It’s not by being triggered, it’s by *not* being triggered. The word gets ignored.
“Now, I do concede that we are curious by nature and that this prompts us to do things we ought not do at times.”
OK.
Me: "Would you like to play the bass with all junk on your fingertips?"
You: “Poor analogy. Yes, I generally wash my hands before playing, but this is to preserve string-life; it is not because it gives me anxiety or brings out a phobia.”
You assume it’s a phobia and I have to admit it may have sounded like this. But I just do not like sticky keys on any keyboard (piano or computer) or sticky drumsticks for that matter. Same with massaging people, they won’t like rough surfaces instead of smooth fingertips.
BTW I asked 3 other people and ALL of them said, that they would not touch the paint. Maybe it’s Dutch, but I’m not the only one obviously.
“Regarding "thought suppression", I don't believe it is possible to tell someone to avoid thinking of an object, either real, or abstract, without them thinking of it, since it would require conceptualizing said object to attempt to refrain from thinking of it.”
Correct.
“If I walk up to you and say, "Do not think of a green bass!", I simply do not believe that you would not, for even a fraction of a second, visualize it.”
You’re right, this is such a different subject, I would at least for a split-second visualize it. The example with the pink elephant I've simply heard too many times.
“No, because it doesn't satisfy the scientific community, as in, for testability and yielding consistent results. That's why.”
So psychology is not tested extensively?
“I am not a proponent of "hypnotherapy".”
Sometimes it’s about things that can work and do have an effect. BTW I’m not talking about being completely unaware of what’s happening. Hypnotherapy nowadays requires one stays conscious at all times.
Me: "[.....] which in turn I use frequently at my practice, with positive results I might add."
You: “It only proves that people who *want* to believe that someone can know their future, and by which, they can know their own future, feel helped. We're talking feelings again.”
We are talking emotions and replacing undermining memories, with new helpful scenarios. That’s more than just feelings and it’s way more substantial then fortune telling (which BTW is not even ethical. If anything, one can tell about certain possibilities one could use).
“Yes, I did. He has a Wiki' page, just like L. Ron Hubbard.”
Why would you compare hypnotherapy and psychology with scientology?
"It’s not by being triggered, it’s by *not* being triggered. The word gets ignored"
There's a difference between ignoring some parental advice, and doing the polar opposite of that advice. Surely when a parent says, "Please do *not* sneak into my room and steal my change!", the child doesn't hear, "Please do [ ] sneak into my room and steal my change!". If they are hearing that, then there'd be no reason to be sneaky to begin with. In other words, if a child must sneak something, he or she already knows that they should >NOT< being doing it.
Me: No, because it doesn't satisfy the scientific community, as in, for testability and yielding consistent results. That's why.
You: "So psychology is not tested extensively?"
I was talking about "hypnotherapy".
"We are talking emotions and replacing undermining memories, with new helpful scenarios. That’s more than just feelings and it’s way more substantial then fortune telling (which BTW is not even ethical. If anything, one can tell about certain possibilities one could use)."
I believe "hypnotism" is equally unethical..e.g..putting someone in a trance-like state and getting them to answer questions and/or do things they wouldn't otherwise do while "awake".
"BTW I’m not talking about being completely unaware of what’s happening. Hypnotherapy nowadays requires one stays conscious at all times"
Good, and I'll wager that there's a good reason for doing that nowadays.
"Why would you compare hypnotherapy and psychology with scientology?"
I was merely making the point that just because one can investigate a person online, that this says little to nothing about how much credence I should put into what they advocate.
“In other words, if a child must sneak something, he or she already knows that they should >NOT< being doing it.”
Can’t argue this.
Me: "So psychology is not tested extensively?"
You: “I was talking about "hypnotherapy".”
Milton Erickson was widely discussed. He was famous for being a hypnotherapist, but was also a psychotherapist and psychiatrist.
“I believe "hypnotism" is equally unethical..e.g..putting someone in a trance-like state and getting them to answer questions and/or do things they wouldn't otherwise do while "awake".”
What they show on tv is absolutely unethical. That’s why I’m referring to hypnotherapy, with the emphasis on therapy.
“Good, and I'll wager that there's a good reason for doing that nowadays.”
It’s not just about prevention of dishonest things happening. Nowadays it’s known it’s not necessary anymore and besides it’s way easier. All one needs is access to the subconscious.
Me: "Why would you compare hypnotherapy and psychology with scientology?"
You: “I was merely making the point that just because one can investigate a person online, that this says little to nothing about how much credence I should put into what they advocate.”
Milton Erickson deserves a little more credit than just Wikipedia. He’s recognized all over the world for what he’s done and extensively studied.
"Milton Erickson was widely discussed."
The degree to which an individual is discussed has no bearing on whether the practices and/or the teachings that they advocate are proven to work. And in some individual's cases, the degree to which an individual is discussed has zero bearing on whether they even exist(ed). Take "Jesus" and "Allah", to name a few. Surely, these two names are discussed more than Milton Erickson.
"[Milton Erickson] was famous for being a hypnotherapist, but was also a psychotherapist and psychiatrist"
The latter two things are generally accepted by the scientific community, while the first thing is not. Moreover, even the most intelligent of people can compartmentalize.
"What they show on tv is absolutely unethical. That’s why I’m referring to hypnotherapy, with the emphasis on therapy"
If the emphasis is on "therapy", then why not just call it therapy? Calling it "hypnotherapy" is adding something extra onto something that's already generally accepted to work..i.e.."therapy". It reminds me of a riddle: "What do they call alternative medicine that's proven to work?" Why, they call it medicine.
"It’s not just about prevention of dishonest things happening. Nowadays it’s known it’s not necessary anymore and besides it’s way easier. All one needs is access to the subconscious."
Whether it's "just about prevention of dishonest things happening", or not, I'm glad that "hypnosis" is outdated. I wish more things were the same. E.g...palm reading, spiritual mediums, fortune-telling, to name a few.
"Milton Erickson deserves a little more credit than just Wikipedia. He’s recognized all over the world for what he’s done and extensively studied"
My point was simply this: Just because you can look up an individual and check out his or her bio, credits, accomplishments, popularity, etc., that has very little to do with whether or not what he or she proposes/proposed, has/had merit. For instance, James Maxwell made great achievements in the field of magnetism and electricity. He was a Christian. His achievements in science shouldn't be discredited because he believed in, say, talking snakes or life after death.
The separate accomplishments of an individual should be accepted or rejected based on if those claimed accomplishments stand up to scientific scrutiny.
“The latter two things are generally accepted by the scientific community, while the first thing is not. Moreover, even the most intelligent of people can compartmentalize.”
Just to make you sure I understand you correctly: When you talk about compartmentalize you say one can be very critical in one area and not at all in another (as in just accepting the biggest nonsense without thinking about it twice)? So now you’re saying (implying) that he was critical (evidence-based) when it came to psychotherapy and psychiatry, but he simply accepted everything (made up ?) stuff when it came to hypnotherapy? He did some extensive research himself. This man himself hasn’t changed. So now because he did something which is thought to be of as pseudo-science, this part of his work can not contain any truth???
“If the emphasis is on "therapy", then why not just call it therapy? Calling it "hypnotherapy" is adding something extra onto something that's already generally accepted to work..i.e.."therapy".”
There are many forms of therapy. I know you’re sceptical but to say everything pseudo-science having to with some form of therapy is just therapy, however not believable, is something else. So maybe things cannot be proven, but still there are different forms and one cannot be compared to the other. You must know you hit a nerve on my part by saying it like this.
“Whether it's "just about prevention of dishonest things happening", or not, I'm glad that "hypnosis" is outdated.”
Well outdated is a big word. When it comes to therapy it’s not accepted anymore. That people still use this tricks and go on stage to be played as fools (read hypnosis as a show element) is something else.
“I wish more things were the same. E.g...palm reading, spiritual mediums, fortune-telling, to name a few.”
Fortune-telling is also something which is not done among mediums who get training nowadays. One can not predict the future, ‘cause people can make choices, do nothing or decide to do something. If anything, it’s about their potential.
There is a difference nowadays between people who just do their thing/tricks, asking money for it and have no clue of ethics whatsoever and have had no education and those who do have proper training, including learning what’s right and wrong.
I understand you have a problem with pseudo-science and with that part of the different professions doing things without any education or at least some background when coming to ethics, but nowadays things are changing. And just maybe you could take this into consideration, instead of calling all mediums and alternative medicine therapists a bunch of (possible) frauds. Again you must know you are hitting a nerve or two (or three) of mine here by now. I can surely accept you’re calling these things “woo” and “unproven” and that it’s wrong for people to ask money when they are selling illusions and do not know what they are doing, especially when they are unproven, but you are making this in one big charade. I do know a bunch of good mediums and I certainly know that some things actually are and/or do come true and not simply because of coincidence or pure speculation.
Me: "Milton Erickson deserves a little more credit than just Wikipedia. He’s recognized all over the world for what he’s done and extensively studied"
You: “My point was simply this: Just because you can look up an individual and check out his or her bio, credits, accomplishments, popularity, etc., that has very little to do with whether or not what he or she proposes/proposed, has/had merit.”
Wikipedia can be questioned altogether. Everyone can just provide info for Wikipedia. How reliable is the information if anyone can and there's no proper checking being done for everything that's being submitted?
"When you talk about compartmentalize you say one can be very critical in one area and not at all in another (as in just accepting the biggest nonsense without thinking about it twice)?"
Yes, for the most part, that's what I mean.
"So now because he did something which is thought to be of as pseudo-science, this part of his work can not contain any truth???"
The answer lies within your own question. "Hypnotherapy" is thought of as pseudo-science by at least some people in the scientific community. As far as "any truth", the claims of proponents are either demonstrably true, or they aren't.
"There are many forms of therapy."
Right, and not all therapy works. For instance, even with "psychotherapy", there exists some forms of depression that are therapy-resistant, and thus, require medicine.
"I know you’re sceptical but to say everything pseudo-science having to with some form of therapy is just therapy, however not believable, is something else."
As I just said, even mainstream psychotherapy is questionable, never mind the pseudo-science off-shoots of it.
"So maybe things cannot be proven[....]"
Then why should anyone put credence in those "things", other than they want to believe they work?
"[...] but still there are different forms and one cannot be compared to the other.
And how does one go about distinguishing the "forms" that actually work from the "forms" that are simply believed to work? Placebos are believed to work, and that's why/how they "work". But I'm not talking about that.
"You must know you hit a nerve on my part by saying it like this"
If you'll back up, you'll see that I framed it the form of a question.
"Well outdated is a big word."
Which word would you prefer? Obsolete? Passe? "Hypnosis" isn't used anymore,other than for show and getting a rise out of the gullible, and I'm glad. It belongs in a magic show with the rest of the parlor tricks, IMO.
contin.....
"Fortune-telling is also something which is not done among mediums who get training nowadays."
It seems like we're going backwards, now. Training for mediums? You may as well say, "Training for palm readers".
"There is a difference nowadays between people who just do their thing/tricks, asking money for it and have no clue of ethics whatsoever and have had no education and those who do have proper training, including learning what’s right and wrong."
So, you seem to be suggesting that using unproven techniques on people is ethical, so long as those techniques aren't blatantly milking said people for their cash.
"And just maybe you could take this into consideration, instead of calling all mediums and alternative medicine therapists a bunch of (possible) frauds[...]"
And I reiterate---they are only "frauds" if they know that the techniques they administer don't really work. Those who truly believe that what they do actually works, aren't frauds, and if anything, they are victims, as are their clients.
"I do know a bunch of good mediums and I certainly know that some things actually are and/or do come true and not simply because of coincidence or pure speculation."
Not to be crass, but I am not here to hit (or help) your nerves; I'm here to report the truth as I believe it to be, and as I've said over and over from the onset, the scientific method is how I distinguish between science and pseudo-science/between fact and fiction. You obviously believe that you are reporting the truth as you believe it to be, too, and I don't fault you for that. I'm merely saying that many of the things you believe as "true" are, to date, rejected by the scientific community..e.g.."spiritual mediums". That you believe in spiritual mediums despite this, is your right and your business, but please remember my right to reject things that aren't proven.
"Feelings" are not enough, nor are the feelings of "satisfied clients". If I have to allow, as evidence, the feelings and personal testimony of Lexje and her clients, then I have to allow the feelings and personal testimony of Benny Hinn and his clients and Cleo and her clients, which total in the millions.
"Everyone can just provide info for Wikipedia. How reliable is the information if anyone can and there's no proper checking being done for everything that's being submitted?"
If everybody can supply info', then we can probably expect a balanced..i.e..pro/con, profile. Should I check a site that is made up of Erickson's supporters? Would that be less biased, or more? In any case, you evidently feel that I am overlooking vital information, so feel free to supply whatever part(s) of his work that you feel I'm overlooking.
“As far as "any truth", the claims of proponents are either demonstrably true, or they aren't.”
They are. When it comes to Milton Erickson, most of his sessions are recorded and documented (with anonymity)and widely discussed.
“Right, and not all therapy works. For instance, even with "psychotherapy", there exists some forms of depression that are therapy-resistant, and thus, require medicine.”
True. One doesn’t necessarily exclude the other. It’s meant to compliment one another.
“Then why should anyone put credence in those "things", other than they want to believe they work?”
No one has to. It's simply a good thing when the body recovers by itself, without the need of chemicals. And if the therapies give the bodies a boost, that's a good thing.
Me: "Well outdated is a big word."
You: “Which word would you prefer? Obsolete? Passe? "Hypnosis" isn't used anymore,other than for show and getting a rise out of the gullible, and I'm glad. It belongs in a magic show with the rest of the parlor tricks, IMO.”
I agree. What I meant is there are still shows going on.
“It seems like we're going backwards, now. Training for mediums? You may as well say, "Training for palm readers".”
Well actually it’s very logical when it comes to not being believable. If they want to show it does exits, it needs to be trained. And with all the bad publicity it’s also important not only to be able to prove things, but also get taught a thing or two about what can be said and done and what not.
“So, you seem to be suggesting that using unproven techniques on people is ethical, so long as those techniques aren't blatantly milking said people for their cash.”
Those who can do it properly, sure why not? Is it helpful? That’s something which can be questioned. I’m at the Spiritual Fair every couple of months nowadays as well and it’s funny to see the reactions of most people when I do not give them readings. I do not want to tell them what’s going on in their lives, at work etc. since most people know this very well themselves. So why would one need confirmation for something they already know deep down? However most people may know what’s amiss, they just don’t know how to fix it. So that’s where I come in. And yes I may give an occasional inspired message to support this, but that’s all it is, to support the other one.
At school (yes medium training where I get to do trance nowadays) I have this teacher and I love it when he needs a test subject to tell something about. I’m always amazed what he can come up with and really can not know. And besides it can also be very confrontational. If a medium really does a great job, he or she touches something inside of someone that may be very confrontational, but is also very helpful.
I have to admit however I don’t do many readings anymore. I never did it much, but those who asked and got an answer before are actually surprised I stopped doing so. They somehow expect something while getting a massage or something. When I tell them I’m actually not this fond of doing this they are quite surprised. It takes a lot of effort and I’m not sure if that’s worth it. Also I’ve become very careful around the whole mediumship lately as you probably can understand after all our discussions.
“Those who truly believe that what they do actually works, aren't frauds, and if anything, they are victims, as are their clients.”
Victims? Why?
“I'm merely saying that many of the things you believe as "true" are, to date, rejected by the scientific community..e.g.."spiritual mediums".”
That’s okay. A lot of people and actions are questionable.
Continued…
“That you believe in spiritual mediums despite this, is your right and your business, but please remember my right to reject things that aren't proven.”
No problem with you rejecting those things. I do react when I get the feeling you’re attacking everything and everyone (including the good and honest ones).
“If I have to allow, as evidence, the feelings and personal testimony of Lexje and her clients…”
You don’t have to accept anything as evidence.
“If everybody can supply info', then we can probably expect a balanced..i.e..pro/con, profile.”
Sounds a bit optimistic to me, but that’s me. I’d prefer factual, including con’s and pro’s.
“In any case, you evidently feel that I am overlooking vital information, so feel free to supply whatever part(s) of his work that you feel I'm overlooking.”
No, it’s okay as it is. It was more about Wikipedia as reference then about Milton Erickson.
Me: Then why should anyone put credence in those 'things', other than they want to believe they work?
You: "No one has to."
Good, and that includes me. End of discussion.
And for the record, I thought it would be obvious why I'm choosing to end this particular discussion with you, but then it occurred to me that the things that are often obvious to me, aren't so obvious to you.
That being said, I'm going to be very blunt for a moment: I find your persistence to be highly aggravating at times, and this is one such time. It's aggravating now, just like it was, a) in the dressing room before (and after) the CG show you attended where you would not take "no" for an answer in trying to get my support in releasing a certain deceased artist's works(when I categorically stated that I would not do so until I cleared it with surviving family members of said artist), and b) when we were discussing "spiritual mediums" in another web location, which subsequently ended in my blocking you.
I'm sorry that it has come to this(my being blunt), but you simply do not listen, and while you pay lip-service to taking "no" for an answer, you really don't, at least, not when it comes to "mediums". And again, it is immaterial to me that you and other mediums receive "training" in the field of "mediumship". Do. not. care. You can also receive training in seminary and get a degree in theology and "religious psychology". So what?(rhetorical)
Furthermore, I gave you your chance to use your claimed "psychic" abilities to convince me that said abilities were authentic(by asking you to communicate something to me from a deceased acquaintance of mine that only I and they would know), and you failed that test, as far as I'm considered.
In closing, there is a million dollars on the table offered by the James Randi Foundation for any psychic (or spiritual medium) who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. 'Very revealing that this money has not been claimed and just sits there.
" ... that it has come to this(my being blunt) - J
I find the more we try to sugar coat the brutal truth, the worse we make a situation/issue ... if you're fucked, you're fucked ... in reason to describe it as a "mild discomfort" - that conjures the wrong image and can create an animosity that there was a dishonesty when in fact we're just trying to soften the blow - lessons learned ... hit em with it,they'll thank you later
" ... you pay lip-service to taking "no" for an answer, you really don't ..."
I don't disagree here either - but i chalk it up more to simple stubbornness and unwilling to accept change to one's world and perception of it ... deep ingrained factual and philosophical beliefs aren't easily uprooted ... like the way a root canal sucks ass while it's occurring ... but afterwards the relief is immensely satisfying ... we can only hope this will occur ... in the mean time ... pass the drill :P
**Note: none of my comments are meant to suggest or address any past encounters regarding participants who are not me outside this forum - i'm not party to those events and cannot speak knowledgeably regarding them
Bottom line, I reject "spiritual mediumship"(and any related "psychic" claims), just like I reject the Christian philosophy and the claims of Christians, and for largely the same reason..i.e..the complete lack of objective evidence to support the claims. Notwithstanding, if a guest poster believes in either or both of those things, fine, they are free to do so, and they are free to post their opinion on this blog. We can discuss most anything here--from feet, to guns, to religion. However, once I take the time to give detailed reasons why I reject "X", and yet, the proponent of "X" comes back all incensed because I won't accept their "evidence" - in this case, resulting in, "Yeah, but...", "Yeah, but...", "Yeah, but..." - then he or she can expect a backlash. Period.
Undoubtedly, there's onlookers thinking, "Yeah, but aren't you(meaning, me) just as convicted to your disbelief in those things(the supernatural)?" Well, the answer is no, as I already changed my mind once, and I'll do it again under the right circumstances.
Also, I am not making any outrageous, positive claims. First Principle: Existence exists. Nature exists. If it is claimed that there is something MORE than "nature", then the onus of proving that falls directly into the lap of the one saying so.
Here's two different positions:
1) "I can communicate with the dead!"
2) "Sorry, but no, people cannot talk to the dead".
The two claims are not equally plausible, and if you think otherwise, then you don't understand the default position or the burden of proof.
There's a saying ... something about choirs ... and preaching ... that ironically seems to apply here :P
... You did see the part where i was agreeing with you ... right? There's very little daylight between or positions on most things since it would appear we approach with a similar mindset ... which is kind cool when you consider we don't see each other very often
Yeah, I know we agree on most things---I was more or less making a general statement(disclaimer?) about where I stand, and why.
For some reason, I'm reminded of the movie, "Groundhog Day" = /
" ... the movie, "Groundhog Day"" - J
But the Groundhog Day movie was funny and entertaining :/
“There aren't many subjects that I mind getting into. What I mind, is when I clearly delineate why I reject a claim in one location, and lo and behold, I'm explaining myself again in another location.”
It seems reasonable to continue here after all what’s happened, so I split the answer up depending on the subjects.
Me: "You clearly said 'Do. not. care'."
You: “Yes, and I said that in regards to the subject of "mediums" who receive "training"…”
OK. I thought it had to with the whole mediumship-subject, not just the training.
“Quoting me out of context isn't helping matters.”
This was the result of me not connecting the dots.
“...which was a subject that you raised when trying to quell my skepticism of "mediums" in general.”
When I wanted to reply to this part something suddenly slowly dawned on me. It had to do with what you previously had said about me paying lip service. I didn’t understand it a couple of days ago, but this morning thinking about this I got to understand it finally.
My intent is to tell you I do not want to quell you not, when it comes to you scepticism of “mediums” nor when it comes to other subjects. Quelling to me seems showing a lack of respect and if anything you deserve respect for all your patience, persistence and time you’re spending on a blog you refer to as being your hobby, next to also being self-therapy and helping out others questioning their beliefs.
And next I noticed I wanted to say: “but I also want to…” and I was thinking “whoa... wasn’t this exactly what had been said up here a couple of days ago?” So I needed a moment to figure out how this was possible. Cause in first instance I really do not mind you having other ideas. Getting to the next statements suddenly shed light on things on my part:
Me: "For all I know you still think it’s a (supernatural) skill someone must have instead of develop over time."
You: “So, let me see if I understand you correctly. Your position, now, is that one can receiving training in "mediumship", and then over time, one can develop the skills to communicate with the dead, naturally?”
Your question triggered some doubts on my part and to explain this, I need to take it apart.
“…to communicate with the dead…”
When reading this all our previous discussions came rushing back. Communicating with the “dead”? But what had I said before about afterlife? My thoughts nowadays are: “I don’t know. It could possibly be part of my imagination, being raised to believe there’s more or just maybe there’s more, but I truly don’t know. The only thing I do know is I’m aware of energy of the deceased.” Next adding: “And this energy to *me* seems to be often containing information.”
Please note I’m not saying this means that the dead are still “alive” somewhere, I’m just talking about the remains of the imprint of energy. Maybe one day I’ll be convinced there’s convincing evidence, but right I’m anything but.
“…is that one can receiving training in "mediumship", and then over time, one can develop the skills… naturally?”
This part is leading up to something else, which is: “…and if so can one really do a good / excellent job?” or better yet “can *I* ever do a really good job?” Again note: this is not about “talking to the dead” but “picking up on energy from those who were once alive and have left an imprint of energy”. I’m aware this still might not be of interest to you, however you know by now I do pick up on energy and that’s something I cannot get around.
And this question about me “ever being to do a really good job?” was what gave me so many doubts that it felt like I needed to defend myself. Let’s be honest, I failed miserably and from practice I know sometimes I’m right onto info and other times I’m not.
Continued...
So going back to: “…is that one can receiving training in "mediumship", and then over time, one can develop the skills… naturally?” I’d say, some could with proper training, however I do not know whether they would actually be talking to the dead.
“If that sounds funny(strange) to you, then good, you should be able to see why I, yes, still think it's "supernatural" claim/"skill". If that doesn't sound funny to you?.. then here's a huge problem and we should drop the subject.”
So above cannot be answered fully with a yes or no. Cause what does sound funny is that this implies “talking to the dead then still being around”, which might imply something “supernatural”. However (yes there it is), when one considers this picking up on energy that is still there, I’d say “yes sure anyone can learn this skill, so it’s not supernatural.” Next adding: “However (yes again) if many people will ever be able to do a decent proper reading which is acceptable to all, leaving no doubts whatsoever”, I sincerely doubt this. I think only a view can live up to your “demand”/request as in “he or she could tell me something that only I and a deceased friend or family member would know.” And BTW this is a fair request.
“The thing is, we could "get into this again" every day for a year, and eventually you might get lucky and "guess" some correct info', and then call it "a hit".”
Please no. I do not want this. And that’s why I’ve taken a couple or more steps back. Which is okay when it comes to you, I’m just not sure whether it’s okay when it comes to me and my beliefs. So next going to what Bobbie said: “…Jeff is not going to turn the trained medium away from mediumship…”, well this might turn out differently. For one thing I’m more careful, sceptical and doubtful myself since I know a big part of my convictions are the result of always having adopted explanations from others.
Continuing with what Bobbie said: “…all he's trying to do is explain his reasoning and logic ... but you refuse to accept that…”
It’s a long story to say that “I do accept this” and this time I can do so without any resentment.
And to end with Bobbie’s words: “He's been patient and accommodating.”
I fully agree you have been. So I sincerely hope I have not been aggravating you this time. I needed this bit to explain to myself why I seemed to be accepting things for myself but actually didn’t. Had you not said so previously “…while you pay lip-service to taking "no" for an answer, you really don't…”, followed by “However, once I take the time to give detailed reasons why I reject "X", and yet, the proponent of "X" comes back all incensed because I won't accept their "evidence" - in this case, resulting in, "Yeah, but...", "Yeah, but...", "Yeah, but..." - then he or she can expect a backlash. Period.” I might never have understood the faulty process in my mind. So again a next step is taken towards “wisdom”. Who knows, I might ever reach it :-).
"OK. I thought it had to with the whole mediumship-subject, not just the training."
But you can take "thought" to the next level, though---that is, you can know what I meant if you would just be a more careful reader. Also, doing so would do away with the need for half of your posts being damage control.
"Communicating with the 'dead'?"
Yes, communicating with the dead, which just so happens to be what every "spiritual medium" I've ever encountered claims to be able to do, with the exception of Lexje, who puts it this way...
My thoughts nowadays are: 'I don’t know. It could possibly be part of my imagination[...]
I guess not once ever considering that it could totally be your imagination, albeit, with the cooperation of other people's imaginations.
[...]being raised to believe there’s more or just maybe there’s more, but I truly don’t know.
But you claim to know enough that you previously told me that deceased individual "X" played a prank on me once[paraphrased from memory].
"The only thing I do know is I’m aware of energy of the deceased'."
And yet, if this "energy" is communicating personal bits of information to you *about me*, then I'm being reasonable to conclude that you are communicating with the personal "energy" of a dead person, intact with memories, thoughts, etc., and frankly, I fail to where you make the distinction between "dead person", and leftover "personal energy". So, I guess all I can say is, how convenient.
"Next adding: 'And this energy to *me* seems to be often containing information'."
Yes, correct...personal information that only the deceased PERSON would know. IOW, you are trying to make a distinction between a dead individual, and the dead individual's personality, by calling the latter "energy". Everything we know about science(there's that word again) tells us that our personalities are dependent on a physical brain. All of our organs perform functions, and while these processes, yes, use/require energy, we wouldn't ever posit, say, that the energy that drives sexual reproduction survives the death of our penises/vaginas, so why in Samhain would we think that the energy that drives our thoughts, which make us, "us", would survive the death of our brains?
It doesn't make an iota of sense, and until a "medium" can, a) provide a hypothesis that makes sense, and b) test their hypothesis under scientific conditions, I reject that people can communicate with people (or pick up on personal energy) beyond the grave.
“But you can take "thought" to the next level, though---that is, you can know what I meant if you would just be a more careful reader. Also, doing so would do away with the need for half of your posts being damage control.”
I’m aware of this, as I am of still missing out on lots of things, regardless whatever the reason is. It’s not my intention to have to keep doing damage control.
“Yes, communicating with the dead, which just so happens to be what every "spiritual medium" I've ever encountered claims to be able to do.”
The information being provided is (mostly) static. It’s purely about events and details of memories. That’s in no way communication.
“I guess not once ever considering that it could totally be your imagination, albeit, with the cooperation of other people's imaginations.”
Yes it has crossed my mind, more than once.
“But you claim to know enough that you previously told me that deceased individual "X" played a prank on me once[paraphrased from memory].”
Yes, true. So this means there’s a conflict going on nowadays. I do not know whether I’m making this all up (as in pure fantasy) or that just maybe it could be true and I didn’t make this up at all.
All I can say at this moment is I’m considering all options, with the remark that I an aware of more than most people when it comes to picking up things (and not being flawless). So all I (can) do nowadays is keep an open mind and look at things I used to consider as normal critically.
Me: “But you claim to know enough that you previously told me that deceased individual 'X' played a prank on me once[paraphrased from memory].”
You: Yes, true. So this means there’s a conflict going on nowadays. I do not know whether I’m making this all up (as in pure fantasy) or that just maybe it could be true and I didn’t make this up at all."
Here's the thing, you couldn't possibly "make up" stuff like this, especially the results, *unless* you had help. By "help", I mean with the help of your subjects, who, naturally, are looking forward to having a successful session and prognosis. This would especially be true of those subjects who claim (I presume) to feel better after a session, either psychologically, physically, or both.
IOW, subjects who play a large roll in the confirmation bias that I believe is involved when it comes to "spiritual mediums" and "mediumship".
You: “By "help", I mean with the help of your subjects, who, naturally, are looking forward to having a successful session and prognosis.”
OK, you just lost me here, but I do think this would be a good challenge to investigate what it is I’ve experienced or not. I sure hope you won’t mind me taking into consideration other stuff I’ve experienced having to do with individual X as well.
What do you mean by “subjects”? Clients? You are talking after all about feeling better “after a session”.
Maybe my reasoning is too simple but that were no clients or “subjects” (if I understand you correctly that is) involved. It was just me, tuning into “individual X”. So question to me next becomes what did I experience? Note: I haven’t met individual X ever, still I can tell you a thing or two (or more) about his personality. Why is this? And to be on the safe side I first experienced (felt) was this was like, to next tell others and ask if this was correct. It’s also one of the reasons I’m not inclined to work with “individual X” anymore. First of all it takes me enough effort to control my own hyper tendencies, without experiencing his enormous amount of (what seems to be uncontrollable) energy. But more importantly he likes to play pranks on others (including me), to keep them (also me) awake. That’s something I cannot deal with as you may have noticed by now. So apart from whether this is my fantasy or not, I’ve distanced myself from “individual X”, since I do not know how this would help me any further.
I’m not certain whether you are spitting fire at this moment, raising your eyebrow(s) or thinking I’m a lost “case”. I’m sure curious after your response, cause honestly all above is tremendously conflicting in my mind, as you possibly can understand. I could use some good logic and reasoning to help solve this. Note: the conflict has especially to do with me feeling things related to others, whether being alive or dead. Also note, I haven’t tuned it to you to find out what your reaction could or would be (except for that it hasn’t happened just yet), since I do not want to be confronted with being wrong (yes I’m ducking I know).
Me: By "help", I mean with the help of your subjects, who, naturally, are looking forward to having a successful session and prognosis.
You: "OK, you just lost me here[.....]
I'm saying that the feelings experienced by your subjects("clients"/"patients", or whatever you please), and the feelings experienced by you, are working in concert as "group-think" confirmation bias. I'm not sure that I know how to make it any clearer.
You: "but I do think this would be a good challenge to investigate what it is I’ve experienced or not."
Only if you can figure out how to eliminate bias, which, at the very least, would require subjects of whom you *have zero prior knowledge..E.g.. name, age, and especially, any past medical medical or therapeutic history.
*Note, if you are able to, as you call it, "pick up" on [X, Y, Z], then you wouldn't need any prior info' on your subject, because, after all, the idea is that you are subverting the physical and using the "metaphysical" in lieu if it. Feel free to correct where I'm mistaken.
"What do you mean by 'subjects'? Clients? You are talking after all about feeling better 'after a session'."
Yes, that's precisely what I'm talking about. I'm saying that your current roster of "clients" would not be acceptable "guinea pigs"(slang for test subjects).
"Maybe my reasoning is too simple but that were no clients or 'subjects' (if I understand you correctly that is) involved."
You evidently don't understand me correctly, and frankly, I'm at a loss as to how easily conversation gets convoluted between us.
Let's review: You have a "practice" along with a website that advertises said practice, complete with business name, a mission statement, mantras, list of techniques, etc., etc., etc. Correct?
You use that practice to make customers(they pay you, I assume) feel better, either mentally, physically, or both. Correct?
You "pick up" on "energy", sometimes but not always involving hand movements and/or massage, and then, using various metaphysical techniques, you "unblock" and/or "align" [X, Y, Z], which, as I understand it, leaves your subjects feeling better than they did before they arrived.
Is all of that a fair assessment?
"It was just me, tuning into 'individual X'."
READ...
Whether you're "tuning into"(whatever that means) a subject to mediate between them and their deceased friend or family member's "energy", or whether you're "picking up" on a client's "energy" to make them feel better, you are a making metaphysical claim. It's had have been a dozen times now that I've told you in detail why I reject those claims, as well as why it falls under "pseudo-science".
contin....
"So question to me next becomes what did I experience?"
Feelings.
"Note: I haven’t met individual X ever, still I can tell you a thing or two (or more) about his personality. Why is this?"
Because sometimes we get lucky when we guess things, despite that we think it's more than a lucky guess. Also, we can easier "guess" things when we can read about the deceased individual online(or in magazines). I've never met Jim Morrison, but I can "tell you a thing or two about his personality". Surely no one would think of me as "medium" for being able to do so.
"And to be on the safe side I first experienced (felt)[.....]
"felt" = feelings
"First of all it takes me enough effort to control my own hyper tendencies[...]"
I'm convinced.
"[....]without experiencing his enormous amount of (what seems to be uncontrollable) energy."
I don't believe you are experiencing anything more than memories of this deceased individual's personality, which, according to science, has been totally annihilated at the time of death. IOW, "He" no longer exists.
"But more importantly he likes to play pranks on others"
As do(did) a bazillion other people who have passed on.
"(including me), to keep them (also me) awake."
It's your own mind that keeps you awake.
"That’s something I cannot deal with as you may have noticed by now."
What I've noticed by now, among other things, is that you are convicted to the idea that your feelings confirm your beliefs. They don't.
"So apart from whether this is my fantasy or not, I’ve distanced myself from 'individual X', since I do not know how this would help me any further."
How does one "distance" themselves from that which is NOT "physical"???? That is utterly preposterous. In principle, there is no space-time in a metaphysical realm.
If anything, you have simply made a deal with yourself to avoid thinking about "X", which then confirms that "X" is "leaving you alone". If you start thinking about "X" again, there's a chance he'll be bothering you again. This is no mystery.
"Also note, I haven’t tuned it to you to find out what your reaction could or would be, since I do not want to be confronted with being wrong (yes I’m ducking I know)"
I can't help you. Only you can decide to stop ducking.
“I'm saying that the feelings experienced by your subjects("clients"/"patients", or whatever you please), and the feelings experienced by you, are working in concert as "group-think" confirmation bias.”
So basically you’re saying that because they want a positive outcome, positive results will take place? From experience I know this isn’t true. People do experience differences. Actually their expectations can be such high that when I do not meet their standards for whatever reason, they are disappointed. Also a slight percentage does not experience much or any progress till some time (sometimes one or two days) has passed or till I’ve changed my methods I’m using.
Saying this I am aware that for some reason people prefer to be touched over having a distant treatment, while in fact this shouldn’t make any difference. The only difference is their expectations. In their mind distant treatment can never work as good as feeling my hand get immense hot (or something along those lines).
“Only if you can figure out how to eliminate bias, which, at the very least, would require subjects of whom you *have zero prior knowledge…”
This is the way we work at courses, so absolutely true. However I can tell you what the results are from past courses, but that won’t make any difference to you, since it will still be hearsay. The only way this would work is if we were to be in one another’s proximity and you could either experience or monitor what’s happening.
“*Note, if you are able to, as you call it, "pick up" on [X, Y, Z], then you wouldn't need any prior info' on your subject, because, after all, the idea is that you are subverting the physical and using the "metaphysical" in lieu if it.”
True. Actually one of my teachers told me to do so, instead of doing any counselling, since this takes a lot of effort (concentration) on my part to stay focussed for a couple of hours, which inevitably drains my energy. Since I do not know how to explain this to my clients (besides being hard-headed) I haven’t done so (just) yet.
Me: "Maybe my reasoning is too simple but that were no clients or 'subjects' (if I understand you correctly that is) involved."
You: “You evidently don't understand me correctly, and frankly, I'm at a loss as to how easily conversation gets convoluted between us.”
Well I do get where we got off track. You were referring to a statement having to with individual X, with had to do with mediumship and next started talking to about what I do in my practice as an energetic therapist. Maybe the both of them are “metaphysical”, but the whole method of working is completely different. More importantly I feel totally at ease when it comes to feeling, recognizing and having clients feel good/better again than they did before they came by means of energetic therapy, whereas I do not feel confident at all working as a medium, which requires a lot of concentration and mind discipline on my part (which is actually kinda hard with a mind that most of the time is chattering on).
“Let's review: You have a "practice" along with a website that advertises said practice, complete with business name, a mission statement, mantras, list of techniques, etc., etc., etc. Correct?”
Correct. Sounds like you’ve taken a look at it somewhere sometime.
“You use that practice to make customers(they pay you, I assume) feel better, either mentally, physically, or both. Correct?”
Still correct. And yes I do get paid for it. And to be on the safe side let me repeat this has nothing to do with (practicing) mediumship which I do NOT get paid for.
Continued…
“You "pick up" on "energy", sometimes but not always involving hand movements and/or massage, and then, using various metaphysical techniques, you "unblock" and/or "align" [X, Y, Z], which, as I understand it, leaves your subjects feeling better than they did before they arrived.
Is all of that a fair assessment?”
Couldn’t say it better myself. Compliments for you.
“Whether you're "tuning into"(whatever that means)…”
Tuning is no more than focussing on the other but by means of feeling instead of listening and/or watching. I use different senses and it takes me somewhat longer to become aware of what’s going on with/inside the other person.
“… a subject to mediate between them and their deceased friend or family member's "energy", or whether you're "picking up" on a client's "energy" to make them feel better, you are a making metaphysical claim.”
I get that to you it’s all metaphysical, which in fact it is. But I will say – again – that being good in area does not guarantee being good in another field of expertise. They all require studying, practicing and a certain mind control.
“It's had have been a dozen times now that I've told you in detail why I reject those claims, as well as why it falls under "pseudo-science".”
I know, that’s why I do not understand why we return to this subject over and over and over again.
“I don't believe you are experiencing anything more than memories of this deceased individual's personality…”
If this is about memories, there aren’t any memories I’ve ever shared with individual X.
“It's your own mind that keeps you awake.”
My own mind? How?
“What I've noticed by now, among other things, is that you are convicted to the idea that your feelings confirm your beliefs. They don't.”
Yes, I’ve been trained to use feelings as a way of recognition. Whenever I’m talking to someone, who for instance is going through an inner mental process, I need to know where they are, without them necessarily speaking to me about it. So whenever I would stop using this verification method, I would have a problem. BTW I always check if my feeling (and with it my beliefs) are correct.
For some reason I’m beginning to think you’re talking about a different kind of belief. If so, please explain.
“How does one "distance" themselves from that which is NOT "physical"????”
You explained this yourself when saying: “If anything, you have simply made a deal with yourself to avoid thinking about "X", which then confirms that "X" is "leaving you alone".”
I do have to make a slight adjustment, since it’s not about “not” thinking about someone. It’s more along the lines of “blocking the energy” or “not inviting” individual X to “play along”.
Me: "Also note, I haven’t tuned it to you to find out what your reaction could or would be, since I do not want to be confronted with being wrong (yes I’m ducking I know)"
You: “I can't help you. Only you can decide to stop ducking.”
True. I’ve become VERY careful, read hesitant, when it comes to anything to do with mediumship and you combined.
"So basically you’re saying that because they want a positive outcome, positive results will take place?"
I thought it would have went without saying that I'm talking strictly about those subjects who've had success and who keep coming back. If no one came back, then that right away would rule out "group-think" anything, and you'd be left on your own to determine for yourself if you are genuine, or not.
IOW, I'm saying that the successes contribute to your own confirmation bias.
"Also a slight percentage does not experience much or any progress till some time (sometimes one or two days) has passed or till I’ve changed my methods I’m using."
And to what do you attribute this? This, to me, would be credible evidence that your "pick up" method is no more reliable than pure luck. Of course, I know that you don't see it that way and will likely rationalize it some other way.
"In their mind distant treatment can never work as good as feeling my hand[....]"
Right, that notion is probably in their mind because there is no evidence that people can be healed by "thought", whether 1/2 a meter away, or 1/2 a world away.
"I can tell you what the results are from past courses, but that won’t make any difference to you, since it will still be hearsay."
Why should it make a difference to me? If I should believe things just because people give reports of things being true...well, you see the problem(I hope).
"The only way this would work is if we were to be in one another’s proximity and you could either experience or monitor what’s happening."
No, that's not "the only way this would work". If you (or some other "medium") were able to demonstrate your techniques in a setting where the criterion is set up by scientists, thus, proving those techniques; and if the findings were then reported in a peer-reviewed medical journal, you'd have my attention, if not change my mind. There's a reason that such findings haven't been observed, though.
"Well I do get where we got off track. You were referring to a statement having to with individual X, with had to do with mediumship and next started talking to about what I do in my practice as an energetic therapist. Maybe the both of them are 'metaphysical', but the whole method of working is completely different."
Both are metaphysical, yes, and both involve you (allegedly) coming into contact with people's personal "energy", the difference being, one of those people are deceased. IOW, you claim X's "energy" - namely, that of his "personality" - still exists somewhere, completely intact. My goodness, I have a hard time even typing such things, because the claim is borderline lunacy.
contin....
"Tuning is no more than focussing on the other but by means of feeling instead of listening and/or watching. I use different senses[EDIT]"
Yes, different senses....as in, not the five natural senses, but some "6th sense" that you and like-minded people claim to have.
"[....] I do not understand why we return to this subject over and over and over again."
Because you responded, above(see post with time-stamp 3:40) where you say that you don't know if you're making all this up, so I responded.
"Couldn’t say it better myself. Compliments for you."
And isn't it ironic that I can put your claims into clearer terms than you can.
"If this is about memories, there aren’t any memories I’ve ever shared with individual X."
Memories can be more than what you've shared. Memories can be what you remember reading about the deceased; it can be what people who knew the deceased tell you, and let's not forget, it can be memories of the feelings you get when listening to the music of the deceased(if applicable).
Me: It's your own mind that keeps you awake.
You: "My own mind? How?"
How, you ask? Because your thoughts are generated in your brain, and at least one of those thoughts is that a deceased (non)person is keeping you awake. That's how.
"BTW I always check if my feeling (and with it my beliefs) are correct."
So, you check to see if your feelings align with your beliefs, do ya? I'm almost afraid to ask you what you do when they don't. In fact, I'm not asking.
"[....] it’s not about 'not' thinking about someone. It’s more along the lines of 'blocking the energy' or 'not inviting' individual X to 'play along'."
So, in the past when you would "invite" [deceased person X] to "play along", he would, or more aptly, his "energy" would. Again, one of those things I have a hard time repeating back.
Your replies got me quite some material to think about. In fact so much I even wrote two blogposts on it myself (one last night and one just now) to make sense of it all.
I do not know if you are aware, but you actually making me remember and relive certain experiences which if anything make me more convinced of there being something living on.
Me: "Also a *slight* percentage ..."
You: “And to what do you attribute this? This, to me, would be credible evidence that your "pick up" method is no more reliable than pure luck. Of course, I know that you don't see it that way and will likely rationalize it some other way.”
If it were to say almost half, or most I’d agree with you. However I’m talking exceptions. If you want to read only what you want to pick up on, please do so, but it does not make it a fair discussion or exchange of thoughts, which I thought you were after.
“Right, that notion is probably in their mind because there is no evidence that people can be healed by "thought", whether 1/2 a meter away, or 1/2 a world away.”
Could be. That’s why I’m happy there are those who only prefer this kind of treatment, after having experienced all other forms and thus knowing all possibilities.
“Why should it make a difference to me? If I should believe things just because people give reports of things being true...well, you see the problem(I hope).”
Yes I do. That’s why I said so.
“If you (or some other "medium") were able to demonstrate your techniques in a setting where the criterion is set up by scientists, thus, proving those techniques; and if the findings were then reported in a peer-reviewed medical journal, you'd have my attention, if not change my mind. There's a reason that such findings haven't been observed, though.”
I’ve been thinking about this for a long time yesterday, wondering if this would actually be something someone would like to be subjected to. What if not, solely because there’s enough evidence (for the individual) to be obtained from the immediate surroundings?
“IOW, you claim X's "energy" - namely, that of his "personality" - still exists somewhere, completely intact. My goodness, I have a hard time even typing such things, because the claim is borderline lunacy.”
I guess you are right about that. After yesterday I realized I do not know what it is, where it is, but I do know there is something. And that source of remaining energy can be accessed. And sure you can say the claim is borderline lunacy, I wonder though if you were to say so if you were to experience the same things I have done, without having any prior knowledge whatsoever about any person. The only reason I’m saying this last bit, is because I have experienced things and I’ve been surprised over and over again that things can be felt and observed and can be true with very specific details, when having no clue whatsoever who I’m talking to, much less who or what I’m talking about. How can I “pretend” this to be sheer imagination? If I were to do so, then you could put me in a loony bin.
“Yes, different senses....as in, not the five natural senses, but some "6th sense" that you and like-minded people claim to have.”
I wasn’t talking about the 6th sense as in ESP, you are. You tell me where to stash feelings, thoughts and/or intuition? I’m quite certain you have feelings, thoughts and/or intuition to, without referring to these as the sixth sense.
“Because you responded, above where you say that you don't know if you're making all this up, so I responded.”
You know I’m happy with you responding. There is a difference though between actually trying to see where I’m going off the grid and just repeating the same thing over and over again. And sure you can do so, but question is “how does this improve/change my (or anyone’s) thought process?
“And isn't it ironic that I can put your claims into clearer terms than you can.”
There’s a reason I like to write with you. You know how to make sense of things, whereas in my mind it can still be sheer chaos. I cannot tell you what a relief it is, to just read a simple statement back from you and get out of my hyper state straight away.
“Memories can be more than what you've shared. Memories can be what you remember reading about the deceased; it can be what people who knew the deceased tell you, and let's not forget, it can be memories of the feelings you get when listening to the music of the deceased (if applicable).”
True. I’m quite certain I wasn’t referring to anything I could have read previously, but besides this, true…
“So, you check to see if your feelings align with your beliefs, do ya? I'm almost afraid to ask you what you do when they don't. In fact, I'm not asking.”
If you’re not asking, don’t put it there, LOL. Whenever they do not, it’s up to me if it’s simply a slight miscommunication or whether I’m totally off track. Since the last thing does happen occasionally (even when writing to you for instance) it’s up to me to find out why this happened. Was my mind elsewhere, was I concentrated and focussed, could I really not have known? Just maybe I’m so terrible at what it is I’m doing I should stop doing so at all (also optional). In the past years I got taught to look at myself and to admit it when I’m wrong, just as I have learned to change things, when they do not add up. Not to make it more fitting (if you were to say so), but to make it right or exclude it.
Me: "[....] it’s not about 'not' thinking about someone. It’s more along the lines of 'blocking the energy' or 'not inviting' individual X to 'play along'."
You: “So, in the past when you would "invite" [deceased person X] to "play along", he would, or more aptly, his "energy" would. Again, one of those things I have a hard time repeating back.”
Yes, correct and it’s so nice to see that while you are having such a hard time repeating it, it’s there anyway…
Jeff, please keep in mind that as hard as it is for you to write certain things down, I have my battles and struggles with this subject as well. It would be so much easier to say you are right and it's all made up, but that bell also applies to my experiences and I cannot unring these. You want honest answers, I try to answer as truthfully as possible even knowing the answer might be unlike anything you can relate to and being amidst all confusion myself. Thanx :-)
"I’m quite certain you have feelings, thoughts and/or intuition [too], without referring to these as the sixth sense" ~ L
Yes, it's true! I would never deny it! I have... "feelings, thoughts and/or intuition, too".
But guess what? The difference between you and me, is that I realize that those things are NOT reliable for knowing things and/or determining truth, whereas, you evidently believe they are reliable, categorically stated here......
After yesterday I realized I do not know what it is, where it is, but I do KNOW there is something. ~ L(bold & caps added)
BTW, it's really disingenuous of you to be vague all of the sudden, since, based on previous conversations, you claim to "know" what this "something" is, specifically, the leftover "energy" of a deceased individual's "personality". Solidified when you claim that this is "energy" that you interact with, and it, with you.
It is this down-playing tactic that just about puts me at my wit's end with you.
"I cannot tell you what a relief it is, to just read a simple statement back from you and get out of my hyper state straight away."
Sadly, I do not share your sentiment on being relieved to read the other guy's response. Lately, quite the opposite.
"It would be so much easier to say you are right and it's all made up, but that bell also applies to my experiences and I cannot unring these"
The "bell" analogy applies when a person who once held beliefs on things like "faith", "feelings", and "intuition", realizes that those things aren't reliable, and therefore, discards them, and more importantly, cannot go back to using them(hence, the "can't unring a bell" part) That doesn't apply to you, because you *clearly* hold beliefs on those things, while claiming to "know" you are right.
I've given you more response than you deserve. I'm done here.
Jeff to put it bluntly, my mind is screwed up at the moment when it comes to this subject.
So if I say I don’t know anymore what it’s like, it’s not because I want to be disingenuous, I know it comes across like this, it’s because my mind is going everywhere around the place. I am aware that not everything is reliable, so…
“But guess what? The difference between you and me, is that I realize that those things are NOT reliable for knowing things and/or determining truth…”
I cannot say they are NOT reliable, as I also cannot say they are. Hence I don’t know.
You: “…whereas, you evidently believe they are reliable, categorically stated here......”
Me: “After yesterday I realized I do not know what it is, where it is, but I do KNOW there is something.”
And this could indeed be the left over energy (imprint of energy I was talking about or something else). Again I do not know anymore. I’m utterly confused myself here. You want me to give you a solid answer, while at the same time you make me question everything. The things I was thinking last summer during our conversation about X have changed since then. But when you do remind me, I do remember what it was like and I’m wondering if I’m not “denying” my “own” truth here.
“BTW, it's really disingenuous of you to be vague all of the sudden, since, based on previous conversations, you claim to "know" what this "something" is, specifically, the leftover "energy" of a deceased individual's "personality". Solidified when you claim that this is "energy" that you interact with, and it, with you.”
See above. And yes I know it seems disingenuous, I would have said the same thing if I were you probably. Imagine how I feel at the moment, being aware of this.
“It is this down-playing tactic that just about puts me at my wit's end with you.”
I get it, I apologize for it. If I could change it because I would know I would tell you. I guess however that this is what you are trying to tell me all along. These things cannot be proven repeatedly and consequently and that’s what causing all this confusion to begin with. Does this mean you are right? You are right that the proof is hard to give, which makes me question (again) even more, what it is I’m experiencing. It’s getting harder and harder to defend myself here (and actually that’s not what I want to do at all), or better yet to make it explainable to myself. And while I’m typing this, I am aware that this sounds an awful lot like having “blind faith” in something which cannot be proven. So I’m back at the basis of DOUBT!!! Thank you… SIGH…
“Sadly, I do not share your sentiment on being relieved to read the other guy's response. Lately, quite the opposite.”
I’d noticed. That’s why I didn’t know why we were still going on about this. And please note that to me it isn’t always easy and pleasant either, quite the contrary. I do however appreciate the thought process you are writing down, even when it’s not what I would like to hear, but I recognize it has immense value though.
I wasn’t referring to these specific replies though, but more in general. You can just say something and get me out of this hyper state. Your talent I guess.
“… That doesn't apply to you, because you *clearly* hold beliefs on those things, while claiming to "know" you are right.”
I said I know something is there. But I do not know what. I experience it as an imprint of energy and even this is as vague as can be.
“I've given you more response than you deserve. I'm done here.”
Can’t blame you, it’s all one big puddle of question marks and doubts.
Just some afterthoughts based on what you wrote previously:
“The difference between you and me, is that I realize that those things are NOT reliable for knowing things and/or determining truth, whereas, you evidently believe they are reliable…”
I’ve been thinking about this some more (yes even wrote another blog post about it) and although I hate to admit it, you are right. It is way more valid to question those things, wondering if they are truly reliable and not just a fiction of the imagination. And I guess I’ve become very sloppy (call it lazy) when it comes to questioning whether what I’m “feeling” is really what I’m “feeling” instead of “thinking” and with it “imagining”.
I’m so used to certain experiences, that I stopped questioning those a long time ago (if I ever did to begin with). And you have confronted me with this and I was very quick to say "I sure do". Yes when I’m in my practice I can check and I actually do check. When it comes to the likes of “X”, this is an entirely other matter, since this rarely can be checked, unless I have no prior knowledge whatsoever and someone actually is around and critical enough to say whether I’d be right or wrong. It again reminds me of what you said about paying lip service. Gradually I’m becoming aware that I do write down “feeling” when it actually comes to “thinking”, simply because I know I should be feeling (and next question), but in reality I often don’t.
It’s because of your persistence, I’m becoming aware you are way more right then I’d like you to be and this might be the “actual” problem when it comes to listening. It takes me a while before I realize and next am ready to accept what you are saying, as being not just possibly, but even actually true.
"I have been trained to learn to trust my feelings and/or intuition."
As have Christians and other people of "faith". In extreme cases, it's called this: indoctrination...as in, taught what to think, as opposed to how to think. A perfect example would be when Christians are admonished by their Pastors and Priests to not use their intellect, but their "hearts", when reading the bible. That is indoctrination at its finest, and it should be a red flag. Sadly, people want to believe so badly that they eat it up. The alternative is just too scary(to them).
Moreover, the distinction being made above..i.e..that those "trained" to trust their feelings have some sort of an "edge" over those who just innately trust their feelings, is an immaterial distinction, that is, until/unless the former people("trained") can confirm that their "feelings and/or intuition" have a higher success rate than that of the latter people("untrained"). Both are trusting the same exact thing: "Feelings". For one group's "feelings" to carry more weight than another group's, this would require multiple tests in a scientific environment. The difference between scientists and non-scientists(or pseudo-scientists), is that the former wouldn't simply assert their premise true, where the latter people would, and do, in many cases.
Lastly, relocating fallacious reasoning - for instance, to another forum - doesn't "correct" it.
“For one group's "feelings" to carry more weight than another group's, this would require multiple tests in a scientific environment.”
You keep coming back to the scientific environment and actually I can’t blame you. It would be rather interesting to see what would come out of such an experiment. Not sure I would like to conduct one with a child (without having done so more often), but still interesting none the less.
“Lastly, relocating fallacious reasoning - for instance, to another forum - doesn't "correct" it.”
The only reason I write my blog posts is to make sense of things and to make sure you won’t have to deal with the lengthy version of my thoughts on your blog, which could be a bit much.
As for (not) “correcting” my fallacious reasoning, I’m still open to correct it. I am aware I cannot just accept “feelings” blindly as being “the truth”. If you happen to run into things that are not correct according to you, I assume (would appreciate) you will keep saying so, just as you commented here just now. Then again you did say you were “done” with it.
About your other thread, it seems wiser if I just stay away from that one.
"Then again you did say you were 'done' with it." ~ L
Yes, that's correct, which I would've thought would be indicative that I don't care to hear..."Yeah, but....". But I guess that I thought wrong, and for sure it won't be the last time.
In any case, you apparently like to have the last word, and yes, I'm aware that it now looks like I do. This is a touchy situation, because, what I have to say now could easily come across as ad hominem. In my own defense, though, no one can say that the extent of my replies to you have been personal attacks. I've taken the time to give you detailed, reasoned responses, albeit, straight forward.
That said, on your blog, you say....
For those who know me, I hate it when I make people miserable. I like to see people happy, so knowing I do so is something which makes me extremely sad.
On top of wanting the last word, there is evidently some people-pleaser in you. See, that's another area in which we part ways. I just don't care if people don't like what I have to say, because, ultimately, this is my blog and readers can simply navigate out of here, just like they navigated in. And like I said before, I'm not here to be "charming". Naturally, I would want as many readers as possible, and I appreciate my audience, but speaking candidly on the issues that matter is the priority here. Discussing what I discuss here, I am bound to be a turn-off to some. I know this.
So, to recap, I have this blog to (mostly) discuss beliefs, because our beliefs have an effect on the world we live in. This is why I want to pull my hair out when family, friends, people in general, cannot understand that beliefs, namely, our "spiritual" beliefs, are not just the innocuous "comfort blanket" that the majority feel that they are. Moreover, I'm not in the business of giving people false hope. Why? Well, because it's false. And I'm not talking about omitting truth or being deliberately deceptive to spare someone's feelings..e.g.."Yes, I think your new nose piercing looks outstanding!!!"(thinking all along that it looks like something that belongs in the nose of a brahma bull).
I'm talking about beliefs that we inherit from our families, Pastors and societies that make false promises and pretend to have all the answers, which, BTW, makes us incurious and impedes science when they teach this.
Further, since certain beliefs aren't falsifiable, we have wars over things like whose "God" is real and whose "God" is a figment of people's imaginations, when it never occurs to these people that maybe their own "God" is one such figment.
And BTW, now's a good time to interject that the religiously indoctrinated were also trained to trust their "feelings/intuition", AKA, believing in one's "heart" that [X,Y, and Z] is true.
Believing stuff with our hearts - which is just another way of saying trust our gut instinct(intuition) - has steered man in the wrong direction since time immemorial.
Just two questions having nothing to do with your thread, but everything to do with your reply:
1) How come you are reading my blogs all of a sudden?
2) When doing so you must know by now how I'm referring to you and why and I was wondering if you're okay with this? I never got the chance to ask you previously and things like these are easily changed.
"1) How come you are reading my blogs all of a sudden?"
Simple---because if I confirm a suspicion that you are quoting, refuting, critiquing me, etc., in another location, I want to know about it, if for nothing else, to check for accuracy. After all, here, you've shown me over and over that your accuracy is lacking when it comes to repeating my position back, and a few times, you've quoted me out of context. Extending benefit of doubt, yes, the latter could just be sloppiness on your part, as opposed to quote-mining, which of course, is deliberate, and therefore, disingenuous.
"2) When doing so you must know by now how I'm referring to you and why and I was wondering if you're okay with this? I never got the chance to ask you previously and things like these are easily changed."
If whether or not I was "okay" with it mattered, it seems to me that you would've asked me prior to doing it. What's done is done, though.
Using the iPhone I'm going to leave formats for what they are for a moment, just using the numbers.
1) Did I pass? (Please note the irony)
2) How would you have suggested I'd asked? It wasn't until recently you told me to ask any (personal) questions here on this public blog. BTW names can easily be changed on my blog, if you'd like.
Sorry for being rude just now. It (probably) wasn't appropriate.
"1) Did I pass?"
What does it matter? I have zero intentions of taking you to task on your own blog, mostly because you would love that idea; it would be giving you the attention that you seem to like.
Secondly, and more importantly, neither reality or truth care what I think about your blog. What will change my mind about "metaphysics", IOW, what will convince me that said concept has a referent in reality and that what you speak about it is true, is when/if you and your constituents proffer some evidence that meets scientific scrutiny. When I see headlines like, "Scientists discover Chakra!" plastered on the front of Scientific American or Discover, I will take notice, and at that point I will have to consider changing my mind.
"2) How would you have suggested I'd asked?"
Gee, I don't know, like this...
Hey, would you mind if I take the topics that you start here and address the parts where I quote you with extended answers on my own blog?
*Note, you asked; I answered.
"It wasn't until recently you told me to ask any (personal) questions here on this public blog."
Yes, on this public blog. This isn't a networking site, though; it's a personal blog. IOW, it's not like the things I discuss here come popping up in the news feeds of thousands and thousands of people. People have to find me. And perhaps you noticed that I don't tag posts. But yes, I said that I can be asked questions here. That doesn't necessarily mean that I care to have the people who ask these questions running off and advertizing the answers, which can come across as sensationalism if one isn't careful.
"BTW names can easily be changed on my blog, if you'd like."
I'm using a pseudonym here, and you're using only the initials of a derivative of that. I'd say that's pretty discrete.
1) Should have copied something I guess.. I meant: "Did I pass when it came to being honest and accurate enough?"
2) Glad it's discrete enough. If at any given moment you were to feel I'm using too much quotes / giving too much info on you, I assume you'll let me know.
"Did I pass when it came to being honest and accurate enough?"
At the risk of coming across "combative", it appears that there is a certain amount of lip-service being paid when it comes to coming to terms with the holes in the "metaphysical" sphere of thought. You seem to own-up to those holes during your visits here, while you tend to defend them on your own blog. Plus, I see the same confirmation bias at play. For example, the way I understand it, your mother spoke of a young man coming into her toy store inquiring about toy cars. The next day you're at the store helping out, and a young man comes in and introduces himself, and lo behold, you knew at that instant that it was the young man your mother spoke of. Uncanny? Hardly. How many people walk into a store and introduce themselves before they start shopping around?
IOW, this is a prime example of the confirmation bias I'm talking about. In your mind, you've used "metaphysical" powers to figure this out. To a skeptically-minded person, the guy, himself, gave you the first extremely big "clue" that he was the guy from the day before, by introducing himself.
As for repeating the same sorts of fallacious reasoning, in your most recent article, titled, "LIKEMINDED MINDS ATTRACT ONE ANOTHER OR PURELY COINCIDENCE?", at one point you opine....
[....] to me there is still no such thing as coincidence, even if I were to explain this by saying, 'likeminded minds attract one another'.
If there is no such thing as a coincidence, the logical alternative is that all events, including your meeting with a "likeminded mind" in a store, are preordained. If all events/encounters, etc., are preordained, then there is a glaring implication for this. Perhaps this is subject matter for a future post.
As for "likeminded minds attract one another", you've simply thrown a dart at the side of a mountain, and then you ran up and drew a bullseye around it.
If two people talk long enough, they are bound to discover things that they have in common. This can happen in matter of minutes, or sometimes it takes longer. In either case, there is no good reason(aside from wanting to) to conclude there is anything "metaphysical" going on. But again, you don't need to convince me; your task is to convince the scientific community.
Throwing the order a bit around…
“As for "likeminded minds attract one another", you've simply thrown a dart at the side of a mountain, and then you ran up and drew a bullseye around it.”
What I did was going back to simplicity. And if that implied me running to the mountainside to draw a circle, then it worked. It was nice to just write my own vision on things without having to explain myself. And honestly I also did it on purpose, since I was a bit fed up with you yesterday.
You tell me: “In my own defense, though, no one can say that the extent of my replies to you have been personal attacks. I've taken the time to give you detailed, reasoned responses, albeit, straight forward.” And then next you say this: “I have zero intentions of taking you to task on your own blog, mostly because you would love that idea”.
This makes me wonder, do you take me to task on your own blog? And you still don’t describe this as an “attack”? Or is this just being “straight forward”? And yes I still have something else in the back of my mind: “…and yet, the proponent of "X" comes back all incensed because I won't accept their "evidence" - in this case, resulting in, "Yeah, but...", "Yeah, but...", "Yeah, but..." - then he or she can expect a backlash. Period.”
Yes just simply “straight forward”. Sure. And of course you can now say I’ve taken you out of context, but bottom line is this is not about being straight forward anymore and hence it resulted in that blog post. Sorry, needed to get this out of my system for a moment.
Now I need to set something straight first. When you say: “…you knew at that instant that it was the young man your mother spoke of”.
There’s nothing mysterious about this, since he’d introduced himself as Alex to my mum and next to me. All it did was remind me of the story straight away so I could tell him “ah you’re the guy from the cars…” But to make it less “suspicious” I’ve changed it somewhat. When I wrote it down I was aware this could be interpreted wrongly and it was not meant as such.
Me: “[....] to me there is still no such thing as coincidence, even if I were to explain this by saying, 'likeminded minds attract one another'.”
Can’t remember having argued with you about this (could be wrong though), although I know you don’t agree.
“If there is no such thing as a coincidence, the logical alternative is that all events, including your meeting with a "likeminded mind" in a store, are preordained.”
I also added something after “coincidence”, which has to do with “attracting what one is thinking about”. I still feel/think that if one is only thinking “negative” things, the chance is more likely “negative” things will happen, whereas if one thinks “positive”, chances are more “positive” things will happen. Whether it’s being more focussed and thus be more aware of certain topics (like seeing the same type and colour cars one drives in, after having bought one) or whether it is because the mindset has been changed to actually “doing” something, things are changing. Note that I haven’t explained what I meant here.
“If all events/encounters, etc., are preordained, then there is a glaring implication for this. Perhaps this is subject matter for a future post.”
Please do.
“If two people talk long enough, they are bound to discover things that they have in common. This can happen in matter of minutes, or sometimes it takes longer. In either case, there is no good reason(aside from wanting to) to conclude there is anything "metaphysical" going on.”
Well the subject at hand just happened to be about the metaphysical and about that exact same topic we were talking about: “when can it be considered as real/evidential?” and no, there weren’t any customers I’ve had any same similar conversation with besides what they were looking for and why.
Continued…
“But again, you don't need to convince me; your task is to convince the scientific community”.
Why is it MY task to convince the scientific community? There’s only one person telling me it’s not true, that’s you. Now, I’m not here to convince you, I’m just here to give your ideas some thought, so I can make my reasoning more credible, firstly for me and secondly to others I want to talk to about this. This would be the more analytical people, especially since I do not want to be considered as being “woo”. Doing “woo” stuff is bad enough as it is, without being considered “woo” all the time.
Going back to the beginning of your reply: “At the risk of coming across "combative", it appears that there is a certain amount of lip-service being paid when it comes to coming to terms with the holes in the "metaphysical" sphere of thought. You seem to own-up to those holes during your visits here, while you tend to defend them on your own blog.”
Well let’s see about this. If I’m not mistaken it’s about not assuming straight away things are right, but considering if things could also be imagined or not and also you saying this wouldn’t work with people I already knew something about.
So here was a complete stranger I had not met before. And next before he got tell specific things, I already started telling him some things about himself. The fact that he couldn’t recognize it straight away, should tell you he hadn’t just “told” me about this. It required a little thought process on his and some more explaining on my side and as soon as I presented him with some explicit examples, he recognized this. Then again you might say he led me into this direction when saying “no”, but then I will point out the specific examples, that he did recognize.
Also when pointing at the jeep-like car, he hadn’t told me anything about his past in the army, collecting any stuff and/or having driven (and owned) a jeep before, so when he asked “why”, I told him first and then he confirmed this.
So if I’m not mistaken I haven’t been paying lip service, I’ve actually taken your remarks into consideration.
As for me passing the test, I was referring to what you’d said: “Simple---because if I confirm a suspicion that you are quoting, refuting, critiquing me, etc., in another location, I want to know about it, if for nothing else, to check for accuracy…” and “Extending benefit of doubt, yes, the latter could just be sloppiness on your part, as opposed to quote-mining, which of course, is deliberate, and therefore, disingenuous.”
So you tell me whether or not if I’ve been inaccurate when it comes to quoting you and if I’ve left out stuff as in being disingenuous?
As usual, I’m seriously doubting right now if I did right by writing this (first part) on your blog. It’s so confusing all the time. I want to be respectful towards you, I feel like I wasn’t just now and I sure do not want to defend myself like this. At this moment I do not know whether to stay away or not. You do get into my blog posts on your blog, so it feels justified to answer you about this on your own blog. I do give what you’re writing down serious consideration and I want to avoid us battling one another on your blog.
Is it okay when I’m writing it down like I experience it the way I do on your blog? Do I need to stay away completely on your blog? When you start a thread talking about TSD you must know you’re challenging me and confusing me to say the least. :-(. I really do not know if you’re okay with me responding at all or not on any thread anymore… SIGH…
"What I did was going back to simplicity. And if that implied me running to the mountainside to draw a circle, then it worked."
It might've "worked", but what you have is an ad hoc rationalization. IOW, what you are proposing..i.e..that "likeminded minds attract one another", is only expected to apply in one scenario in question. What about those who propose that "opposites attract"? That, too, "worked" for some people at some point or another when they needed it to "work". What you're doing amounts to special pleading.
"And honestly I also did it on purpose, since I was a bit fed up with you yesterday."
That's fine---you can be fed up with me all you'd like. I "get it". When I was transitioning out of Christianity, there were times that I was fed up with former believers pointing out all of the bad arguments I was throwing out there in an attempt to preserve my beliefs. I fought the idea that I could be mistaken about my feelings and experiences every step of the way.
"This makes me wonder, do you take me to task on your own blog? And you still don’t describe this as an 'attack'?"
Yes/No. The distinction here is personal attacks, Vs attacks on beliefs/philosophies. Do I do the latter? No doubt, and I've explained why multiple times.
In quite a few instances, I have no clue what you're alluding to when you partially quote me, especially if you're dredging up past discussions, which would require that I go digging back through all the comments to find the context.
"I also added something after 'coincidence', which has to do with 'attracting what one is thinking about'."
One doesn't exclude the other. One can still (seem to) attract what one is thinking about, and there can be a coincidence a moment later, which may seem related( especially if one is looking for confirmation), but might not be related at all(coincidence)
"I still feel/think that if one is only thinking 'negative' things, the chance is more likely 'negative' things will happen, whereas if one thinks 'positive', chances are more 'positive' things will happen"
You can think that if you'd like, but since very negative things sometimes happen to very positive people(and vice versa), it becomes a slippery slope.
"Please do."
I can encapsulate the future post now: If there are no coincidences, then every single event is preordained, and thus, our "free will" is an illusion. That about sums it up.
"Well the subject at hand just happened to be about the metaphysical and about that exact same topic we were talking about:"
And what you're suggesting(it appears), is that our discussing it here recently had absolutely no influence on "subject at hand". Hopefully you're not suggesting that, but even if you were, again, there's still coincidence---either that, or you were predestined to meet this individual, in which case, you're just following a some sort of cosmic script.
contin......
"Why is it MY task to convince the scientific community?"
Well, because it is clear that you are very peeved that at least one person is skeptical of your claims, so much so, that you now devoted multiple posts echoing the doubt raised(mine), and so, I think I'm being reasonable to conclude that you'd be much happier and/or more at peace if people would accept your metaphysical claims as truth. If you don't care if I believe you or not, then no, the task of providing evidence accepted by the scientific community isn't yours.(IOW, evidence that would convince me)
"There’s only one person telling me it’s not true, that’s you."
Incorrect. I believe Bobby pointed out the fallacy of your arguments at one point, not to mention, the author of the article on "energy"(TSD) in my newest post is telling you it's not true, albeit, indirectly.
"Now, I’m not here to convince you[....]"
Then I guess it's just a coincidence that you're behaving just like someone who would want to convince me. But you said "there no coincidences". Ah-ha!
"I’m just here to give your ideas some thought, so I can make my reasoning more credible, firstly for me and secondly to others I want to talk to about this"
You cannot put a "band-aid" on a claim that is not credible. To me, your claim is either credible, or it isn't.
"The fact that he couldn’t recognize it straight away, should tell you he hadn’t just 'told' me about this."
That he couldn't recognize it straight away tells me that you were being very general(see "cold reading"), throwing ideas out there for him to latch onto, and when he did, viewing it as "a hit".
"Also when pointing at the jeep-like car, he hadn’t told me anything about his past in the army, collecting any stuff and/or having driven (and owned) a jeep before, so when he asked 'why', I told him first and then he confirmed this."
I wonder what percentage of young men in Europe are affiliated with the military, and for those that are, I wonder how many have not driven a jeep before.
[...]I’ve actually taken your remarks into consideration."
I've not said you haven't considered my remarks.
"So you tell me whether or not if I’ve been inaccurate when it comes to quoting you and if I’ve left out stuff as in being disingenuous?"
I've already given you a few examples of what I'm talking about. This is really becoming tedious. Seriously.
As for staying away(or not), it seems you'd have more peace if you just avoided this blog and all blogs that are skeptical of the "metaphysical".
"That's fine---you can be fed up with me all you'd like. I "get it". When I was transitioning out of Christianity, there were times that I was fed up with former believers pointing out all of the bad arguments I was throwing out there in an attempt to preserve my beliefs. I fought the idea that I could be mistaken about my feelings and experiences every step of the way."
Thanx for saying so. It helps. Time to get some sleep now. Sorry for being tedious before, didn't mean to be... As for staying away... not yet :-), there are too many things to take into consideration again. Just not today anymore.
“It might've "worked", but what you have is an ad hoc rationalization. … What you're doing amounts to special pleading.”
I see what you mean. This requires some more thought than I gave it. You’re the first one to question these things. I like that. You also give me the chance by saying so to be learning new definitions and with it “how” to think about things (which I did not fully comprehend until just now).
“Yes/No. The distinction here is personal attacks, Vs attacks on beliefs/philosophies. Do I do the latter? No doubt, and I've explained why multiple times.”
It was obvious to me it wasn’t a personal attack. It still takes me some effort to be able to exclude the feelings resulting from the attacks as being felt as “personal”, while being not. I’ll keep it in mind though.
“One doesn't exclude the other. One can still (seem to) attract what one is thinking about, and there can be a coincidence a moment later, which may seem related (especially if one is looking for confirmation), but might not be related at all (coincidence).”
Sounds very plausible.
“You can think that if you'd like, but since very negative things sometimes happen to very positive people(and vice versa), it becomes a slippery slope.”
You really have thought things through haven’t you? There are a number of people who pretend to be positive, but in actuality are not. Let’s say though those people are very positive both on the inside and the outside, than it indeed would be a slippery slope.
“I can encapsulate the future post now: If there are no coincidences, then every single event is preordained, and thus, our "free will" is an illusion. That about sums it up.”
This would imply everything is related. I see what you’re getting at. So is it all or nothing? I mean all is related or nothing at all can be/is related? Can some things be coincidental, while others are not?
“And what you're suggesting (it appears), is that our discussing it here recently had absolutely no influence on "subject at hand". Hopefully you're not suggesting that…”
I wasn’t. In fact I was suggesting quite the opposite. Us talking about this seemed to me very “coincidental”, as in too coincidental.
“…but even if you were, again, there's still coincidence---either that, or you were predestined to meet this individual, in which case, you're just following a some sort of cosmic script.”
Yes slowly getting there. No coincidences means there’s a script. Is it a long term script, or can it be something for the moment as well (short term script)? Please don’t shoot me, I’m just thinking out loud for a moment. How about if we think about something, we set something in motion? It would be like starting up a certain procedure or script, until the goal is accomplished. Just a thought here.
“… I think I'm being reasonable to conclude that you'd be much happier and/or more at peace if people would accept your metaphysical claims as truth.”
True. I can’t deny this.
“If you don't care if I believe you or not, then no, the task of providing evidence accepted by the scientific community isn't yours.(IOW, evidence that would convince me).”
I’m not sure I want this. I’m most certain I do not want this burden/responsibility. Then again, you are right. Wow, I do not know if like the implication of this.
“Incorrect. I believe Bobby pointed out the fallacy of your arguments at one point, not to mention, the author of the article on "energy"(TSD) in my newest post is telling you it's not true, albeit, indirectly.”
Bobbie is legit. When it comes to the author of the article, I could care less. I can’t take everyone’s statements into consideration.
“Then I guess it's just a coincidence that you're behaving just like someone who would want to convince me.”
I’ll check in the future how I act. Let’s for now call it unintended lip service.
“But you said "there no coincidences". Ah-ha!”
LOL.
Continued...
“You cannot put a "band-aid" on a claim that is not credible. To me, your claim is either credible, or it isn't.”
Ok, faulty claims can’t be fixed if in essence they are incorrect. So making my reasoning more incredible is taking out the faulty part and replacing it with something that makes sense. Well you pointing out to me what the faulty part is, should allow me (once understood properly) to take out that faulty part.
“I wonder what percentage of young men in Europe are affiliated with the military…”
And I acknowledged this when saying “Yes he had been in the army (well then again who hasn’t)…”
“…and for those that are, I wonder how many have not driven a jeep before.”
This was about owning a jeep and not in the military. And since Holland is a very flat country (except for near the border of Germany and Belgium), there’s really no need for a jeep, unless you’re simply passionate about jeeps.
Since I can’t share anything on FB with you, I’m sending you a link here, you might find interesting. It’s about the brain and music and then some more about the brain.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=529435960446887&set=a.434569209933563.103142.432632306793920&type=1
By "tedious", I mean trying to go back 'n forth with you point by point. That said, I'm not going to address every single question you ask or subject you raise, since those number in the hundreds by now, and each time you respond there are new questions popping up. So, I'm only going to address a few things:
"You really have thought things through haven’t you?"
Hours, days, weeks, months, years. Yes.
"There are a number of people who pretend to be positive, but in actuality are not."
That may be true, but that has no bearing on the fact that good things(positive things) and bad things(negative things) happen to people at about the same statistical rate, if we're talking about first-world countries, of course.
"When it comes to the author of the article, I could care less. I can’t take everyone’s statements into consideration."
You admittedly care whether or not I believe you, so by extension, you do care that other skeptics---namely, the scientific community---doubt your claims. Until/unless you provide evidence that convinces them, you don't convince me.
RE: the link, I don't see the significance of the idea that "memories of music are stored in a different part of the brain than other memories." If anything, this seems to support a brain/mind dependency.
"I might also say it stands for The Skeptic[....]"
Everyone is a skeptic when it comes to someone else's claims; everyone draws their line somewhere. I'm guessing (hoping) that most adults would be skeptical of a child who claimed that he or she had a conversation with Winnie the Poo. This is not to say that someone can't refer to me as "The Skeptic", though. Yes, I'm a skeptic, and I'm proud of it. Being skeptical weeds out error.
RE: "energy" and the "metaphysical", The Skeptic's Dictionary had the following to say(in italics):
Some healers claim they can feel the energy of these elusive and ineluctable bio fields, vibrations, auras, or rays."
"So do I, at least when it comes to the auras and the information this contains." ~ L
This is begging the question. In the above anecdote, the claim is simply being assumed/asserted true. At best, there's a claim. No new ground conquered here.
Twenty-one practitioners, who knew from much experience that they could feel the energy around the bodies of patients, were tested. They had never been tested, however, in a situation where they could not see the source of the alleged “energy field.
"It surprises me they have never been tested doing say 'distant' healing[...]." ~ L
Actually, where "psychic-healers" are concerned, there has been testing, both on "contact healing" as well as "distant healing", with no conclusive results beyond placebo effect on either. It's worth noting that the tighter the controls, the worse the results.
Nine-year-old Emily Rosa tested these energy healers to see if they could feel her life energy when they could not see its source.
"And this is where things get tricky, since the auric field of a 9-year-old hasn’t been fully developed yet and hence cannot be felt as strongly." ~ L
So, the older the "auric field"(assuming such a thing exists for sake of discussion), the more developed the "energy" that is presumably felt by the "psychic healer". More "developed" in what way, I have to wonder. IQ? Personality? We're talking the immaterial here, after all.
"I do have to add to this that it’s also possibly to feel where babies reside in the womb[....]" ~ L
I have to wonder how many different places a baby in the womb can reside, other than the womb(or uterus).
If they can’t detect the energy, how can they manipulate or transfer it? What are they detecting?
"This to me is an excellent question. And this also leads me to previous questions regarding 'blind faith'." ~ L
It's a good question, and curiously, no good answer has been put forth.
"The difference for me though compared to 'blind faith' is that I can feel these fields, so I know they are there and hence it’s not my imagination." ~ L
Well, then. I guess that settles it.
One can "feel" X, therefore, one can know that X exists, and in which case, this cannot possibly be one's imagination. That's how we know that there's a distinction between "feeling X", and "blind faith".
::sigh::
“Yes, I'm a skeptic, and I'm proud of it. Being skeptical weeds out error.”
All fine then, right? I was looking at the abbreviation TSD and next noticed the comparison to TS, which I thought to be very appropriate. Don’t read too much into it, since it’s not meant as “hostile” or anything, if anything it seems a real suitable description for you and judging by your reaction you obviously agree :-).
“This is begging the question. In the above anecdote, the claim is simply being assumed/asserted true. At best, there's a claim. No new ground conquered here.”
Ok, help me here. I get it that to you this is an assumption. It has not been proven, thus it cannot be used as being the truth. What has this got to do with new ground being conquered? All I said here, was I am aware of these energetic fields, I can feel them.
“Actually, where "psychic-healers" are concerned, there has been testing, both on "contact healing" as well as "distant healing", with no conclusive results beyond placebo effect on either. It's worth noting that the tighter the controls, the worse the results.”
I don’t know about the tests, so I can’t say anything about this. Do you know of any studies?
“So, the older the "auric field"(assuming such a thing exists for sake of discussion), the more developed the "energy" that is presumably felt by the "psychic healer". More "developed" in what way, I have to wonder. IQ? Personality? We're talking the immaterial here, after all.”
Presumably (yes you’re reading this right) the auric field consists of multiple layers, telling something about one’s personality, way of thinking, emotions etc. So yes since children are still growing and developing mentally, so is their energetic field.
“I have to wonder how many different places a baby in the womb can reside, other than the womb(or uterus).”
Compare it to making echoes. When scanning one has to search for the location of the baby in the womb as well. It’s actually fun to feel where they are, without touching the belly of the mum.
“Well, then. I guess that settles it. “One can "feel" X, therefore, one can know that X exists, and in which case, this cannot possibly be one's imagination. That's how we know that there's a distinction between "feeling X", and "blind faith".”
I added an afterthought, since I’m very aware I could be proven wrong. I don’t mind if I were to be (well sure I would mind, but that’s something to deal with if it were to happen) and it would be my imagination. At least there would be an answer. Right now, I’m experiencing all these things and while saying so I’m also very aware it cannot be proven and as such could not be true. Since I do consider myself analytical I would love to see this proven or disproven. I would love to know whether or not I’m making this all up, but it won’t be because it has not been proven “yet”.
“::sigh::”
Same here… It would be nice if this could be settled (preferably) the scientific way.
But you know, years ago we didn’t have telephone, when we did there wasn’t anything like wireless and now you can call the other side of the world, without any delay. Same with storing information, we used to have databases in detectable hardware, which were accessed in sequence, than later at random (still with index) and now we don’t even know where anything is stored, talking about “the cloud” nowadays.
If this is possible, why couldn’t this be true for (the human) energetic fields? It’s not like we can “see” wireless or the “cloud”, still it’s there.
Last but not least, one of my most sceptic clients, now is asking for healing and also distant healing as he is recovering from surgery. He tells me I take away most pain, itching and it helps him (and the muscles) relax. Note that at first he didn't believe it at all.
"Ok, help me here."
I've been doing my best. Either there's a communication gap, or there's some reading comprehension issues, or maybe a little of both.
"I get it that to you this is an assumption."
Then I'm wondering why/how you expect me to change my position based on a bunch of assumptions. I could just as well being having a conversation with a Mormon Elder who makes a bunch of assumptions and who states his conclusion true in his premises. Or maybe a Scientologist. Or maybe a Hindu. All are convinced that their feelings, personal experiences, and what they've been taught, substantiate their respective worldviews.
"It has not been proven, thus it cannot be used as being the truth. What has this got to do with new ground being conquered?"
Because we're continually going back to square-one..i.e..you have a claim(or claims). We're at the inevitable stalemate that happens when "spiritualist"(no evidence for "spirits") cannot meet the burden of proving their extraordinary claims, and in fact, like clockwork, tries to shift said burden.....
since I’m very aware I could be proven wrong. ~ L
It's no one's burden to prove your claims "wrong"; it's your burden to prove them right.
"I’m experiencing all these things and while saying so I’m also very aware it cannot be proven and as such could not be true."
Here, again, you're mistaken, because, yes, if you could repeat your powers consistently, meaning, with tight controls, produce better results than mere "chance", then you could prove to scientists that your powers are genuine, and not just in your head.
"It would be nice if this could be settled (preferably) the scientific way."
It could be(see here*, above). But curiously, no "spiritual healer" has done this to science's satisfaction.
"If this is possible, why couldn’t this be true for (the human) energetic fields? It’s not like we can 'see' wireless or the 'cloud', still it’s there."
We can't see "air", either, but we can harness it, observe its effects, and make predictions on it.
"[....] one of my most sceptic clients, now is asking for healing and also distant healing as he is recovering from surgery. He tells me I take away most pain, itching and it helps him (and the muscles) relax."
See, "placebo effect".
"Note that at first he didn't believe it at all."
He said you only take away "most pain", not all of it, so I guess it never occurred to him(or you) that sometimes pain after surgery goes away on its own.
“Then I'm wondering why/how you expect me to change my position based on a bunch of assumptions.”
I do not ever expect you to change your position, why would I? I’m aware you won’t ever be convinced without the proper evidence. Besides I do not recall having ever asked you to.
“It's no one's burden to prove your claims "wrong"; it's your burden to prove them right.”
Yes I know this by now and I do not have to tell you that I’m (yes again/still) slightly fed up with it always being my obligation to prove myself right, especially since this never was my intention in the first place to ever convince you (well I may have considered so last Summer for a very short period of time).
While we’re at the subject are you telling me I have to prove myself on my own blog as well, since this was your response to what I put on my blog?
Me: "I’m experiencing all these things and while saying so I’m also very aware it cannot be proven and as such could not be true."
You: “Here, again, you're mistaken, because, yes, if you could repeat your powers consistently, meaning, with tight controls, produce better results than mere "chance", then you could prove to scientists that your powers are genuine, and not just in your head.”
Tell me where to go and if possible (taking geographic location into consideration) I’ll go for it.
“He said you only take away "most pain", not all of it, so I guess it never occurred to him (or you) that sometimes pain after surgery goes away on its own.”
Of course this has occurred to me. What I do know and you do not know, is he’s got physical therapy and he has to do exercises to get his replaced joint moving properly, pushing him to the edges of his capabilities, while the wounds are still healing and that’s causing him lots of pain every day anew. What I have noticed several times now is that whenever I put my hand on his leg and it’s warm and swollen, the swelling diminishes straight away, and most of his leg (if not all) is getting back to normal temperature straight away as well. The reason he asks me is that I do not go there every day, so it’s very noticeable to him whenever I've come over and done something to help relieve the pain, whereas I haven’t stopped by and the pain is a lot worse.
"I’m aware you won’t ever be convinced without the proper evidence." ~ L
But I think it's implicit that you wish I would be convinced, based on what you consider evidence, at least when it comes to your own claimed powers..e.g.."touch healer", "distant healer", "mediumship", etc. If I'm wrong on this, then I fail to see why you even bother. I get the distinct impression that you are not at all used to encountering people who are skeptical of your fields of practice, and now that you have encountered one such person, this rubs you the wrong way(admittedly causing you unrest). If this isn't because you have underlying doubts of your own; if you are fully confident in your powers, etc., I stand corrected, but again, I fail to see why you even bother with this subject when I bring it up.
(Hypothetically speaking, if you had such doubts, then this would all make more sense, because here I am confirming these doubts)
In any case, I feel we've found about as much common ground as we're going to find on this subject(which is little-to-none), so until you figure out what you want from this blog(if anything), I see no need to engage each other further on the matter.
"Tell me where to go and if possible (taking geographic location into consideration) I’ll go for it." ~ L
I've already said that the James Randi Foundation has one million dollars waiting for the first mystic/psychic who can prove their powers in a controlled setting. The idea that someone wouldn't take this challenge because of geographic location?...idk, that says a lot right there. A plane ticket and loss of work would cost a fraction of the potential payoff amount.
“I get the distinct impression that you are not at all used to encountering people who are skeptical of your fields of practice, and now that you have encountered one such person, this rubs you the wrong way(admittedly causing you unrest).”
Very true. I am used to people not believing one word, but not to those who are questioning me.
“If this isn't because you have underlying doubts of your own; if you are fully confident in your powers, etc., I stand corrected, but again, I fail to see why you even bother with this subject when I bring it up.”
It’s not so much about having doubts about what it is I’m doing or just maybe you are right and it is. I mean I’ve come to realize when it came to Christianity something was very off and I’m very aware this could be the same when it comes to my healing practices.
“…so until you figure out what you want from this blog(if anything), I see no need to engage each other further on the matter.”
From this thread and when it comes to what I’m doing not so much. Although I have to say you have made me aware that it may be possible to having things proven or disproven for that matter and let's not forget that I could be wrong on the whole matter and it could be both my fantasy and the psychological effects of the other person that's essentially doing the whole trick.
“I've already said that the James Randi Foundation has one million dollars waiting for the first mystic/psychic who can prove their powers in a controlled setting. The idea that someone wouldn't take this challenge because of geographic location?...idk, that says a lot right there. A plane ticket and loss of work would cost a fraction of the potential payoff amount.”
Two reasons:
1) It was meant for the person doing Therapeutic Touch and I’m not the one invited here.
2) I’m not just someone to say – hey let’s do something out of the blue and just go over there. After all I am Dutch!
" ... the psychological effects of the other person that's essentially doing the whole trick" - L
BINGO!! We have a winner!
I remember as a small child i firmly believed in Santa Clause - well past the time my brother and fiends told me it was not so - i wanted to believe - i NEEDED to believe ... guess what - they were right ... surprise!
Look - that does not mean that your methods don't have some value as a type of physical (touch) and psychological (mental) therapy ... just not in the "ways" you think
I get the distinct impression that you are not at all used to encountering people who are skeptical of your fields of practice, and now that you have encountered one such person, this rubs you the wrong way(admittedly causing you unrest).
"Very true. I am used to people not believing one word, but not to those who are questioning me." ~ L
In the "About Me" section located just below my blog archive, visitors will see the following...
"As you'll soon find out, this blog is mostly dedicated to debunking various religious/supernatural claims with special attention to the claims of Christianity."(emphasis added)
IOW, let the record show that I didn't come find you to question your claims; you came and found me. I question everything. Yes. That's what skeptics do. As I've said many, many times, when you question people's core beliefs, someone is bound to become incensed, offended, or turned-off.
That said, I do not think that you're a charlatan. I believe that you believe that your powers and training are genuine. But like liberal Christians give way to the fundamentalist wack-jobs, you give way to the charlatans who use "spirituality" and "metaphysics" to take advantage of the multitude of vulnerable, gullible people out there. And as long as you view what you do as legit', the charlatans(crooks) will have a leg to stand on, whereas, if you didn't view it as such, they would not have a leg to stand on. This is one of my peeves with the whole "New Age" movement.
Just so I'm fully understood, I, like most people, could not care less if children really believe that they have an invisible friend. No. But when grown adults believe the same sort of thing - and when/if they claim to get morals, advice, and wishes granted from their friend - it can become problematic and even dangerous. Think about it---there are people who, right this very second, would love to see me and other Americans dead. Why? Because we don't worship and pay reverence to their invisible friend, but a different one, instead.
This makes the world we live in, not-to-mention, the future world our children will live in, a more dangerous place than it needs to be. And people wonder why I discuss this sort of thing.
As for being vocal about my skepticism and Atheism, etc., luckily, most people I encounter in real life can separate my lack of belief from my character. I've only met a few who cannot, and one in particular who made his disdain for the fact that he knows a "nonbeliever", crystal clear. It's just sad. Really, really sad.
“I've already said that the James Randi Foundation has one million dollars waiting for the first mystic/psychic who can prove their powers in a controlled setting.”
Being curious about all you said before, I just went to the site of the James Randi Foundation. Have you seen those requirements? Before I could even go over there, I would first have to have an article (or something alike) published by an independent organization (well that is other than me and also scientifically related) about what it is that I’m doing. Next I would have to put into words what it is I “claim” to be doing, which I’m anything but good at (you seem to do a better job than I do when it comes to this). So it’s not just filling in an application form and fly over there.
“IOW, let the record show that I didn't come find you to question your claims; you came and found me.”
And I’m glad I did.
“I question everything. Yes. That's what skeptics do.”
Fortunately you do. I will admit it’s not always easy, but you have given me lots of insights. I may still be searching for answers, but I’m much more aware of the way I’m thinking, lacking in thinking and where I might have made way too many assumptions and to me that’s very helpful.
“As I've said many, many times, when you question people's core beliefs, someone is bound to become incensed, offended, or turned-off.”
No offense here, I guess it’s good to have people like you questioning things.
“That said, I do not think that you're a charlatan. I believe that you believe that your powers and training are genuine.”
I appreciate you saying so. It means a lot to hear (read) you say this. I guess I needed that… :-)
“… you give way to the charlatans who use "spirituality" and "metaphysics" to take advantage of the multitude of vulnerable, gullible people out there. And as long as you view what you do as legit', the charlatans(crooks) will have a leg to stand on, whereas, if you didn't view it as such, they would not have a leg to stand on.”
What do/would you expect me to do? I was thinking about all of this earlier today and you know, even it were to be psychological, the results of my actions are that the people who come to see me are feeling better afterwards, whether because of relaxation, having stress taken away and/or healing being quickened. If we are to put aside what’s causing this in the first place, something is obviously happening inside the body, which improves things and this in itself is a good thing, regardless of which method is actually responsible for causing this.
“This makes the world we live in, not-to-mention, the future world our children will live in, a more dangerous place than it needs to be. And people wonder why I discuss this sort of thing.”
All you can do is tell others why and then it’s up to them if they actually listen to you. You can’t make them.
“As for being vocal about my skepticism and Atheism, etc., luckily, most people I encounter in real life can separate my lack of belief from my character. I've only met a few who cannot…”
It tells a thing or two about those who truly see you for who you are and of course also about those who cannot.
That said, I do not think that you're a charlatan. I believe that you believe that your powers and training are genuine.
"I appreciate you saying so. It means a lot to hear (read) you say this." ~ L
I was trying to deliver only good news, omitting the bad. What I omitted is that I believe that you are self-deceived at best, and from what I can tell, you got that way for largely two reasons: 1) it was taught to you by other proponents of New Age philosophies and practices, and 2) hanging around like-minded people, contributing to the "group-think" confirmation bias. What solidifies it for you, IOW, what, in your mind, constitutes "evidence" that you are not mistaken, is the same sorts of anecdotal evidence that the religious produce: Personal experience, feelings, positive results, and events that are just too unlikely to chalk up to mere coincidence. If I've overlooked anything, feel free to add it.
“I was trying to deliver only good news, omitting the bad.”
When I first read this I was wondering: “Why? What made you change your mind?”
But thinking about this some more I got to realize you’re still/again trying to make me aware of what might have influenced me to becoming this person believing all sorts of stuff when it comes to the metaphysical.
However something was bugging me. I started writing a first blog post about this yesterday, but still it didn’t capture what actually was bugging me. Waking up this morning I became aware though. It had to do with my upbringing and with it you – again – were touching upon a very sore subject.
You say: “What I omitted is that I believe that you are self-deceived at best, and from what I can tell, you got that way for largely two reasons: 1) it was taught to you by other proponents of New Age philosophies and practices…”
Well actually it was not. It was taught by my mom and she referred to it as the “occult”, long before they even spoke of “new age”. But yes she did get me to read all this books having to do with the spirit world, angels, you name it. As a result I’ve been raised with the fear of spirits or “bad entities”, being told about the occult and spells and not wanting to give any credibility to this at all.
This being said, it took me till the medium courses I attended the last couple of years before this fear was taken away and yes – replaced with faith in my Spirit Team. You got me to question my Spirit Team. I’ve noticed that while I’m considering they might not be real (as for angels) I’m also so used to working with them, it’s hard to act as if they are not there. So in all honesty I just act as if they are there still, while questioning meanwhile if they are truly are here.
“What solidifies it for you, IOW, what, in your mind, constitutes "evidence" that you are not mistaken, is the same sorts of anecdotal evidence that the religious produce: Personal experience, feelings…”
That’s very true. And a lot of these experiences are directly the result of my own experiences when I was younger, whether it was picking up on “pains” and “fatigue” from others, the telepathy games I played with my mum (guess a number and tell me) or far worse the experiences I have had during the night being awake and conscious, still not able to move just yet. Feeling unexplainable things at midnight combined with those experiences have formed me the most and in fact so much that up till this day I feel more comfortable and far more at ease falling asleep on the couch, than wanting to go to bed experiencing the silence and the quiet.
Fortunately things have improved since we’re living in this newly (from scratch) built home and since I’ve attended the medium courses with lots of teachers making me question everything I’ve been taught to believe, as you are doing as well.
“2) hanging around like-minded people, contributing to the "group-think" confirmation bias.”
Yes I’m constantly in contact with people who are enthusiastically telling me about angels and next are asking me what I know about this. I cannot act as if I know nothing, I’ve got a whole book closet filled with books on these subjects in my practice and it’s confusing to say the least to explain that I do have the books and I’m used to certain rituals/affirmations, but at the same time I’m questioning it all.
If anything ALL of it is confusing me right now, it’s how to deal with the old rituals and habits I’ve started to use for protection. For some reason when it comes to Christianity this is very easy (except for still using crosses to protect stuff as part of a ritual (yes again)). My life is built around those rituals and people expect me to share these with them and tell them about this.
How to deal with this? I’m not ready yet to dismiss all of my own experiences and all these rituals. If I’m not mistaken you understand this process of not wanting to let go without a fight or investigation as no other person, so if you have some advice, please tell me.
"Well actually it was not. It was taught by my mom and she referred to it as the 'occult', long before they even spoke of 'new age'."
A new label - and in fact, a euphemism - for an old way of thinking. Before: "occult". After: "New Age". And if your mom taught it to you, this is precisely what I mean when I say we inherit the family belief-system.
"I cannot act as if I know nothing[...]"
No one is asking you to act like you know nothing. It's merely been pointed out that "knowing" and "believing" aren't necessarily the same. A child believes there's a monster in the closet. The child's feelings on the matter is all the confirmation they need. I think it's safe to say they don't know there's a monster in the closet.
"I’m not ready yet to dismiss all of my own experiences and all these rituals."
Yes, I think that much is evident.
Me: "I’m not ready yet to dismiss all of my own experiences and all these rituals."
You: “Yes, I think that much is evident.”
Is that such a problem/mistake on my part? It almost sounds like it is.
Know that it doesn’t mean I do not give your reasoning any credit. I do. So much that even with my experiences and results I nowadays do consider there being other/more options than what I’ve always thought and was taught to be true.
My challenge therefore is not so much to find out which one of us holds the ultimate truth. It’s about being able to look at things from different perspectives, besides those I was brought up with, so I can reason with sense what’s most likely true. Meanwhile I have to find an acceptable manner how to deal with all these doubts while working in my practice, which includes dealing with the metaphysical in daily life.
"Is that such a problem/mistake on my part? It almost sounds like it is."
Nope, it's not a problem. On the other hand, the very fact that you use the words "not ready[etc., etc]" implies that truth is somehow time-sensitive, and this thinking could, yes, be a mistake on your part, since, neither "truth"(nor "truth") care whether we're ready to hear it, or not. What is "true" about the world we live in - AKA, reality - does not care one iota whether we're "ready" for it, or not. Now, if you are still genuinely convinced that your perception of the world is accurate, a perception that includes the "metaphysical", then fine.
"Know that it doesn’t mean I do not give your reasoning any credit"
As best as I can tell, my "reasoning" is based on our laws of logic. From there, there is no "my logic", "his logic", or "their logic"----there is just "logic". I've told you every way that I know how, that much of what the "metaphysical" crowd promotes/extols is logically flawed. For instance, it does not follow, logically, that because "energy" is never destroyed, that therefore, a "personality"(which is not a "thing", but A FUNCTION of a thing[the brain]) can exist as "energy" once the brain is annihilated at death.
"My challenge therefore is not so much to find out which one of us holds the ultimate truth."
I don't claim to know any "ultimate truth". I claim to use the most reliable methods for determining that which has a referent in reality and that which does not, for determining what is most likely truth/untrue about the world we live in. That method, again, is science. Since science is provisional/self-correcting, talking about knowing "ultimate truth" doesn't apply.
"I have to find an acceptable manner how to deal with all these doubts while working in my practice, which includes dealing with the metaphysical in daily life.
Okay, you're dealing with doubt. Imagine the minister who has doubts who still shows up to church on Sundays, giving sermons from the pulpit. As unrealistic and crazy as it sounds, former men of the cloth have done this. Why did they go through that period? Because, like you, they weren't ready to give up their experiences, yet.
Correction: should have been, "neither 'truth'(nor 'Truth')", etc
I’m lost here – again/as usual. You say two different things with regards to “not being ready”:
Me: "I’m not ready yet to dismiss all of my own experiences and all these rituals."
You: “Yes, I think that much is evident.”
Me: “Is that such a problem/mistake on my part? It almost sounds like it is.”
You:
1)“On the other hand, the very fact that you use the words "not ready[etc., etc]" implies that truth is somehow time-sensitive, and this thinking could, yes, be a mistake on your part, since, neither "truth"(nor "truth") care whether we're ready to hear it, or not.”
2) “…Why did they go through that period? Because, like you, they weren't ready to give up their experiences, yet.”
In the first part you say about “not being ready” “it could be a mistake” since it implies the truth is time-sensitive. In the second part “not being ready - yet” is also time-related, yet suddenly it seems(?) logical, even so much, that you compare this to the experiences of others.
“Now, if you are still genuinely convinced that your perception of the world is accurate, a perception that includes the "metaphysical", then fine.”
How can I ever claim that my perception of the world is accurate? I can't ever, since I do not know it all. Do I include a number of the things when it comes to the “metaphysical” in my reality? Yes I do, like the things I feel/experience. Do I believe everything to be true? No, not necessarily. I’m aware there are many other reasons possible when it comes to my experiences with regards to the “metaphysical”.
Me: "Know that it doesn’t mean I do not give your reasoning any credit"
You: “As best as I can tell, my "reasoning" is based on our laws of logic.”
Yes it is and please include in this the time you spend thinking about this and coming to certain conclusions.
“I've told you every way that I know how, that much of what the "metaphysical" crowd promotes/extols is logically flawed. For instance, it does not follow, logically, that because "energy" is never destroyed, that therefore, a "personality"(which is not a "thing", but A FUNCTION of a thing[the brain]) can exist as "energy" once the brain is annihilated at death.”
You may have told me certain things every way you know how, but when it comes to something like the “personality” I’m still not convinced it isn’t more than a function of the brain. There are too many experiences even now, that give me other indications. I believe I wrote something about this recently on my blog, having to do with the personality of a great grandmother. All my client did was mentioning her great grandmother’s clock (she became aware of this during an energetic treatment), next I was aware of a “personality”. When I described this personality, it turned out to be an accurate description of her great grandmother. How do you expect me to ignore this? I may not be very good at it, most certainly depending on the circumstances (things always go easier when I’m in my practice, compared to anywhere else), but despite me not being the best at it, I do experience certain feelings and they mostly turn out to be true, when I feel in a secure situation (that’s not practicing nor telling on demand).
"I’m lost here – again/as usual."
Yes, and as usual, it is becoming tedious trying to find common ground, or at a minimum, to get you to absorb my position on the matter. It is my job to be as good of a writer as I can be; it is not my job to make you a good reader.
"You say two different things with regards to 'not being ready':"
No. I. did. not. say "two different things". I simply took YOUR previous words..e.g.."I'm not ready to give up my experiences", etc., and how it applies to YOUR practice, and I simply applied it to another line of work..e.g..a church minister, a person who may have doubts(as you claim to), but who STILL stands at the head of his church preaching and claiming to possess special knowledge that helps others. Oh, that's right, he's helping others, so what does it matter if he really believes in what he does or if what he does has a basis in reality, right?
IOW, I was attempting to make a rhetorical point, and again, that point was lost on you. So let me spell it out:
Sometimes - and I reiterate, sometimes - people are "not ready" to give up their position for reasons other than whether the philosophies they espouse are based in reality, or not.
"How can I ever claim that my perception of the world is accurate?"
How? Well, for starters, you implicitly claim it on your website that promotes "metaphysical" practices. Or did I miss the disclaimer that states that you don't guarantee positive results because the metaphysical is unproven?
"I can't ever[claim that my perception of the world is accurate], since I do not know it all"
Look up "red herring"(fallacy), because that's what this is. One doesn't need to be omniscient("know it all") to be able to spout unproven pseudo-science as fact. Fortune tellers don't "know it all", and look, that doesn't stop them from promoting their perception of the world as fact, a perception that apparently includes a belief that the month in which someone is born dictates their personality and their destiny.
"Do I include a number of the things when it comes to the 'metaphysical' in my reality? Yes I do, like the things I feel/experience."
If the extent of it were Lexje's personal reality, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. I know I wouldn't. But here's the rub---you are promoting your "reality" as an objective reality. Once more, personal experiences don't necessarily say anything about objective reality.
"Do I believe everything to be true? No, not necessarily."
You believe enough of it to be true to be promoting your practices on a website/blog...e.g.."touch healing", "distant healing", neither of which are accepted by the scientific community.
"I’m aware there are many other reasons possible when it comes to my experiences with regards to the 'metaphysical'."
But you're not ready, or read enough, to find out for sure if those other reasons are not only possible, but in fact, are much better and more plausible explanations. A prime example...
"All my client did was mentioning her great grandmother’s clock (she became aware of this during an energetic treatment), next I was aware of a 'personality'. When I described this personality, it turned out to be an accurate description of her great grandmother."
Yes, and the more likely/more plausible explanation is that the word "clock", which, BTW, is closely associated with the elderly("Grandfather clock"?), compelled you to start a cold reading process(possibly unconsciously), and you simply made some vague guesses and got lucky. You probably described my grandmother, too.
“Well, for starters, you implicitly claim it on your website that promotes "metaphysical" practices. Or did I miss the disclaimer that states that you don't guarantee positive results because the metaphysical is unproven?”
Oops… I forgot to translate certain pages from Dutch into English. Well I just translated the one having to do to with Natural Medicine Therapy and replaced the link. What I am obligated to state on this page is that it is not meant as a replacement for regular medicine. That is something I have done. Whether I should put a disclaimer because the metaphysical is unproven? There is always improvement, regardless of what’s causing it. I’ve never had someone leave in the same condition or worse.
My license is based upon me being a Natural Medicine Therapist and therefore I have no other choice than to promote this on my website. Can’t help it, those are the rules.
As for “claiming to possess special knowledge” I never said I’ve got special powers. If I recall correctly I’ve always said anyone can do this. So you’ll only find a description on the energetic therapy on my website, but not me claiming to have special powers.
I’ll give your other remarks some more thought tomorrow. I really have to get some sleep since I’m giving a lecture on Mindsets tomorrow, being all weekend on a spiritual fair for some speed coaching.
"As for 'claiming to possess special knowledge' I never said I’ve got special powers. If I recall correctly I’ve always said anyone can do this. So you’ll only find a description on the energetic therapy on my website, but not me claiming to have special powers."
I'm sorry, but NO, not "anyone can do this". If that were true, scientists - most of whom are individuals who dedicate their entire lives trying to discover the hereto unknown - would have tested and confirmed what you are proposing..e.g..that people can be "touch healed", "distantly healed"; that they have personal "auras" and "energy" that exist independently of their physical bodies. Are you kidding me?!? A scientist would LOVE to be able to discover and confirm such a thing.
I am at my wit's end with you again(in case you haven't noticed). Either cease and desist from regurgitating the same "metaphysical" jargon on this blog, or I will start deleting posts. Note, I am not asking you to think like me or agree with me; I'm merely asking you to recognize and absorb when you are in error, and to STOP repeating those same errors. Some perfect examples are, a) when you spout that "anyone can do this"(yadda, yadda), and b) when you imply that because something is "unexplainable", that we are then being smart to entertain or believe it until can be explained(or disproved).
All hypotheses are not equally plausible. The ancients couldn't "explain" why it thundered when it rained, so they thought "Thor" must be mad at them. Now, was that smart? No.
Addendum.....
"All my client did was mentioning her great grandmother’s clock(she became aware of this during an energetic treatment), next I was aware of a 'personality'. When I described this personality, it turned out to be an accurate description of her great grandmother."
That doesn't impress me. If you want to know what would impress me(provided that you could repeat it with 90-100% accuracy), this would: If, a split-second before your "client" mentioned something about her grandmother's clock, you said, out loud... "I know!...your great grandmother's clock!!!"
Why would that impress me? That would impress me because you would have demonstrated that you know someone's thoughts and/or something about the person *before* they say one word. As it stands, they mention a word(give you a clue), and you "run" with it, trying to connect dots, looking for "hits".
IOW, there's no way to know whether you've tapped into some hereto unknown "power", or whether you are just getting plain lucky. This is why your personal anecdotes and those of like-minded people fail to convince those who are skeptical of such practices.
With the risk of this getting deleted… sigh…
What you’re proposing (and which actually can work like a charm) is best tested either by telling something about someone when being blindfolded and not being answered, or better yet by receiving a sentence having to do with that person or a handwritten envelope and next get to write what’s coming through without the other person being there. Personally I’m always amazed at the results.
When sitting across someone, such a test could always be extended by telling the person first about his or her personality and next making a connection with someone they know who’s gone, describing this other person’s personality and next including something specific. We do these kinds of exercises regularly at courses, to improve our skills, preferably with people we do not know.
I posted something on my own blog. Don’t feel like repeating it here, so do me a favour go over there and read it.
"Personally I’m always amazed at the results."
You're amazed at the results of the tests that you and your peers..e.g..people in your "Spirit Team", arrange. Okay, great. I suppose Catholics are equally amazed when they see a statue of Jesus weep.
"You're amazed at the results of the tests..."
My results that is, either blindfolded not knowing who sits across me or when just receiving a line on a piece of paper. No cold reading possible, no clues whatsoever. Nothing.
"...your peers..e.g..people in your "Spirit Team..."
My peers? Those are my fellow students. My Spirit Team ... Has no involvement what soever. Why mention my Spirit Team all of a sudden?
"Okay, great. I suppose Catholics are equally amazed when they see a statue of Jesus weep."
Hardly, unless you feel that way when having studied really hard on a certain part on the bass and finally manage to play it flawlessly...
"My results that is[....]"
Yes, I've got that much---your results of a test that you(and/or like-minded people) arrange. You are satisfied with passing your own test. And again, I'm sure Ghost busters would be satisfied passing their own tests, too.
"[....] either blindfolded not knowing who sits across me or when just receiving a line on a piece of paper."
You still have failed to make it clear what you are contending. Perhaps it's the communication gap, or maybe it's a failure on my part to be familiar with tests that people in the "metaphysical" camp arrange for themselves these days.
Is it your contention that you can be blindfolded in a chair, and when a person walks into the room and sits in front of you, that you can name that person and/or say something about that person that is accurate? If that is an accurate rendering of what you're proposing, is your success rate 100%? If not, what is your success rate, and why isn't it 100%?
If what I described is not an accurate rendering of what you're proposing, feel free to make it clear, spelling out every single step, and naming the controls that you are using when testing. Surely you know what "controls" are when conducting tests.
"My peers? Those are my fellow students. My Spirit Team ... Has no involvement what soever. Why mention my Spirit Team all of a sudden?"
If "peer" means those who are equal in status or abilities(and it does), then both your "fellow students" and your "Spirit Team" qualify. If the latter has nothing to do with these "tests" you speak of, fine...so be it.
"Hardly, unless you feel that way when having studied really hard on a certain part on the bass and finally manage to play it flawlessly."
Apples 'n oranges. IOW, an inapt analogy. For one, I am not claiming that playing bass flawlessly is something that "anyone can do" provided they "study" hard enough, go to the right school, or are part of the right "Bass Team".
Secondly, "flawlessness", when it comes to art, is open to interpretation, and thus, subjective. There is no objective way to test for "flawlessness" in art. There is, however, an objective way to test for when people claim that they can perform certain feats using only their mind.
Thirdly, we have objective, demonstrable confirmation for the existence of "bass", both the instrument, and the frequency. Conversely, *we do not(to my knowledge) have any objective, demonstrable confirmation for a "Spirit".
*Note, a description of something..e.g.."energy", doesn't necessarily constitute demonstrable confirmation for anything. I can describe a "leprechaun". Enough said.
Lastly, when Catholics claim that statues of Jesus are "crying tears from Heaven", etc., this constitutes an extraordinary claim, as does a claim that one can be healed, distantly. Playing a bass part flawlessly isn't such an extraordinary claim. I'm quite sure Jeff Berlin has, at one time or another, claimed he has executed a bass part flawlessly.
A few more things...
On your blog(which you recommended I read), you stated....
Going back to [...] remark, this one being slightly changed for the purpose of making the example more understandable:
If you're going alter what I say, for any reason, please do not put it in quotations, and please provide what I *actually* say for contrast. Thx.
Then you say...
"I do want to add something about the special powers. I do not say I have any special powers, even though I got explained that if anyone could do this, this would have been proven numerous times by now. Saying this, we are still dealing with the unseen, so no one is sure how to prove this. TS is concluding though that since not just anyone can do this, I must have special powers."(bold added)
Firstly, since not everyone is doing "it", but only those in certain groups with certain mind-sets, I, yes, conclude, and I maintain, that you are implicitly claiming to have special/extraordinary powers.
Secondly - and perhaps more to the point - when you describe your powers as involving the "unseen", this is irrelevant at best; smoke and mirrors, at worst. Here's why....
When people claim that "God" is answering their prayers to heal the ill(intercessory prayer), then presumably said "God" and however he/she/it does things, is also "unseen". However, the claim involves this "God" interacting in the physical world, in which case, the results should be testable/falsifiable. The same holds true for "mind-reading", "touch-healing"(AKA, Therapeutic Touch), and the like. The results are claimed to be physical, because after all, we are physical beings. Thus, like "prayer", any results of these metaphysical practices should also be testable/falsifiable.
So, let's be clear---it is not scientists who are saying, "no one is sure how to prove this".
“If you're going alter what I say, for any reason, please do not put it in quotations, and please provide what I *actually* say for contrast. Thx.”
I’ve changed it.
“Firstly, since not everyone is doing "it", but only those in certain groups with certain mind-sets, I, yes, conclude, and I maintain, that you are implicitly claiming to have special/extraordinary powers.”
I’m not claiming this, you are. Please be specific about this. That you’re maintaining this is something else.
“Thus, like "prayer", any results of these metaphysical practices should also be testable/falsifiable.”
Let’s see if I get this right. I’ve told you I’ve seen positive results on the physical body. And then next you say that this may be so, but this could be a psychological effect. So while I say there’s positive change, you specifically say this does not have to be the result of my energetic treatment. If it’s not certain whether energetic treatment has caused this effect, then it can’t be proven. Something can be proven, as in a certain positive changes, but not the reason behind it, unless you now say this is the “energetic treatment” even though we do not know whether it is because of placebo, expectations, training etc.
I’m curious what your answer will be, this could change the entire blog post.
“You are satisfied with passing your own test.”
It’s not my test, these tests are thought of and conducted at the Arthur Findlay College and by its teachers.
“…with tests that people in the "metaphysical" camp arrange for themselves these days.”
It’s called training. It can be taught, but only if practiced on a regular (preferably daily) basis. Do me a favour, please don’t say I’m repeating myself when talking about training. It’s important to explain why these exercises are being conducted.
“Is it your contention that you can be blindfolded in a chair, and when a person walks into the room and sits in front of you, that you can name that person and/or say something about that person that is accurate?”
Not name the person, but yes say things about the person which also can be very accurate. And no it’s not 100%, since I’m still in training and my conscious mind happens to interfere. Whenever it does I get sidetracked and next the answers can become a mix of facts and fiction, till I get really distracted and then there’s no more information coming through.
“…and naming the controls that you are using when testing.”
As far as controls go, the person opposite the one giving the reading, will give feedback afterwards on whether or not the story was accurate. The details given will be discussed (right or wrong) and as far as the wrong answers/details are concerned, they usually are not explained for multiple reasons.
“If "peer" means those who are equal in status or abilities(and it does), then both your "fellow students" and your "Spirit Team" qualify.”
My Spirit Team does not consist of living breathing people. Their requirement is to get (for instance) information across to me, while I have to be able to receive and interpret this information correctly. However they are (as far as I know) not involved in these tests.
Me: "Personally I’m always amazed at the results."
You: “Playing a bass part flawlessly isn't such an extraordinary claim.”
That’s what I was trying to get across, when I said I was amazed. Next time I’ll just say “pleasantly surprised”. There’s nothing extraordinary about it, just hard to accomplish and it takes lots and lots of practice and perseverance and a mind which can be stopped from chattering when needed.
Please note you asked me about certain stuff, so if I may have repeated myself here occasionally, it was not meant with the intent of being tedious, it was meant to clarify myself to you. I really do not know what you expect me to (not) do… sigh…
"I’m not claiming this, you are."
It's like the child who keeps a straight face, and without batting an eye, tells us that he or she just had a conversation with their invisible friend over lunch, and when we ask, "Oh, really?", the child responds, "Yes!...anyone can do it! My friends do it, too!"
Said child is making an extraordinary claim, albeit, we (hopefully) know that that's what children sometimes do, having an overactive imagination and no theory of mind, yet. The child is at least passively claiming to have special knowledge/powers. The fact that the child insists up and down that "anyone can do it!" is immaterial to their claim.
That is a simplistic example, but it aptly illustrates my point, nonetheless.
"Please be specific about this."
I was before, and I was again, just now.
"That you’re maintaining this is something else."
I'm maintaining that you and your constituents of the "metaphysical" are making some extraordinary claims, claims which passively include hereto unknown capabilities(AKA powers). Calling these capabilities "special" is understating it, and insisting that "anyone can do it" doesn't relieve you of the burden of proof.
"Let’s see if I get this right. I’ve told you I’ve seen positive results on the physical body. And then next you say that this may be so, but this could be a psychological effect."
Yes, correct, so far.
"So while I say there’s positive change, you specifically say this does not have to be the result of my energetic treatment."
Correct again.
"If it’s not certain whether energetic treatment has caused this effect, then it can’t be proven."
Not necessarily correct, depending on the controls of the test.
"Something can be proven, as in a certain positive changes, but not the reason behind it, unless you now say this is the 'energetic treatment' even though we do not know whether it is because of placebo, expectations, training etc."
You left off that some ailments get better on their own. If 100 patients who were having an appendicitis attack came to your clinic for TT(Therapeutic Touch), or "energy treatments", or however you'd like to label your techniques, and they all left "feeling better", that could quite possibly prove that it's NOT placebo, expectations, etc., plus, it would eliminate the possibility that an aliment got better on its own, since an inflamed appendix doesn't get better on its own.
That is one way to go about proving that "energy healing" actually works.
"It’s not my test, these tests are thought of and conducted at the Arthur Findlay College and by its teachers."
Sweet mother of mercy! The college that you reference is a flippin' training college for mediumship and healing!!!!
My point is this: Mediums don't get the luxury of devising their OWN tests, including the controls. Can you say say "bias"? When testing to prove something, the idea is to eliminate as much bias as possible. Now, are scientists bias? Yes!...biased to want to know what it most likely true/not true.
"It’s important to explain why these exercises are being conducted."
I already know why it's important; it's important to convince, and keep convinced, the prospective students. Metaphysicians conducting their own tests(exercises), and saying, "See?!?...it works, students!" is hardly unbiased.
"Not name the person, but yes say things about the person which also can be very accurate."
Very accurate, okay...but very detailed? something special and unique? Or vague things that could apply to most if not all people?
"And no it’s not 100%[...]
I already knew that. If you (or someone else) could have a 90-100% success rate, it would be accepted by science, and yet, it's not.
"[...]since I’m still in training and my conscious mind happens to interfere"
You've decided, a priori, that if you're inaccurate, it couldn't possibly be because you made a bad guess.
"My Spirit Team does not consist of living breathing people. Their requirement is to get (for instance) information across to me, while I have to be able to receive and interpret this information correctly. However they are (as far as I know) not involved in these tests."
I'm floored right now. No comment.
Recently you’ve started talking about the “hereto unknown”. I’ve been searching the net several times now trying to find out what it is you might mean, but nothing seems to make sense. Could you please explain?
“…insisting that "anyone can do it" doesn't relieve you of the burden of proof.”
That’s fine by me. Just know that I cannot deliver the proof on all accounts the way you expect me to. But I understand you’d like to have burden of proof and personally I think you are right to ask this.
Saying so however does create some doubts amongst some of my friends. I’ve been told (several times now) that if I were to go into this “request” (or demand, you choose) I’m doing this to satisfy my “ego”. Whereas I’m thinking of possibilities, this would possibly withhold me. It’s like I’m not allowed to do this, since I’d be doing it for the wrong reasons. Actually I do not know what the right reasons might be according to these people, but that’s something else.
“…came to your clinic for TT(Therapeutic Touch) or "energy treatments", or however you'd like to label your techniques …”
I do not have a clinic and I do not do Therapeutic Touch. Would you mind not saying so? All names are horrible. Talking about “energy treatments” or the “metaphysical” is the most acceptable up till now. No need to explain this here though, I already said something about this on my own blog post.
“If 100 patients who were having an appendicitis attack…”
It’s not valid to test this on possibly lethal diseases. It’s forbidden to keep people away from regular medicine, especially when they may possibly die because of not consulting doctors.
“That is one way to go about proving that "energy healing" actually works.”
See above.
“Metaphysicians conducting their own tests(exercises), and saying, "See?!?...it works, students!" is hardly unbiased.”
Yes you are right that if test thought up by say – the college - were to be used as proof, this could be considered bias. However reading what’s been posted on the James Randy Foundation, it’s not that invalid. They want to make sure the results can’t be prejudiced and can be checked.
“Very accurate, okay...but very detailed? something special and unique?”
The goal is detailed as in special and unique.
“If you (or someone else) could have a 90-100% success rate, it would be accepted by science, and yet, it's not.”
One of the teachers went to Italy to work with scientists. Don’t know what the results are yet, but attempts are being made.
“… it couldn't possibly be because you made a bad guess.”
If it would be about guessing, I could stop right away, right? And believe me, I know when it's about guessing... and I also know that I'd better stop straight away.
Me: "My peers? Those are my fellow students. My Spirit Team ... Has no involvement what soever. Why mention my Spirit Team all of a sudden?"
You: “If "peer" means those who are equal in status or abilities(and it does), then both your "fellow students" and your "Spirit Team" qualify. If the latter has nothing to do with these "tests" you speak of, fine...so be it.….”
Me: "My Spirit Team does not consist of living breathing people."
You: “I'm floored right now. No comment.”
Why do you think I was so surprised about you mentioning this? A while ago I said to you that when having to admit that all of this might be part of the imagination, having to let go of the thought of having a “Spirit Team”, would be very difficult for me. And ever since I’ve been questioning “are they really there” or “is all of this made up by me”? I had expected you to understand what I meant when talking about my Spirit Team, but when you started to compare them to my fellow students it seemed you had a different idea about this. This was the only way I knew how to set this straight. This hasn’t changed that I do consider it being very optional that all of this is just part of my imagination. It’s been on my mind ever since you suggested this and it’s soooooo not easy to accept this…
"Recently you’ve started talking about the 'hereto unknown'."
Yes, and what I mean in the context of this subject is things that have yet to be discovered, documented, and known as scientific law/theory by the scientific community.
"Just know that I cannot deliver the proof on all accounts the way you expect me to."
It's not like the burden of proof falls into your lap exclusively. There are thousands, perhaps even millions, of people who make the same exact claims that you do, all of whom might have satisfied their own minds with their own tests, but to date, none of whom have satisfied the minds of scientists and their tests.
"But I understand you’d like to have burden of proof and personally I think you are right to ask this.
There must be a misunderstanding. No, I don't like to have the burden of proof. Those making the claim should have it, whether anyone likes having it, or not.
"Saying so however does create some doubts amongst some of my friends. I’ve been told (several times now) that if I were to go into this 'request' (or demand, you choose) I’m doing this to satisfy my 'ego'."
Maybe you, or maybe one of your seemingly very concerned friends, can find where I've made a "demand" that you give me proof of what you're proposing. Yes, I require that proof be given insofar as if you want me to believe what you're proposing. So, if you don't care if I believe it or not, fine...no problem. But I haven't made a "demand" for that proof.
As far as satisfying the requirement for proof, only you can answer why you'd take it to task. You know your ego better than anyone else.
"Whereas I’m thinking of possibilities, this would possibly withhold me. It’s like I’m not allowed to do this, since I’d be doing it for the wrong reasons."
So, you're essentially telling me that the proof won't be forthcoming. Fair enough. Of course, you know that this comes as no surprise to me, nor do I think it will be dropped.
"Actually I do not know what the right reasons might be according to these people, but that’s something else"
Maybe you put too much stock into what "these people" think? 'Just a thought.
In any case, I think at least one "right reason" to do it would be to get your results published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. The thought that you would possess such knowledge/power, but yet, just "sit on it", idk....it just seems ludicrous. You'd be impeding the scientific advancement of humankind because you're worried about an "ego".
contin.....
"I do not have a clinic and I do not do Therapeutic Touch. Would you mind not saying so? All names are horrible."
Maybe I've misunderstood. Is there not a physical place(e.g..building) with a physical address that you report to several times @ week to perform "energy treatments" on ailing people whom you refer to as "clients"?
"It’s not valid to test this on possibly lethal diseases."
And herein lies the rub. My suggestion(no shock to me) is "not valid", and here's the more likely reason why: Because using "energy" to treat disease only "works" on aliments that stand a chance of improving on their own and/or using conventional medicine, similar to how "prayer" only works on aliments that stand a chance of improving on their own and/or using conventional medicine and/or with a trained medical professional's help.
This is precisely why you never see "prayer" restore a severed limb or "energy healing" fix a ruptured appendix. There's a good reason for this.
"It’s forbidden to keep people away from regular medicine, especially when they may possibly die because of not consulting doctors"
Yes, and again, there's a good reason it's forbidden.
"Yes you are right that if test thought up by say – the college - were to be used as proof, this could be considered bias"
Okay, good. So hopefully we won't have to cover this again.
"The goal is detailed as in special and unique."
You stipulate that there is a "goal", which suggests that said goal is not always achieved. There's no reason it shouldn't be. If the goal is achieved sometimes, and not others, that is no different than me throwing darts at a board and getting a bullseye sometimes, but missing it other times.
"One of the teachers went to Italy to work with scientists. Don’t know what the results are yet, but attempts are being made"
Keep us posted.
"If it would be about guessing, I could stop right away, right? And believe me, I know when it's about guessing..."
So your answer is "no"---it couldn't possibly be about guessing, because you'd know it if it was. It seems there's some circularity there.
Yes, I had a different idea about the "Spirit Team", and again, I have no comment.
“There must be a misunderstanding. No, I don't like to have the burden of proof. Those making the claim should have it, whether anyone likes having it, or not.”
You are right. I did misunderstand. I do not know how to describe what it is “you would require”.
“Yes, I require that proof be given insofar as if you want me to believe what you're proposing… But I haven't made a "demand" for that proof.”
Let’s call it an expectation. However it sounds like one which is not up for discussion.
“So, if you don't care if I believe it or not, fine...no problem.”
I can’t say I don’t care. I do not care if you believe in these things, that is your choice after all. I do care that you question whether I’m actually doing what I claim to be doing. So it’s more a personal thing.
Me: “…I’m doing this to satisfy my 'ego'.”
You: “As far as satisfying the requirement for proof, only you can answer why you'd take it to task. You know your ego better than anyone else.”
Satisfying my ego is a pleasant side effect (I’d love to say: “Told you so!” ;-)). Satisfying my curiosity and having shown the world certain things actually do exist, is something else. That is what would come first.
“So, you're essentially telling me that the proof won't be forthcoming. Fair enough. Of course, you know that this comes as no surprise to me...”
Well actually that is not what I’m saying. I mean if there were to be a chance to prove it, sure… why not? Saying this, I do know that this won’t be easy and it would take lots and lots of effort to have something like this set up as for instance by the requirements of the JRF.
“…nor do I think it will be dropped”.
Dropped by whom? By me or by you? Why?
“Maybe you put too much stock into what "these people" think? 'Just a thought.”
So true. It doesn’t however influence the final decision I make, but I do think about it.
“In any case, I think at least one "right reason" to do it would be to get your results published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. The thought that you would possess such knowledge/power, but yet, just "sit on it", idk....it just seems ludicrous. You'd be impeding the scientific advancement of humankind because you're worried about an "ego".”
See above. And yes you are right, although “me possessing powers” doesn’t sound like me.
“Maybe I've misunderstood. Is there not a physical place(e.g..building) with a physical address that you report to several times @ week to perform "energy treatments" on ailing people whom you refer to as "clients"?”
If you mean I have to show others (superiors?) what I’ve done? Nope. It’s my practice, my building, my built-up customer list and I do so alone. And yes I do use the word “we” on my website, but that’s for other reasons.
“And herein lies the rub. My suggestion(no shock to me) is "not valid", and here's the more likely reason why: Because using "energy" to treat disease only "works" on aliments that stand a chance of improving on their own and/or using conventional medicine…”
There are immediate changes noticeable, when people have inflammations. The warmth immediately diminishes. I’ve experienced the results when I went to the hospital several times a week, to support one of my clients. It was because of the swelling and the pain I put my hand on his leg and I was surprised myself each time to learn it had gone. The temp would go down each time and also the pain would diminish. Treating a “leg” however is not life-threatening.
“You stipulate that there is a "goal", which suggests that said goal is not always achieved. There's no reason it shouldn't be. If the goal is achieved sometimes, and not others, that is no different than me throwing darts at a board and getting a bullseye sometimes, but missing it other times.”
You’re going to say I’m going to compare apples with oranges, but it is the same when studying to learn to play something difficult (yes you know what I’m referring at). It’s about studying, discipline and focus. Why is it that in order for this to be true, one should be instantly able to do so and then always perform excellently?
Me: "One of the teachers went to Italy to work with scientists. Don’t know what the results are yet, but attempts are being made"
You: “Keep us posted.”
If I know more I’ll let you know.
"I do not know how to describe what it is 'you would require'."
That part's easy---it's called objective evidence.
Me: But I haven't made a "demand" for that proof.
You: "Let’s call it an expectation.
In fact, I do not expect such evidence from you. I'm merely saying that if you expect me to believe your claims, you'll need something better than the evidence you've given up 'til now, which has been various personal anecdotes.
"However it sounds like one which is not up for discussion."
I just discussed that which I would consider credible evidence and that which I would not...e.g..personal anecdotes.
"I do not care if you believe in these things[....]"
If you did care, I wonder what would that look like for contrast.
"that is your choice after all."
Non-belief isn't necessarily a "choice". I've discussed why, and I don't care to cover it again. But for analogy, I can't just choose to readopt a belief in Santa Claus.
"Satisfying my curiosity and having shown the world certain things actually do exist, is something else. That is what would come first."
It seems your work is cut out for you.
"Saying this, I do know that this won’t be easy and it would take lots and lots of effort to have something like this set up as for instance by the requirements of the JRF.
Things that are worth while usually require a lot of work. That's just the way it works out.
"Dropped by whom?"
Dropped by you. I'm saying, even if you can't produce the evidence, I get the distinct impression that this is not going to stop you from pressing the issue.
"[...] although 'me possessing powers' doesn’t sound like me"
That's besides the point. You are at least passively claiming to have powers beyond the physical..i.e.. metaphysical. And again, that you insist "anyone can do this" is a moot point.
Me: Is there not a physical place(e.g..building) with a physical address that you report to several times @ week to perform "energy treatments" on ailing people whom you refer to as "clients"?
You: "If you mean I have to show others (superiors?) what I’ve done? Nope."
How on earth did you arrive at that, based on what I asked? What I asked was based on when you previously said, "I don't have a clinic[...]".
"There are immediate changes noticeable, when people have inflammations."
And once more, the burden of proving that it is in *fact* your touch that is reducing inflammation, and not things like medicine, that fact that sometimes inflammation reduces on its own, etc., is on you.
What I'm saying is that your insistence that it is so, along with your want to believe it is so, is not good enough.
"Treating a 'leg' however is not life-threatening."
Right, and when you can "treat" something life-threatening using "touch" and/or your "mind", at that time skeptics like myself will take notice. Until then, not so much.
"[...] it is the same when studying to learn to play something difficult (yes you know what I’m referring at). It’s about studying, discipline and focus. Why is it that in order for this to be true, one should be instantly able to do so and then always perform excellently?"
No one's health depends on whether or not person "A" can perform a musical piece consistently. This, again, is why your comparison is inapt, and why you are being scrutinized more so than a musician. You don't use any observable "instruments"; you use only your "mind". Also, musicians don't claim to make physical improvements on the ill. The scope of the claims are entirely different.
“If you did care, I wonder what would that look like for contrast.”
I would be even more passionate about it probably. How about: “Think back what happened last summer. Next you blocked me.” This answer however doesn’t cover it completely. You have a way of asking impossible questions which take time and thought to answer...
“It seems your work is cut out for you.”
Keep challenging / reminding me and then one day on this blog… Seriously, there already are some things I’m thinking about. I’ve been discussing some things with others but everyone tells me I’m crazy / egocentric, well except for one other person that is. I do not feel like discussing this on any blog though. If you want to know, you know where/how to find me.
Me: "[...] although 'me possessing powers' doesn’t sound like me"
You: “You are at least passively claiming to have powers beyond the physical..i.e.. metaphysical.”
This already sounds way different than “possessing” powers.
“And again, that you insist "anyone can do this" is a moot point.”
Have you tried if you could feel someone’s energy field, just to experience if just maybe there could be one, without you even seeing one?
This sounds an awful lot like I do care… LOL
You: “Is there not a physical place(e.g..building) with a physical address that you report to several times @ week to perform "energy treatments" on ailing people whom you refer to as "clients"?”
Me: "If you mean I have to show others (superiors?) what I’ve done? Nope."
You: “How on earth did you arrive at that, based on what I asked? What I asked was based on when you previously said, "I don't have a clinic[...]".”
OK. I guess I must have misunderstood what you meant when talking about “reporting several times a week…” If you mean that I go from home to another location where I treat my clients, without having to discuss this with anyone, yes, that’s correct. A clinic – to us (me) – is a building occupied by multiple professionals, often with different fields of expertise.
“And once more, the burden of proving that it is in *fact* your touch that is reducing inflammation, and not things like medicine, that fact that sometimes inflammation reduces on its own, etc., is on you.”
OK. I’m talking immediate changes, within minutes. As in when I’m taking my hand away there’s a difference noticeable in temperature and during the treatment, the client relaxes and feels the pain going away.
Recently I had a new client. She insisted she could not sleep. I put my hands under her head and within minutes she was asleep. Her face afterwards was priceless :-)! No, this example has nothing to with inflammations, but this is about someone who insisted that something could not happen and in minutes she was out.
“Right, and when you can "treat" something life-threatening using "touch" and/or your "mind", at that time skeptics like myself will take notice. Until then, not so much.”
You’re having an impossible requirement. No one would stand aside when someone is about to die. This person would immediately be treated in the hospital.
The experiences I “can” talk about are the ones when people are dying and I’m somewhere else guiding them and then knowing to the minute when they’ve passed. Not life saving perhaps, but just maybe noticeable enough?
And then there are the multiple occasions I worked with animals while the vets were present and they were very surprised witnessing the immediate changes and also the long term changes, which were not possible, but still happened.
Recently I said something about one of my teachers (one of the best) giving demos and doing testing. So far this is what he’s posted about it and yes he’s the most critical person alive:
“I did two mediumistic dems*. First one I would say was average. 2nd went very well and at this dem* I also did some experimental with contact having to be for a certain person in the audience me not knowing who and no answers of yes or no while I worked. The contact was checked after I had finished. The day of psychic experiments not had full results but I know I had some positive results but was not happy with the way they organised and ate it up.”
*Demonstration
For something completely different, I would appreciate some “feedback” about what happened earlier this week. It’s not appreciated by me when you “summon” me to get in touch and next keep quiet.
When rereading what you wrote, I just got to realize I gave you some more personal anecdotes you do not consider valid (credible evidence) at all. It’s written down so easily… I guess I’m indeed insisting on being right.
"For something completely different, I would appreciate some 'feedback' about what happened earlier this week. It’s not appreciated by me when you 'summon' me to get in touch and next keep quiet"
Okay, since this is my blog, what I'm going to do first, is I'm going to talk about what >I< don't appreciate, and it's evidently necessary that I be very blunt again.
So, here we go...
I do not appreciate you coming here and deliberately portraying a conversation as if people who are close to me are talking shit about me behind my back, when you could have very easily provided an example of who/what you were really talking about without doing so. Trust me, this is the one and ONLY reason I contacted you. I have nothing to say(or add) about what happened "earlier this week", and as I'm very sure you noticed, I removed all the comments pertaining to this "event" because none of it applied to the subject matter of the post it was on in the first place.
Continuing on what I don't appreciate - and as well, what I couldn't care less about - is your never ending surplus of personal anecdotes, dozens of which you have used in lieu of the type of evidence that I've laid out in clear terms that could change my mind... oh, idk... probably a few dozen times, now.
The following are all examples of the type of meaningless-to-me anecdotes to which I refer....IOW, the type of evidence I have not asked for:
- OK. I’m talking immediate changes, within minutes. As in when I’m taking my hand away there’s a difference noticeable in temperature and during the treatment, the client relaxes and feels the pain going away. ~ L
- Recently I had a new client. She insisted she could not sleep. I put my hands under her head and within minutes she was asleep. Her face afterwards was priceless :-)! No, this example has nothing to with inflammations, but this is about someone who insisted that something could not happen and in minutes she was out. ~ L
- The experiences I “can” talk about are the ones when people are dying and I’m somewhere else guiding them and then knowing to the minute when they’ve passed. Not life saving perhaps, but just maybe noticeable enough? ~ L
There many more, but I don't feel like digging back through the comments.
So, please cease and DESIST from such anecdotes/assertions. You can touch people on the head and make them sleep, can you? Go to a sleep-clinic and demonstrate this feat there. Millions of people are sleepless due to real, valid medical conditions. They'd probably love to have you stop by and "touch" them to sleep.
Your "teacher" did some "psychic experiments" that he set up, did he? Who supervised the controls? Let me guess.....him????
Note, these are rhetorical questions to make a rhetorical point, a point that is continually lost on you. IOW, please do NOT answer them or supply similar anecdotes in an attempt to "out-do" them.
contin....
"You’re having an impossible requirement. No one would stand aside when someone is about to die. This person would immediately be treated in the hospital."
Precisely---there's a reason that if someone has a life-threatening illness that people don't take them to a "metaphysical" clinic, or building, or complex, or whatever the hell you want to call the dwelling where people believe they can heal people with "energy", and instead, they take them to a hospital to be treated by trained medical professionals and traditional, scientifically-proven medicine.
Me: If you did care, I wonder what would that look like for contrast.
You: "I would be even more passionate about it probably."
You mean, like coming here and asking a bunch of questions daily and digging into what my skepticism of the "metaphysical" sphere of thought entails? You mean, like for each answer I give, run back to your own blog and post about it? You mean, "more passionate" like that?
"How about: 'Think back what happened last summer."
How about: No. How about I simply don't buy into what you and person "X" buy into. Notice, I don't use the past tense with "X", because of course, "X" is still alive and well.
"Next you blocked me."
Yes! and why? Because of your persistence and unwillingness to take "no" for an answer...::hint::
"You have a way of asking impossible questions which take time and thought to answer.."
You act as though my sphere of thought(i.e..skepticism) exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. Other people are asking the same sorts of questions, and no, the "questions" aren't "impossible", but it looks as though that credible answers are impossible.
“I do not appreciate you coming here and deliberately portraying a conversation as if people who are close to me are talking shit about me behind my back….”
Let’s review what happened here for a moment:
You: “Let's say that you are catching an earful because a friend of yours is a spectator in our exchanges and he or she feels that I am being too hard on you.”
Ending with: “But again, this is just an example, of course :)”
Me: “Ok, let’s say that this spectator knows you very well and is talking about this not only to me, but especially to all your “friends” (without including you), however instead of them saying you are being too hard on me, they say…”
Ending with: "Just using your example and adding something which in fact was very close to what I got told about this person".
All I did was continue with the example given by you. I made it perfectly clear I “borrowed” your example (which should tell you it could never be true to begin with) and specifically mentioned “I added something” and referring to what I said at the beginning before you even came up with your example when mentioning: “...about this person...”
You use the word “deliberately” as if it was meant to make you believe this was a true story. Not in a million years had I expected that you would seriously consider this for longer than even one second, especially not after repeating your words and next adding something, never referring to you, but to someone.
What surprises me is that you would actually believe I’d do such a thing on purpose and what surprises me even more is that you would consider this example to be true (what would have been said) by none other that your own friends!
“ …when you could have very easily provided an example of who/what you were really talking about without doing so.”
I initially started out with another example and I got stuck. Since you provided me with an example it seemed easiest just to go on with it.
Maybe this has again to do with us not understanding one another correctly at times, since this seems to be happening more often, apparently on both sides. This is the disavantage of not seeing one another's expression/body language or be able to listen the intonation of the other's voice.
Trust me, if I ever were to experience something like this, I’d run it by you before you would ever come up with such an example!
“…and as I'm very sure you noticed, I removed all the comments pertaining to this "event" because none of it applied to the subject matter of the post it was on in the first place.”
Yes I noticed. However I do not agree with you that none of it applied to the subject matter of the post to begin with. Question you posted was about what is right or wrong to tell and the question I initially asked was “what if people start talking to other people behind their back and expect you to keep quiet since it was told in confidence?” This most certainly applies to the topic, since it has to do with the question whether or not one should keep their mouths shot or go straight to that person and tell, despite it was said in confidence. But well, that’s my opinion.
"What surprises me is that you would actually believe I’d do such a thing on purpose[....]"
Be surprised all you'd like, but I don't think that concocting ways to make a private contact with me is beneath you, especially since you've hinted at this before, after I was previously forced to block you(asking for "another chance"), and especially recently, hinting that you could add more details about this "example" if I wanted them.
"[....]and what surprises me even more is that you would consider this example to be true (what would have been said) by none other that your own friends!"
No, actually, I would have a very difficult time considering that true, which is precisely why I was trying to get to the bottom of this.
"I guess I’m indeed insisting on being right."
Yeah, I guess so. And such an admission would explain a lot.
“Be surprised all you'd like, but I don't think that concocting ways to make a private contact with me is beneath you, especially since you've hinted at this before after I was previously forced to block you…”
I’ll never deny that I’m not happy with being blocked, I sure am not. However you now are implying that I would *deliberately* get you confused or worse, to get a private contact with you? What would the use be of such a contact? Sometimes I really wonder what kind of person you think I am. Since “honesty” is a very important value to me, I really do not understand what makes you think I’d do such a thing on purpose. I may be gullible at times and miss a thing or two or three (or more), but you really think I could do this line of work if I were to hurt people on purpose? Please think again.
Me: "I guess I’m indeed insisting on being right."
You: “Yeah, I guess so. And such an admission would explain a lot.”
And you now want to compare me being right, to wanting to have a private contact with you? Please… And no less, just do about anything to achieve this… No Jeff, I’m nowhere near such a terrible person. And yes it makes me sad you’d think so. And if I were to run off to my own blog post to write about being very disappointed (again), that would be about me trying to make sense of things. I use it to “reflect” and think about what I can improve (myself). And both “reflecting” and “improving” are not in line with what you are suggesting about me.
Sometimes I think you are doing this on purpose. Being blunt for the sake of clarity is one thing, but this comes very close to a “personal” attack.
"I’ll never deny that I’m not happy with being blocked, I sure am not."
You know, they say, "first impressions are everything", and since our first encounter wasn't a cyber encounter, but a real-life encounter in a dressing room somewhere in Europe, an encounter where, within the first few minutes of introductions, you were seeking to get a signature from me that advocated the release of a certain deceased individual's solo music, and when my response was "no"(giving valid reasons why I would not do so), you wouldn't accept that answer and pressed on, even coming back to the dressing room after the show, it's seems that the above saying is right on target.
Taking that into consideration, along with when we were discussing your "mediumship" claims on a popular networking site and I gave you a chance to prove your claims by asking you to tell me something that *only* the previously-mentioned individual and I would know, and when you failed to do that, telling me some general malarkey about "someone who liked to play practical jokes"[paraphrased], what I'm seeing right now is consistent with that first impression, which was a very pushy individual.
"However you now are implying that I would *deliberately* get you confused or worse, to get a private contact with you?"
Read what I said---I said that I don't believe it's beneath you, and again, I'm not pulling sh*t out of thin air to arrive at this. On at least one occasion, you asked for "another chance", which, to me, is at least an implicit admission that you were(and still are) willing to cross certain lines.
"I may be gullible at times and miss a thing or two or three (or more), but you really think I could do this line of work if I were to hurt people on purpose? Please think again."
Okay, I'll think again.
...
...
Okay. 'Done. I still think you are willing to do whatever it takes to preserve your beliefs, and since those beliefs are directly tied to your "line of work", I, yes, believe that you'd resort to disingenuous tactics. To what degree such tactics could "hurt people", if any, idk.
"And you now want to compare me being right, to wanting to have a private contact with you?"
The comparison is in your imagination. I'm talking about "being right", strictly as it applies to your "metaphysical" beliefs/claims. You have shed Christianity, but from what I can tell, you are just as convicted to your "spiritual" beliefs as any Christian fundamentalist I've ever met is convicted to Christianity---and BTW, for nearly all of the same reasons: 1) "feelings", 2) "personal experience", 3) "revelation".
*For you or anyone reading who is maybe thinking, "Well, Boomslang, you seem just as convicted to Atheism", you are wrong. I changed my mind and my whole way of thinking once, and I'll do again for the right evidence.
I'd rather be done with this, but it's extremely nerve-racking to voice my position and continually be, at best, misinterpreted.
From another blog, I'm quoted....
Read what I said—I said that I don’t believe it’s beneath you, and again, I’m not pulling sh*t out of thin air to arrive at this. On at least one occasion, you asked for “another chance”, which, to me, is at least an implicit admission that you were (and still are) willing to cross certain lines.
The blog owner's interpretation:
"Well people you are reading this correctly. It’s not okay to ask for another chance, while admitting you know what you did wrong the first time around."
Yes, people, you have read that correctly. And lo and behold, NOWHERE did I say that it's "not okay to ask for another chance". In fact, in many cases it's admirable to ask for another chance, because sometimes it takes balls(courage).
But the point is - a point that got lost again - if someone asks for another chance, then that is at least an implicit admission that said person knows they screwed up, and if that's the case, well, then said someone shouldn't really wonder why they might not readily be extended the benefit of doubt at a later time, and why it might leave a lasting impression. This isn't rocket science.
Me: "I do not care if you believe in these things[....]"
You: “If you did care, I wonder what would that look like for contrast.”
Would it matter? I mean, I cannot change you, only you can choose to change perspective (when supplied with the proper info). So what would be the difference if I do or not?
You: "I do not care if you believe in *these things[.....]"
Me: “If you did care, I wonder what would that look like for contrast.”
(*For context, "these things" is the metaphysical and the various claims associated with it)
So, if I understand correctly, you now want to know if(what) it would matter to me if you care or not whether I believe in and accept your claims.
Firstly, in writing what I wrote, I was simply trying to make the point that, for someone who claims to not care if I believe/accept your claims, you sure give this subject a whole lot of attention, so I was just trying to imagine how things would be if you really did care if I believe/accept your claims. 'That simple.
Now on to the question at hand: "Would it matter?"
No.
You continue...
"I mean, I cannot change you, only you can choose to change perspective (when supplied with the proper info)."
The key here lies in the statement, "when supplied with the proper info".
If "info" mean evidence, then yes, at that time, I may change my perspective of the metaphysical. Until then? No, I will not change my perspective based on things like, "Because [insert person] says so", arguments from authority..e.g.."My teacher tested [X, Y, and Z] and got satisfactory results", feelings, and revelation.
Numerous times, I've taken each listed thing above and gone into detail as to why they aren't reliable for obtaining knowledge about the world we live in. So please don't ask about them.
"So what would be the difference if I do or not?"
Again, there wouldn't be a difference on my end, except, I may tire quicker if, in the event that you really started caring, started acting obsessed with the subject by posting very frequent, highly emotional posts.
So caring would then be/mean proving?
"So caring would then be/mean proving?"
I am honestly at a loss as to how/why you'd come up with a such a question. My(or your) caring/not caring about what someone believes most certainly doesn't prove/disprove their beliefs. What proves (to me) what someone believes is the amount of credible evidence that there is in support of said belief.
“I am honestly at a loss as to how/why you'd come up with a such a question.”
My thinking ain’t necessarily linear. Never has been either. Every once in a while it takes a detour. Consider it a designing error ;-).
Ok, back for a moment to what you said: “…so I was just trying to imagine how things would be if you really did care if I believe/accept your claims.”
What did you come up with?
I’m trying to paint myself a picture here what you were thinking of when this question popped up in your mind. Especially since you’re saying it won’t matter to you if I do or not.
“…for someone who claims to not care if I believe/accept your claims, you sure give this subject a whole lot of attention…”
You must have noticed somewhere/somehow it’s starting to make me question a number of things myself, even wondering what it is I’m actually doing/claiming to do and what I can do to make it evidential (keeping what you said in the back of my mind)?
I can’t just let go off it, since it influences what I do/how I act daily. I assume you understand the impact this has on my thinking, my work, my life?
If it wouldn’t influence me/make me (re)think certain things, than we would have spent a useless amount of time on this blog answering one another. As such we would have been wasting one another’s time and efforts.
Previously, me(again)....
…so I was just trying to imagine how things would be if you really did care if I believe/accept your claims.
You ask: "What did you come up with?"
Okay, to hopefully put this to bed once and for all, I was making a RHETORICAL point. I do this frequently when other approaches fail.
IOW, I wasn't really wondering (or trying to imagine) how things would be if you actually cared if I believed/accepted your metaphysical claims. Why wasn't I really wondering this? It's simple, because it *already* looks to me like you care....a lot. I mean, let's look at your latest...
"You must have noticed somewhere/somehow it’s starting to make me question a number of things myself, even wondering what it is I’m actually doing/claiming to do and what I can do to make it evidential (keeping what you said in the back of my mind)?"
and....
"I can’t just let go off it, since it influences what I do/how I act daily. I assume you understand the impact this has on my thinking, my work, my life?"
This doesn't look to me like the thoughts of someone who couldn't care less about the current subject, and especially, if I believe/accept their position on said subject.
For analogy, if I went around saying "I don't believe in trees!" and if I dedicated a blog to debunking "trees", do you think for one minute that someone would engage me for weeks and weeks trying to get me to reconsider? I say, "no", they wouldn't. The existence of "trees" is obvious; the evidence for "trees" is overwhelming. I have, not only subjective, personal anecdotes as evidence..e.g..I climbed a tree once!", or, "I made tree house once!", but there is objective evidence for the existence of trees, too..e.g..we can observe them in nature, we can plant them and watch them grow with our own eyes, etc. It also doesn't require any special "training" to detect "trees" with our 5 physical senses, and in which case, it doesn't require anything "meta" or "extra", either.
So, if someone engaged me on the subject of the existence of "trees" for weeks and weeks, I think I'm being reasonable to conclude that there might be a lack of confidence on their part that trees really exist, despite that he or she might claim to believe that "trees" exist. IOW, it would appear that they are trying to convince themselves, more so than me.
Welp, this is precisely how you come across to me..e.g..like you, a) lack confidence in what you're defending/proposing, and b) care very much that you've encountered someone who doubts your claims, and c) are trying to convince yourself.
"If it wouldn’t influence me/make me (re)think certain things, than we would have spent a useless amount of time on this blog answering one another. As such we would have been wasting one another’s time and efforts."
As far as I'm concerned, it's never "useless", because there's a chance that there are silent lurkers who may have honest doubts and who may find what's being said useful/helpful.
“…I was making a RHETORICAL point. I do this frequently when other approaches fail.”
It would be a little easier if you said so straight away. I almost always miss it, until I you write it down and I’m thinking “Of course, how could I have missed it?” But now I know why I couldn’t make sense of it before :-).
“It's simple, because it *already* looks to me like you care....a lot.”
I just do not understand why you had to make that point once more. I mean reading back this already had been said:
You: “So, if you don't care if I believe it or not, fine...no problem.”
Me: “I can’t say I don’t care. I do not care if you believe in these things, that is your choice after all. I do care that you question whether I’m actually doing what I claim to be doing. So it’s more a personal thing.”
Isn’t this bit “I do care that you question whether I’m actually doing what I claim to be doing.” exactly what you’re saying right here?
Why make it so difficult for me? (sigh)
This being said, I do care what you say about it and if you believe that I’m sincere/genuine in what I’m doing. It’s very hard to be feeling all this stuff and get a response from you that this might all be in my mind and as such made up. But when it comes to you believing in the metaphysical (so apart from me), that’s an entirely different story. It’s really not important to me whether you believe in the metaphysical, I just don’t like it when you question my sincerity and my experiences.
“Welp, this is precisely how you come across to me..e.g..like you, a) lack confidence in what you're defending/proposing…”
It’s a bit hard not to question after all you’ve said/explained.
“…and b) care very much that you've encountered someone who doubts your claims...”
True. And there are multiple reasons for this. I guess you know them all by now. If not written here, I’ve written them on my blog posts.
“… and c) are trying to convince yourself.”
This I do not know. I’m questioning whatever it is I’m doing. I’m not questioning that I’m experiencing all these things as in if I’ve made everything up. I simply couldn’t make them up, even if I wanted to. But when it comes to the results, yes I’m getting more critical myself what could be the cause of these. It’s not “obvious” anymore to tell others what I’ve been taught as being the cause behind what’s happening. It doesn’t seem necessarily illogical to me, but you did teach me to question things and to reconsider what actually might be the cause behind it all. When talking to others I’m surprised how they do not question any of this at all.
But to refer back to what you said before: “…but from what I can tell, you are just as convicted to your "spiritual" beliefs as any Christian fundamentalist I've ever met is convicted to Christianity”. If I were to be still as convicted as you same I am, then I wouldn’t be questioning things, would I?
"It would be a little easier if you said so straight away"
Except that telling you things "straight away" evidently doesn't work, hence, the need to make the point rhetorically. The supporting evidence that you don't absorb things when told to you straight away is evidently attributed to a "designing error"....
My thinking ain’t necessarily linear. Never has been either. Every once in a while it takes a detour. Consider it a designing error. ~ Lexje
Previously, me: "It's simple, because it *already* looks to me like you care....a lot."
You: "I just do not understand why you had to make that point once more."
Because you *kept* asking about it, as you were not grasping it when told to you "straight away". This drove me to attempt making the point another way..e.g..rhetorically, and lo and behold, here you are asking me why I made the point "once more". This is precisely what I mean by tedious.
You: "I mean reading back this already had been said:
“So, if you don't care if I believe it or not, fine...no problem.”(me, previously)
“I can’t say I don’t care. I do not care if you believe in these things, that is your choice after all. I do care that you question whether I’m actually doing what I claim to be doing. So it’s more a personal thing.”(you, previously)
The disconnect seems to be that you are trying to separate two things that are inseparable. You (supposedly) "don't care" if I don't believe in "these things"(which I take to mean the "metaphysical" and the claims associated with it), yet, in the same breath(same paragraph), you say that you "do care" that I'm questioning whether your metaphysical claims are legit'. Not to be crass, but that just doesn't sound like it's my problem.
I'll say it again: If you don't like that fact that you've encountered a person who is skeptical of your claims(or if it's just me, personally, that has you bothered about it), then, either, a) proffer some evidence that might change this scenario, or b) stop coming back.
"Why make it so difficult for me? (sigh)"
Ah, so now you're a victim, are you?
Listen up: You, by your own admission, for one reason or another, can't get the evidence together that might actually change my mind. On top of that, you now say that you have a glitch in the reading-comprehension department, even asking me to think of it as a "design error".
I have delineated my position on this subject clearly from the onset. If you think that you're going to come in here and turn this around on me, you would be 100% wrong(at best).
contin....
"I just don’t like it when you question my sincerity and my experiences."
At this point, I frankly couldn't care less what you like/don't like, despite that in the past I've said very clearly that I believe that you believe that your experiences are real. But again, the one thing that you have actually proven is that you are a horrible listener, and I'm about over it.
"It’s a bit hard not to question after all you’ve said/explained."
You asked; I explained. And any sympathy about it being difficult for you has gone out the window after you had the audacity to insinuate that I'm intentionally making things "difficult" for you "(sigh)".
"I’m questioning whatever it is I’m doing. I’m not questioning that I’m experiencing all these things as in if I’ve made everything up. I simply couldn’t make them up, even if I wanted to."
Again, it's the "listening" thing, and I'm sick of repeating myself. Let the record show that I'm now convinced that giving birth to a live, flaming porcupine would be easier than getting Lexje to listen.
'Probably a waste of time, but---I don't believe that you are MAKING THINGS UP. Again, I believe that you have been taught that X, Y, and Z are true/possible, and subsequently, you square-up your experiences w/these beliefs via boat-loads of confirmation bias, including group-think bias, as well and post hoc arguments..e.g.."She went right to sleep when I touched her forehead!!!"
"If I were to be still as convicted as you same I am, then I wouldn’t be questioning things, would I?"
But you're NOT, however, questioning the very root of why you believe in the first place, which is your personal experiences...
I’m not questioning that I’m experiencing all these things as in if I’ve made everything up. ~ Lexje
Here's the rub: You don't have to be making it all up for your experiences to be misleading you. That's the part that you don't, and likely never will, "get".
Me: "It would be a little easier if you said so straight away."
You: “Except that telling you things "straight away" evidently doesn't work, hence, the need to make the point rhetorically.”
I get that. If you add “rhetorical” I get it a bit quicker.
“The disconnect seems to be that you are trying to separate two things that are inseparable. You (supposedly) "don't care" if I don't believe in "these things"(which I take to mean the "metaphysical" and the claims associated with it), yet, in the same breath(same paragraph), you say that you "do care" that I'm questioning whether your metaphysical claims are legit'.”
True. I see it as two different things.
“Not to be crass, but that just doesn't sound like it's my problem.”
It isn’t.
Me: "Why make it so difficult for me? (sigh)"
You: “Ah, so now you're a victim, are you?”
NO, I’m not. And no, it’s NOT your problem. I know this is my own personal battle. And so no, I do not want to turn this around on you. I will be more careful what I say next time. Every time I speak my mind out loud it’s interpreted in a way it’s not meant to be.
“If you think that you're going to come in here and turn this around on me, you would be 100% wrong(at best).”
See above.
“And any sympathy about it being difficult for you has gone out the window after you had the audacity to insinuate that I'm intentionally making things "difficult" for you "(sigh)".”
NOT intentionally (yes sigh)… Please don't make this into something it's not (meant to be). It just felt like you’d done so. Again maybe I shouldn’t say these things out loud. It’s not about me wanting to be a victim, it wouldn’t work anyway. And it’s not about accusing you of intentionally making things difficult. It’s more about being aware that it isn’t always that easy. I’ve been wondering what it is that makes things harder to comprehend when talking over the net and I guess that not seeing one another, probably has a lot to do with it. After all, communication is 70% (if not 90%) non-verbal.
“'Probably a waste of time, but---I don't believe that you are MAKING THINGS UP. Again, I believe that you have been taught that X, Y, and Z are true/possible, and subsequently, you square-up your experiences w/these beliefs via boat-loads of confirmation bias, including group-think bias, as well and post hoc arguments…”
Maybe I’m more aware of the fact that the things I've been taught, may have a totally different cause altogether. Remember what you said about fighting every step of the way? That’s what I’m doing here. I know there’s truth in what you say. I just have a hard time letting go. This being said I am questioning out loud (to others and soon on my other website which will be dedicated to these doubts and which I will move some of the blog posts to) what it is I am experiencing. Your message has come through loud and clear. I just do not know how to incorporate it yet. I mean saying “all is fake” would be wrong. Saying “it could very well be different from what I’ve always perceived it to be”, feels okay.
“But you're NOT, however, questioning the very root of why you believe in the first place, which is your personal experiences... You don't have to be making it all up for your experiences to be misleading you. That's the part that you don't, and likely never will, "get".”
Well actually I do. See above.
I haven't read through all the comments, but...
He wanted us to choose!! ;)
It's okay---you needn't read through over 100 comments to chime in!
Post a Comment