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