I think we're missing the point of my question. There is credence owed to
many worldview D beliefs that is more evidence based than a mere belief,
social construction, or desire in the absence of straightforward fact.

Regards,

Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.

On Tue, May 3, 2022, 12:05 PM Christian Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
> Fitness beats truth
>
> Am Di., 3. Mai 2022 um 19:03 Uhr schrieb Waldemar Schmidt <
> [log in to unmask]>:
>
>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
>> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
>> safe.
>> ------------------------------
>> Motivated and emotional reasoning are powerful indeed.
>> Besides, it is much easier to believe what makes your existence (short
>> term) easier.
>>
>> On May 3, 2022, at 7:10 AM, Peter Lloyd Jones <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
>> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
>> safe.
>> ------------------------------
>> Religious faith is a fascinating topic that today can be looked at under
>> the new light of vast amounts of misinformation being shared between humans
>> who fully believe this misinformation. I think Anselm nailed it in the 11th
>> century with his claim that because God exits in our mind, even in the mind
>> of an atheist, then God must exist in reality.
>>
>> The significant kernel that Anselm gifted us in his ontological argument
>> is that God exists because we participate in making him real, otherwise his
>> existence falls apart.
>>
>> I saw this play itself out while having lunch with a person who I often
>> refer to as an alleged friend, and his wife. In never liked him though he
>> told everyone we were friends and I did tolerate his company. So shoot me.
>> Anyway, his wife brought up in conversation between the three of us that
>> her son had shown her the Internet history of my alleged friend, who had
>> been checking out women in England on an online dating website. My alleged
>> friend was about to go to England for an extended stay and his wife's son
>> (I'm guessing is an atheist.) had no love for his mother's new husband,
>> because he suspected him as a player. I had great interest to hear this
>> conversation play out in front of me because my alleged friend had been
>> caught obviously planning to cheat on his wife, so what could he possible
>> say to make his revealed Internet search acceptable? He said, “Honey, we
>> have already been over this a number of times. I was only looking for a
>> workout partner for the GYM.” And she said, “I know, I’m sorry I brought it
>> up.” And I sat there in stunned disbelief of what I had just witnessed.
>>
>> I had learned a new truth. People desire to believe in certain things.
>> Are emotionally invested in needing to believe in certain things. And a
>> wife wants to believe that her husband will not cheat on her and will not
>> lie to her. So, while I, as a disinterested third party (well, very
>> interested for other reasons), saw his response as the most ridiculous,
>> insupportable, fantastical, absurdly unbelievable lie I have ever heard, it
>> was good enough for her. Believing in something far more requires a desire
>> to believe than it requires evidence of proof. A narrative is less than
>>  half of what is needed, and the one hearing the narrative must supply a
>> robust need to believe. God is in our minds, for sure. So yes, he exists.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> Peter Lloyd Jones
>> 562-209-4080
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Denial of free will is denial of consciousness.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 3, 2022, at 9:34 AM, Nicholas Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
>> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
>> safe.
>> ------------------------------
>> I just feel that even within the TOK system there must be a place for
>> scientific worldview D, since TOK captures the emergent complexities of
>> existence, it must have an explanation (though perhaps not yet developed)
>> that would explain or theorize these sorts of beliefs without relegating
>> them to merely mythic-stratified consciousness, as individuals with these
>> abilities tend to have a very refined and developed consciousness (the ones
>> who aren't total frauds at least).
>>
>> Even from a purely naturalistic perspective, the absence of evidence is
>> not the evidence of absence, and there is no scientific evidence against
>> the existence of other worldly beings or other dimensions, if anything
>> there is evidence for them that we can't seem to properly interpret,
>> perhaps the next stage of integrative methodological pluralism for the
>> upper right quadrant (It) is to account for such phenomena in a way that
>> isn't just ruling out "angels" or "demons" or psychics and witches as valid
>> entities.
>>
>> As you say Michael, clearly there has been utility to these beliefs even
>> within modernist culture, which I would say is most strongly aligned with
>> the scientific enterprise of any societal movement in history. So it is
>> "out there," but perhaps not that far.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>>
>> On Sun, May 1, 2022, 8:16 PM michael kazanjian <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click
>>> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
>>> content is safe.
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Nicholas:
>>>
>>> According to the official police report and story,  John Wayne Gacy was
>>> caught through police work, but also because police consulted a psychic who
>>> gave them the location and identity of Gacy.  I am told LE uses
>>> psychics.....but we never hear of it.  Some say that Peter Hurkos account
>>> is valid, others say he was a con man.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Michael M. Kazanjian
>>>
>>> On Sunday, May 1, 2022, 08:33:33 AM CDT, Nicholas Lattanzio <
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click
>>> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
>>> content is safe.
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> I am going to be starting work teaching self-inquiry at a new, small,
>>> nonprofit spiritual studies center in the town I live in and was touring
>>> the place the other day.
>>>
>>> I know and work with a few of the individuals there in a more
>>> professional capacity through collaborative psychology/counseling work, and
>>> was a bit surprised that the center was far more rooted in scientific
>>> worldviews D, as one of the more central individuals I met there is a
>>> medium of sorts who calls herself a soul alignment emissary. I was hearing
>>> some of her stories and, being a bit of a skeptic, but also very open
>>> interested, asked her what vibes she was getting from me.
>>>
>>> She gave me the usual speal about I have my personal space (in a
>>> spiritual sense) and that she has hers and that she wouldn't violate that
>>> without being asked. I think she picked up that I was not thrilled with
>>> that response so she gave me a bit of a deeper reading, suggesting my walls
>>> were up (they definitely were-but mostly because I was in a new setting
>>> around many bew, highly energetic people, nothing I was trying to hide),
>>> and went on to give me the typical "you have a higher purpose" message,
>>> with the stereotyped obligatory caveat that I have blockages and obstacles
>>> to that purpose in my life (which I certainly do). But then she said more
>>> off hand, in reference to the blockages, that she was (perhaps almost
>>> exusively) referring to my relationships, general still, but far more
>>> personally relevant at a time in my life when looking for a partner is well
>>> at the forefront of my mind. She then said that the arch angel Michael has
>>> been a regular guide for me throughout my life.
>>>
>>> I looked up what the experience, at least supposedly, would be like if
>>> Michael was a presence in my life and it did seem to fit, minus an excess
>>> of Michael's in my life, and most notably that I have never had any clear
>>> direct communication with Michael, which apparently he is known for very
>>> clear communications.
>>>
>>> So I am skeptical, I denounced formal Christianity long ago after
>>> multiple run ins with corrupt and even dangerous priests and ministers from
>>> a variety of Christian denominations. I did continue a personal
>>> relationship with the Christian God for some time after that, more
>>> dispelling the notion of a separate, ruling God as I discovered more about
>>> nondual and Eastern theologies.
>>>
>>> I dont want my biases to close me off from potentially meaningful and
>>> indeed corrective emotional/spiritual experiences and coming more into
>>> alignment with my purpose in life, but my own 3rd person empiricial mind
>>> needs to see to believe.
>>>
>>> I know I've had experiences with spirit-esque entities, assuming they
>>> weren't pure mental fabrications (a pretty safe bet). But her mention of
>>> Michael was so specific and asserted so confidently I must admit I was
>>> shook up a bit (as is another stereotype, this woman was fairly intense and
>>> punctual, which I know to be both an eccentricity of those with such gifts,
>>> but also a learned method of delivering a message you want another to
>>> believe).
>>>
>>> If anyone wants to look her up, her name is Nicole Watters and the
>>> organization is the Delta Foundation for Spiritual Studies in St. Charles,
>>> IL. I am not trying to assess her legitimacy so much as I am wondering from
>>> those on this list who are more into the mystical aspects of various
>>> traditions what they would recommend I do to verify this informal reading
>>> and/or what to do about it, so that my skepticism doesn't preclude me from
>>> a potentially life-changing set of practices.
>>>
>>> Any help or comments are welcome, please don't recommend books unless it
>>> is something akin to a classic, the market is inundated with books on these
>>> subjects that I am frankly not interested in unless they come from an
>>> authority on the matter.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>> following link:
>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>> following link:
>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1