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
############################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############################
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.
############################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