|
|
| Normal Rooms | | General | 4 users
AntiStaticCleaningWi, melinda_halliwell_tu, Mistress_SinisterLov, littlegothgirlthatco |
|
|
|
|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 26 guests online !
|
|
|
 |
 |
Forums
You are not logged in | | |
|
|
|
callei
Extreme Fanatic   Posts: 759 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 3/9/2004 at 06:58 AM |
OK I have two questions here. I recently ran into the concept that
"spiritual and supernatural arent the same" and what some of the missing
HIgh Aracana cards might have been. For some reason, these seem to have
something in common to me. Belief in fairies and belief in an imaginary
enemy (or pavolovian trainer) dont seem different to me.the loss of some of
the High Arcana is symbolic of the loss of the supernatural as part of the
spiritual, almost.
My mom, someone with a Masters in this stuff, still beleives in Santa
Clause, the spirit that moves us to generousity and rewards us for that
generousity. And i wonder if the "Gift giver" isnt one of the lost "powers"
of the Tarot deck.
I see no reason to not make room in my world view for good luck dragons,
laughing bhudda's, angels, and say a troll or two. Just because i may never
see one, doesnt mean that they dont exisit (unlike Norway) since there are
lots of things I will never see with my own eyes that are "real".
I think i can get there about how spirituality and the supernatural are
different, at least to some world views, but I would really like some help
with it. Anyone want to take a whack at explaining it to me? (and do you
think that they were using the PC term for religion when they said
spirituality?) ____________________
Real goths wear silver and crosses to keep the werewolves and vampires
away.
|
| |
| |
W0rmW00d
Fanatic   Posts: 355 Registered: 5/8/2004 Status: Offline
|
posted on 3/9/2004 at 11:11 AM |
at a most basic level i reckon that you could say that the spiritual can be
supernatural but the supernatural is not necessarily spiritual. therefore
they are logically different.
looked at literally the supernatural means literally 'above natural', that
is anything which is outside the realms of what is considered normal.
spiritual refers to matters of the 'soul'
so depending on your point of view, things relating to the soul would be
above and beyond nature, whereas not everything above and beyond nature
relates to the soul. for example the ability to run faster than the speed
of sound is supernatural, as in 'supernatural speed' but certainly not
spiritual.
(just a quick side note and qualifier here): things like spiritual music
are certainly not supernatural, i grant you, but to say that they directly
relate to the spirit is to admit to a beleif in something that is
supernatural.
as for the lost major arcana im afraid i cant help you there, my tarot
skills are limited to a basic reading and little more. ____________________
Eritis sicut Deus scientes bonum et malum.
And the third angel sounded, and a troll army did descend upon the world.
|
| |
Starlight
Extreme Fanatic  Posts: 618 Registered: 27/9/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 3/9/2004 at 11:57 PM |
Some people perceive things of a spiritual nature to be anything that
enlightens the soul. In which case, it requires belief in souls. By that
theory, if someone does not belief in a soul, then things of a spiritual
nature would not be real to them.
Those same people could still have a belief in supernatural things,
depending upon what one defines as supernatural.
To those who define supernatural as anything outside of the normal realm of
nature as explainable by scientific "fact", then the lines would cross as
to what is spiritual and what is supernatural. However, if one allows for
supernatural to be anything not normally occuring in nature, but with
further examination and additional new theories formed, can be explained by
new or not commonly known scientific "facts", then that would give a way
for a non-spiritual believer to be a supernatural believer.
I think the lines almost always cross even if someone doesn't notice it.
____________________
"When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never
tried before." ~Mae West
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic  Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 5/9/2004 at 01:33 AM |
Ah, callei... not one for posing close-ended questions, are you...? There
are actually more than two things going on here in your questions and I,
having a few moments to myself, will try to respond to a couple of them. I
agree with Woody about the origin of the term "supernatural"; it came about
in exactly the way that the word "metaphysical" came about... viz. things
which are outside the purview of the subject under discussion. "Beyond
physics" is just a way of saying that they can not be described by the
discipline of physics. Using that as our guide, things like "love" are
metaphysical. By itself it doesn't mean anything, and that is the
confusion that arises when you define a term by what it is not
rather than what it is .
To add to this confusion, if something exists at all within nature, it can
not be said to be "above nature", ergo there is nothing which exists that
is "supernatural"... or conversely, it can be appropriately stated that
"supernatural things do not exist . That only solves the problem
of how we are using the words (the baggage we bring to the table has
muddied the point. "Spiritual" on the other hand, refers specifically to
the progress made by our spirits. If we do, in fact, have spirits, they
must exist. If they exist, they must exist within the continuum that is
nature. So, we can conclude that "spiritual" is not interchangeable with
the term "supernatural"... but we have no idea how objectively that helps
us to understand things.
I would say that because a thing can be experienced is no proof of its
existence. We are fettered as much as enlightened by our senses. That is
to say, what is before one is only the perceived, but the actual
perception has more to do with the faculties and biases of the
perceiver. Not only do we have to rely upon our brains decoding and
unscrambling the sensations it is provided, but our brains do this in an
entirely subjective way; making the information meaningful to the possessor
of the brain. This is what Michel Foucault (prounced FUCK-o) meant when he
said that everything communicated is entirely self-referential. Even so,
Foucault is unreadable and we will leave him where he is.
In the case of Sinter Klaas (or Father Christmas, I've no preference), it
is entirely legitimate to personify a registerable phenomenon in this way
as long as we are aware that this is what we are doing. In this way, even
the mythical land of Norway can be said to enjoy some degree of "existence"
since it is a useful bedtime story told to young socialists. The Universe
in which we live may, in fact, be full of trolls, sprites, compassionate
conservatives, faeries, dragons and et cetera but they exist in some way
that is entirely misunderstood by us or the thought of them (also a
"reality" of sorts) fulfills a need. The Buddhist doctrine of samsara goes
even a step further by affirming that not only are we incapable of
understanding the physical world as it actually is instead of how we
actually are (my apologies to Anais Nin for borrowing that one), but the
nature of it is that it is in a state of constant change anyway so don't
spend too much time trying to work it out.
What am I getting at...? Well. Viewing the "spirit of giving" as a
personification (Sinter Klaas) is a distortion, although one that we make a
conscious decision to do because it is useful to us. Distortions also
occur entirely unconsciously ("terrorists", for example), and on many
levels simultaneously (archetypal "unreal" things persist because they are
descriptions of real things, but not things we can quite wrap our
heads around or are mental projections of our own manufacture). Look at
time, for an example. Time pervades our reality but what is it...? There
is nothing that can be pointed to as being "time" orhaving "time-like"
qualities. Daily, we measure a phenomenon or substance that we know
absolutely nothing about and can not be said to exist in our reality in any
way, yet only somebody who is trying to start a fight would suggest that it
does not exist. Nature is full of these kinds of things, and our brains
pick and choose those qualities we are exposed to and comfortable with in
order to personify them (like the old saw about the five blind men and the
elephant).
~M. ____________________
"I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
|
| |
Abbadon
Fanatic  Posts: 499 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 5/9/2004 at 03:40 AM |
No offence Mono, but I think I'm going to be sick. Listening to you try and
pick your way through one of, if not the, most complex philosophical
subjects there is, is like watching someone performing brain surgery with a
chainsaw.
BB.
Abbadon ____________________
Light is changing to shadow, and casting a shroud over all we have known.
|
| |
W0rmW00d
Fanatic Posts: 355 Registered: 5/8/2004 Status: Offline
|
posted on 18/9/2004 at 05:43 PM |
| arse, there were all questions and things id been thinking about answers to
before the big crash, now i cant remember what the questions were so cant
formulate a coherent reply. if anyone can remember id appreciate a
reminder, i was really getting into this topic. ____________________
Eritis sicut Deus scientes bonum et malum.
And the third angel sounded, and a troll army did descend upon the world.
|
| |
daria_4
Member   Posts: 96 Registered: 29/7/2003 Status: Offline
|
posted on 21/9/2004 at 04:00 PM |
Trying to have a better understanding of the entire question(s) here before
contributing... would someone mind explaining what the missing High Aracana
cards are?
I have very limited knowledge of Tarot in general, so if there's a "For
Dummies" version of the explanation, I'd be interested in the lesson. If
it's easier to suggest a book, I'm up for that, too. Thanks much. ____________________
"I've told you before, I don't comprehend religion, although
conviction is a concept I'm beginning to get. In any case, a person
with a real religious conviction is, I propose, a religious convict,
and deserves locking up."
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 22/9/2004 at 11:33 PM |
W0rmW00d: "...if anyone can remember id appreciate a reminder, i was
really getting into this topic."
To the best of my knowledge, we were discussing levels and layers of
interpretation and, if I am not mistaken, it was initiated because someone
had made apparently contradictory statements about Wollstonecraft-Shelly's
book Frankenstein to callei. I can't contribute very meaningfully
to the tarot end of the discussion; I was always more of a
rune/I-ching/entrails-of-my-enemies diviner.
I was also waiting to find out why Abbadon favoured French
deconstructionists (Foucault) over French structuralists (Levi-Strauss),
but a flock of magpies flying widdershins during a waning phase of the moon
has indicated to me that this isn't destined to occur.
~M. ____________________
"I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
|
| |
callei
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 759 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 23/9/2004 at 06:22 AM |
Daria: http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/ has some really good
info and treats the subject with respect.
Mono: I do wish your second (or third?) post hadnt been erased, it helped a
lot.
Starlight: it seems like you are saying that spiritual and supernatural are
sort of interchangeable when you are talking to someone and dont know if
THEY think THEY have a soul/spirit. Like people either believe in the
"spoooky" or the "religious".
What is sort of startling to me is to think that religious and spooky are
different. while i know that western religoin seperates the blessed souls
of it followers from all other soul-spirit-engery interactions, isolating
them, breaking the debt-favor bonds between that soul and all the others
with which it interacts, I still have trouble understanding why people want
to be sucked into an "spiritual" isolation cell surrounded by other
antisocial spirit-souls. ____________________
Real goths wear silver and crosses to keep the werewolves and vampires
away.
|
| |
Schizo
Extreme Fanatic  Posts: 897 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 23/9/2004 at 05:47 PM |
Supernatural I would define as that which can't be conveniently pinned down
with a scientific explanation. A hell of a lot more was considered
supernatural back in the day, before science had advanced very far, and
people really didn't understand much of how things work. Perhaps in
another couple centuries, mankind will once again marvel at the ignorant
superstition of their ancestors, i.e. us.
Spiritual is something a little different. I think it falls within the
category of the supernatural, but is a more specific thing. The spiritual
has to do with the human spirit, that thing that makes us who we are,
beyond mere cellular structure and biochemical reactions.
A spiritual experience would be an introspective walk in the woods, that
brings you to understand your character more fully. A supernatural
experience would be falling off a roof, and landing on your feet
uninjured.
____________________
"You can tell by the scars on my arms and the cracks in my hips and the
dents in my car and the blisters on my lips that I'm not the carefullest of
girls." - Dresden Dolls, "Girl Anachronism"
|
| |
callei
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 759 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 30/9/2004 at 07:46 AM |
I think I like that definition shiz, spiritual happens inside your head,
supernatual happens outside your body.
THanks oooodles
Can anyone help me with this one? (from my Philosophy Class)
1. Pick a moral issue and argue that something is right or wrong. That is
your thesis: X is right or wrong.
2. Leave out mere personal opinions and use logic and critical thinking to
prove that your thesis is right.
Is it just me or is "right and wrong" a "mere personal opinion"?
I fucking hate Christians trying to teach ethics. THEY DONT HAVE ETHICS!!!
Fucking theiving bastards. (grumble) ____________________
Real goths wear silver and crosses to keep the werewolves and
vampires
/>
away.
|
| |
Schizo
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 897 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 30/9/2004 at 03:12 PM |
Well, what do you think is wrong? If you see the word "wrong" as meaning
unhealthy can counter-productive, then surely there are some things you
consider "right" and "wrong". Probably something that might get the class
thinking a little more than the usual lying or cheating or stealing or
whatever. And I'm sure you can argue far more objectively than most,
considering that you came to your opinion by thinking things through and
searching out facts and reality, instead of just jumping to the conclusion
that, just because everyone is saying it's so, it must be so.
I would be fascinated to find out what you come up with!
____________________
"You can tell by the scars on my arms and the cracks in my hips and the
dents in my car and the blisters on my lips that I'm not the carefullest
of
girls." - Dresden Dolls, "Girl Anachronism"
|
| |
W0rmW00d
Fanatic Posts: 355 Registered: 5/8/2004 Status: Offline
|
posted on 1/10/2004 at 05:09 PM |
well, why do you not try something adventurous, like:
thesis: moral absolutes are wrong
the mere existence of morality is entirely reliant on a basis for this
morality.
If God exists as an omnipotent being Then morality exists as a black or
white issue. The mere fact that God is omnipotent necessarily means that
what he says is wrong is wrong. This is an absolute based on the power of
God to make things so. 'God said, "Let there be light and there was light"
' Ergo God says 'Thou shalt not steal' and thou must not steal. This
argument can be countered by a disbeleif in God. This does not necessarily
mean that God does not exist, it simply means that there is no obligation
for a disbeliever to obey the word of God. This may make the disbeleiver
immoral, but to the person itself this is neither here nor there, as there
is, as previously stated, no apparent obligation to the person. Therefore
in this case there is no moral absolute.
A non-omnipotent deity cannot have the same impact. It can issue
guidelines, there can be obligations to it, but these are not absolute in
the same way as those from an omnipotent deity. The threat of punishment
does not make something moral, it merely makes it inadvisable, and 'should'
is not the same as 'must'. Disbeleif issues aside the fact that something
says that one should not does not necessarily mean that one should not. As
an example, 'You should not wear too much makeup' is far from 'You must not
wear too much makeup' even if it comes from an authority figure.
Respect for fellow beings does not entail a moral absolute either. The
respect for anothers life really means that one would not wish to take it
rather than it being immoral to take it. Hypocricy is inadmissable to a
moralist because morality has evenhandedness at its core, and respect for
one life has to mean respect for all life or there is inherant hypocrisy
(if this respect is taken to be a moral code). Respect is based on opinion
and therefore changeable.
The idea of the law as a moral code is sublimely ridiculous, because it is
based on either one of the ideas above (God gave power to the king, the
king gave power to the courts etc or the inalienable rights of all men as
examples of the first and third), the groundless power of an abstract idea
of 'justice', or blind tyranny. Whether this is current tyranny, as in the
case of an absolutist state in which the word of the ruler is law, or
whether it is a law based on the people's elected representatives as
arbiters. The former falls under the realms of the non-omnipotent deity and
the latter is based on the consensual participation of the voters, or
whatever, and there will always be one person at least who disagrees with
the current power yet is still subjected to the law. This constitutes power
to the majority and is backed up by their collective voice, and their
collective power. [OK, here comes a bit of personal opinion because i
cannot be arsed to go through logical paths] This appears to be yet another
form of tyranny, tyranny by the masses.
I could go on, but as you may be able to tell im rapidly losing the will to
think on this because it is frankly depressing the hell out of me and
always does. I feel that morality is a form of control and should be based
on personal choice, rather than pre-stated absolutes. Hypocrisy is rife and
apathy set in long, long ago. But I'm sure you get my general gist. If you
expand and reinforce my sketch arguments I reckon you would get an essay
that beats the pants off the usual 'I think murder is wrong' and 'I thing
that drug taking is right' bullshit which is continually perpetuated by
small minded cuntholes who either cannot or do not stop to think of the
bigger picture. ____________________
Eritis sicut Deus scientes bonum et malum.
And the third angel sounded, and a troll army did descend upon the world.
|
| |
pale-face
Fanatic  Posts: 478 Registered: 22/9/2004 Status: Offline
|
posted on 1/10/2004 at 08:52 PM |
| I have come to the conclusion that mono is far to smart for me. I can no
longer even comprehend his posts due to my lack of mental power. Screw
school. I could just sit here and read posts, become a genius. ____________________
fucking classy.
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 2/10/2004 at 03:26 AM |
"I have come to the conclusion that mono is far to smart for me. I can
no longer even comprehend his posts due to my lack of mental power."
Where the hell did that come from? Anyway, be careful... just because you
don't understand something doesn't make it profound.
~M. ____________________
"I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
|
| |
W0rmW00d
Fanatic Posts: 355 Registered: 5/8/2004 Status: Offline
|
posted on 2/10/2004 at 07:37 AM |
i dont understand polish. it must be profound. listen to the wisdom of
mono.
try reading 'incomprehensible' text by segment, make sure you understand
what each clause means and how it links to the last and next, and how its
subclauses fit in with it. then if still not understanding simplify. look
at the clauses in terms of (A), (B), (C) etc then see how the links work.
see if you feel that A an B are true, if they have been justified by C or
some other clause and if one being true necessarily entails the other. this
basic way of looking at things can make them a lot easier to understand and
will also allow you to create better arguments yourself.
i should really practice what i preach with regards to the making arguments
part, but frankly i dont care enough. ____________________
Eritis sicut Deus scientes bonum et malum.
And the third angel sounded, and a troll army did descend upon the world.
|
| |
Schizo
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 897 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 2/10/2004 at 07:48 AM |
I think he/she/it mistook Wormwood for you, Mono. Perhaps it was the
trademark long post with long sentences and big words that confused
pale-face as to the identity of the author.
Interesting points, Wormwood, and definitely thought-provoking. Before
sorting things out according to "right" and "wrong", it is necessary to
figure out why there even is such things as right and wrong. It's a step
that many people skip altogether. I myself tend to lean to the notion of
no solid right or wrong, but a more fluid should or shouldn't. There are
very definitely things that I should or shouldn't do, and when I do or
don't do them, I am sorry for it, although the new situation set up by my
decision usually ends up providing me with a new should that redeems the
consequences of my action. Morality seems a tad bit artificial to me, like
it was set up by people who are trying to convince themselves of something.
Perhaps my view of morality is a product of my status as a searching
agnostic. I don't know most things, but I have a good idea of some things.
And I'm not about to set up something as rigid as a right and a wrong on a
mere good idea. ____________________
"You can tell by the scars on my arms and the cracks in my hips and
the
/>
dents in my car and the blisters on my lips that I'm not the carefullest
of
girls." - Dresden Dolls, "Girl Anachronism"
|
| |
W0rmW00d
Fanatic Posts: 355 Registered: 5/8/2004 Status: Offline
|
posted on 5/10/2004 at 03:21 AM |
would you see this fluidity as a moral code of sorts schizo? the idea that
each situation should be taken up on its own merits is a major part of some
moral philosophies, for example utilitarianism. the idea that the most
good should come of each decision is as much a moral code as 'thou shalt
not take the lords name in vain' just a very different one.
what i am interested in is what the basis for this is. is the fact that it
makes the most people happy and the most good will hopefully come of it a
'must' case or an 'ought to' case.
i agree with your artificiality statement wholeheartedly when it comes to
most moral codes, and i stronly suspect that they are artificial, although
it seems to me that they were set up by people already convinced rather
than trying to convince themselves. and as for your closing statemnt:
'amen' to that. ____________________
Eritis sicut Deus scientes bonum et malum.
And the third angel sounded, and a troll army did descend upon the world.
|
| |
callei
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 759 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 5/10/2004 at 12:15 PM |
can anyone get thier head around the concept of education in the book
Frankenstein (first edition before the religious additions) as a "moral"
issue?
What the hell is moral about a monster learning to read, or anti-social boy
not liking one teacher? I know lots of people say making the monster was
immoral since it was usurping "God's" or "Womens" power, but that is
seperate from what school the parents of the child frankenstein decided to
send him to. Is this one of those sins of the father things? that he is
"doomed" to make the monster because his parents didnt make him go away to
school?
I dont know if any of you have ever had to read this book as anything but a
horror story, but I have. Every time I read it (all three versions at least
once) I have to read it as something other than what it is, a morality
story, a discussion of man's inability to mangage thier without "god" in
science, or once as a romantic story. I have come to hate an otherwise
uninteresting book just from being coersed to rip it up time and again by
some teacher with some crazed idea that it is the bibble of thier pet hobby
horse.
Education can be moral or immoral or functional or disfunctional or boring
or invigorating or tiring or agrivating or pedantic or banal or wasted.
depending on the teacher, the study itself and the student. am i morally
wrong to think so? ____________________
Real goths wear silver and crosses to keep the werewolves and
vampires
/>
away.
|
| |
|
|
|
