Yes and no, Angela. I am well rebuked for my snide remarks and somewhat ashamed. It's not our first lovers' tiff, is it?
I would like to be that kind of debater who comes and never says anything harsh, but I fail. I think I could list quite a lot of snide remarks aimed at me, and I still believe that your comment about me getting what I want was meant harshly too, like my inner learning being or spirit guides led me here to discover some great truth that you and cylon and steve pavilna all know. But yeah, that could be my defensiveness. I realise that I'm here at a largely pro-IM forum (as I've been told it is) and being critical of it. I realise I'm doing that because of my serious doubts about the philosophy. I realise that is going to make believers very uncomfortable, and I realise that I'm on a losing racket, because the more powerful my arguments for rationalism, the harder believers will resist, and the harder believers resist the more I will want to persuade them.
I cannot get you over this hurdle that I came to change people's minds, and your apparent feeling that that is patronising. I cannot bridge the divide between my world view, in which if someone questions my beliefs, although I will be anxious and affronted, I will recognise that as a healthy thing to engage in and that it may be done for healthy reasons - and yours, in which apparently it is wrong to try to change someone's mind.
I cannot find words to describe how powerful I believe our desires are to believe in myths without touching on the suggestion that believers may have psychological disorders. On the other hand, one could, if there were no anxiety that it might be true, consider the hypothesis as is, think about its possible value in the discussion, and reject it without seeing it as a personal attack. I don't think psychological disorders exist in quite the way the medical profession pretends. Nevertheless, I think there are ways of thinking that are deeply problematic and philosophically in error, and these could be called disorders of thinking, and yes, I am suggesting that many of the reasons people believe in synchronicity, magick (which is what IM is) and so on, are through forms of dis-ordered thinking (psycho-logical dis-orders). From a rational perspective, being insulted by the suggestion, rather than thinking about what it means and wondering whether it might apply to ourselves could be seen as a dis-order of thought itself.
I haven't said much about my own disorders, but have dared to touch on them at times. (Ah, did you think I only meant you lot?) I am susceptible to superstition and magical thinking in all their many forms. I am quite happy to say I'm partially insane if it makes you feel better. I have all sorts of ridiculous thoughts. But I try to rise above them and often succeed. Last night, after logging off, I thought: "Why am I putting so much into this sceptical-materialist quest? Why am I doing this?" I remembered that my dad became a materialist and sceptic in his later life, and the idea flashed into my head that he was watching over me, working through me, directing me to divulge the ideas he had worked out himself while he was alive but been too busy to talk about. What? Yes - the spirit of my dead father was on a mission of sceptic education through his son. Mental case. Lock me up somebody.
You see how we do this kind of thing all the time. Of course, it's possible that the spirit-of-my-father bit was the true bit, but in that case he's not trying to teach people scepticism through me...unless he's a deluded spirit....perhaps he's trying to guide me into discussing all this with you so that I realise he was wrong and I'm wrong and you're right! Or, of course, I am just used to reaching for spiritual explanations, having been of that persuasion most of my life right up until a few months ago. Whichever it is, I believe that reason and logic are extremely persuasive, and so either way I had a 'psychological disorder' for putting together a hypothesis involving two mutually exclusive conditions: disembodied spirits teaching scepticism.
Of course, this last point, whether reasoning belongs to cosmological reality, is another big subject: why do I suppose that the universe is logical, rational or predictable, its laws applying everywhere and through time? That question is paradoxical, however, by being underpinned by logical argument itself: it says "maybe everything is random or nonsensical".
I hope that it helps for me to admit I'm as mad as a hatter. It probably doesn't. I'm criticising the established or background philosophy here at the forum. Maybe the only respite is when I sod off and leave you alone. I'm kind of thinking it's probably time I did.
What do I want? You see, I keep thinking I should write a sceptic's blog instead of bothering you good people, but the difference of opinion is what keeps all this going - like you say, moonrambler, it's addictive - there's not much energy without that opposition. I love that. I just don't like upsetting you all, and I wonder if I'm upsetting you too much. Ok. Decision time. I'll respond briefly (lol) to tie up any loose ends if it seems appropriate, maybe lurk for a little while, probably look in again in a few months. It's good to overcome addictions.
I hope to find a forum where sceptical materialism and spritual concepts are accepted as part of the rich tapestry. The latter are mostly just sneered at at the JREF. They'll probably see me as more on their side now - one of the in-group - now that I don't bother myself too much with 'alternative views'. Still, I'll have to watch it if I mention syntropy or whatever, and knowing what an argumentative old bastard I am, I probably will.
See you later. Thank you so much. I love this place. You're ****ing nutters, but I love you all. Even ALG and cylon. Insane
, but kind of cute.
