Garbage, all of it.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Anyways, there weren't a ton of reviews so I decided to start with the first one, and one of the first ones begins with "It's Back To the Future with Eddie and Liz!"

Lol!

[cylon]

Also, if all this stuff is flowing to us because we're feeling good, then everything else could flow too. It's not like money is anything different than any other type of energy (according to LOA). The only difference is we have a huge amount of resistance to it, from years of guilt and shame conditioning regarding a scarcity mindset.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Eventually the 'fun' you are talking about is found to fade, like so many of our delusive mind games and addictions. In IM, I believe, the successes are found to be less reliable than was hoped, which leaves us irritated that we're not getting what was promised - hence the large number of posts here asking how to improve, why the failures, the lack of sudden riches, success, etc.,

I've been at this for nearly 25 years in regard to playing around with synchronicity, and the fun hasn't faded a whit. But then I haven't really ever been using it to get something I wanted. I just observe it.

In pure synchronicity-gawping, it might wear thin when you finally wonder if these synchronous events have any use or purpose or meaning other than those you attach to them, and
You might notice that if you can attach usefulness, purpose or meaning to 'synchronicities', you can attach it to nothing whatsoever - you can just get on with life instead and not waste the time you might waste watching closely for the next event.

Again, I have always wondered that. I wondered it a lot right from the start, and then kind of let it go. I moved into a sense of, the synchronicities show me I'm in sync, in tune, on the right path. When they dry up, that's when I should pay more attention. Also -- I can't speak for others, but I don't waste any time watching closely for the next event. I don't have to watch at all. It shows up and hits me over the head. Bonk!

You might have a sudden awakening, for instance on crashing your car because you were so busy watching for the next synchronicity/coincidence.

Where exactly do you think I'm watching? Do you think I'm driving around running stoplights while I'm searching for DeLoreans and Torinos? Again, I'm not searching. The darn thing shows up right behind me or passes me on the county road -- I don't have to search for it.

Assuming for a moment that LoA is not true, there are many risks around wasting time and, much worse, becoming more and more distracted by the mythical world of constructed meanings: I gave one example earlier - I'm buying a car (wow! spooky) and find myself wondering whether I want the one with the cool plate that happens to spell something 'significant' to me an my partner, or the one that is her favourite colour - these kinds of things only distract us from dealing with the important facts, and if I don't stop myself in this fantasy I could easily miss the fact that one has been wrecked and put together again with superglue.

Agreed. A person shouldn't just think with their gut.

Some people like to investigate and think about reality, to try to discover truths, and are uncomfortable just living a life based on wishful thinking and fairytales.

I subscribe to e-Skeptic. I'm a dedicated reader of shamblog. You can't assume that people who believe in synchronicity and LoA are blindly living a life based on wishful thinking and fairy tales. So far I have not experienced the magnificent monetary wonders of IM that ALG speaks of, but I'm not ready to write off IM as a sham. He and Paul both insist that it works, and I am more than willing to keep at it as an added tool in my financial adventures.

The flip-side to 'fun', or pleasure, is pain. These things are balanced and when we get off on fun we bring pain too, even if that means just the natural reaction when the fun stops (like when we Intend and find no Manifestation happening). I don't mean that pleasure should be avoided. I just mean that to keep going for pleasure and fun, and particularly living your life with that as a central principle or, as you seem to be doing here, defending your beliefs on the grounds that they're fun, has a cost. You do so, imho, at the expense of awareness.

I'm not defending my belief in synchronicity on the grounds that it's fun . . . I'm asking where the added value is in deciding that all this stuff that happens is sheer random coincidence (even though I seem to get a LOT of it)?

I see your point about how people can waste a lot of time, and sometimes money, chasing after the fantasy that LoA and IM will magically solve their problems, instead of doing the practical action necessary to solve their problems. I have felt like this myself during my "garbage, all of it!" moments. I can understand why the OP got fed up and made that post and disappeared.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Where exactly do you think I'm watching? Do you think I'm driving around running stoplights while I'm searching for DeLoreans and Torinos? Again, I'm not searching. The darn thing shows up right behind me or passes me on the county road -- I don't have to search for it.

Oh did I burst out laughing right now.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

You sure about that statistic, John? I think your sample might be a little too small, as the only discussion in which you participate here is regarding magical thinking IM/SR and what fools people are for adopting that perspective.

Sorry, did you take that 99.9% as a statistic, Angela? I meant it merely as a colloquial expression rather than a mathematical one. You don't know how many threads I might read. I'm also sorry that you see the purpose of the thread as you do. As I keep saying, I am trying to use it as a place for serious discussion. Perhaps it was a mistake to hijack the thread with such a negative title for serious discussion. But we seem to have done some interesting stuff despite that. Besides, in a way you are expressing what I meant when you say this is "the only discussion..." except that you assume that its purpose is very negative, IM-bashing, where I see it as a rare thread where sceptics and disbelievers are asking serious questions and making serious objections to IM/LoA. Still, clearly we can have different views about the thread as well as its contents.

Coincidentally (or maybe synchronistically), this thread is the only one I've noticed in quite awhile in that contains such open disdain and even contempt. It doesn't look to me like those are qualities that are very conducive to easy discussion or learning.

It seems fairly mild to me compared with some places I've tried to discuss things. Besides, although it can help if everyone is ultra-polite all the time, sometimes it is very healthy, imho, to share and even discuss personal feelings towards one another. Also, easy discussion and learning isn't always the best mode for important learning. If there is no place here for tough love, only friendly banter, then it would go down in my esteem. However, you're the mod and at the end of the day you are responsible for maintaining that boundary, I assume.

But I'm still pulling for you!

Yeah.

Originally Posted by cylon

That's a lot to carry around in your head. Purge, bro!

If you're addressing me, cylon, I don't carry it around in my head. I do this thing where words come to me as I construct sentences based on the ideas I'm having. They're not all there all the time. Bro.

Originally Posted by moonrambler

I wasn't talking about your own belief or disbelief in God, but making a metaphor that this is "like" talking to An Atheist. Talking about synchronicity with you is like talking about God to An Atheist. You contributed to that perception by stating somewhere in this thread that you do not believe in the concept of synchronicity, and when I asked you what would make you believe it, you essentially flat-out stated nothing would make you believe it because the concept is invalid to you. That is not an exact quote, and yes, life is too short for me to go look for what exactly you said,.

Sure, I think I understand, moonrambler. I get the sense that we are really genuinely trying to understand each other and I appreciate that. I feel that you misinterpreted what I was saying, although it is very close. I didn't say (or mean) that I flat-out don't believe in synchronicity. I said that until you tell me what it means, define it more clearly for me, I can't really say whether I believe in it. I think I'm beginning to see what you mean, and I'm sorry if it's annoying that it's taking so long. You seem to be saying that the difference between coincidence and synchronicity is in your experience of it (the latter) as being much more unlikely. So I'm guessing it's like there's a continuum of likelihood and somewhere along it you make a personal judgement that something is too unlikely to be coincidence.

But you see the thing I'm struggling with is this - and it's probably just a difference in the way we think about things - to me your distinction relates only to how you decide, how you recognise synchronicity, and I'm asking a different question about it's causation, it's metaphysical processes, how it works. I'm asking what actually might be going on behind the scenes, as it were, when synchronicity happens. Is there a God just drip-feeding us with clues and lovely things depending on how much we tune in, for example (please note, I'm not asking for a yes/no answer to my example, but your hypotheses).

Is there a metaphysical difference between coincidence and synchronicity, do you think, or does one merge into the other? Are they like matter and mind, or cold and hot water, or ice and water vapour - what? Do you see what I'm getting at? It feels like I'm asking someone why they believe in the sun, and they keep saying that it gets so hot sometimes there just has to be a sun. There's no physics (or in this case metaphysics) - no "look up there - see that bright circle - that's millions of degrees, a nuclear reaction". I can't accept synchronicity until I actually understand what is being proposed.

If the only difference between coincidence and synchronicity is likelihood, could there ever be any incredibly unlikely coincidences?

I did tell you what would happen that could make me maybe disbelieve it. I'm willing to disbelieve it. I simply have no reason to at the moment. This is a definitive difference from what you have done in regard to the concept of synchronicity, which is tell me nothing could make you believe it.

As to the first, I'm sorry, I must have missed it. Please could you tell me again? As to the second, I would believe in synchronicity if it fitted in to my world view in some reasonable way, which means I had some explanation for it. Of course, if I were having strong personal experiences of it, that would probably persuade me, just as you are having them and they persuade you, but I guess I would make sense of them somehow: I would go back to believing in a God (who perhaps is hiding behind a veil from those who are too rationalistic or whatever, but giving help and guidance to those who are in the synchronicity zone - apparently dopamine helps, btw, if you want more of it). It may just be a personal thing, but I have to have some kind of working hypothesis for the things I experience.

Thanks for sticking in there with this. I understand your other commitments and really, honestly, I do not need and probably would not be swayed by any further details of your synchronicities. Again, it's something about the way I think, and besides, some of them I am sure are much less meaningful to me because of the cultural divide and our different backgrounds. You said if I were to go around with you I'd see it for myself, but I wouldn't. I would see you connecting all sorts of dots that I could quite easily separate in my own mind - cars, old friends not seen for a while, thises and thats. I'm not going to restate my reasons for believing that coincidence often strongly resembles meaningful synchronicity (though I might post a link or three), and I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I just have a very high synchronicity threshhold because I believe I have seen something of how that happens. I could check out those oak leaves in June or whatever it was and think, "Now that's odd, what on earth could have caused oak leaves to be lying on the ground now? If there are no oaks in the garden, where are the nearest ones? How far do oak leaves blow? How long do they stay intact? Could someone have put them there after collecting them last fall and keeping them in the freezer? What about there being two of them so strongly linked in circumstances...well, that, I would say, is just coincidence (unless one of the earlier reasons, like someone putting them there, is involved). I would not go "Oh gosh - it's too unlikely to be coincidence, it must be synchronicity, whatever that is".

P.S. You dealt with my other points very well, and I don't see any need to argue them again. Despite what you may think, I do respect your right to believe what you want to believe. I'm glad you keep your eyes on the road!

[cylon]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

If you're addressing me, cylon, I don't carry it around in my head. I do this thing where words come to me as I construct sentences based on the ideas I'm having. They're not all there all the time. Bro.

I'll call you Socrates instead.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Geiger

Most people here in the IM forum will however say that there is very little risk to try option two for a while and see what happens. And as many here experienced (including me) is that when we did that, some very positive things happened in ways we did not expect.

It’s not about proving or disproving (because you cannot), it is about experience.

I'm not quite sure I get your meaning, Geiger, and I don't know why you posted a link to an article on critical rationalism, unless you were mixing this up with a supplementary part differentiating it from justificationism. The latter would seem more like the basis of your earlier statement.

This is not to say that 'justificationism' is necessarily bad, despite it's name. At least, most of our usual thinking, more advanced philosophy and science usualy entails some form of it. It's all a bit complicated, so let's simplify: what's different about IM that makes it impossible to prove? If we didn't have any biochemistry, we wouldn't know that smoking increases the risk of getting cancer and is, in a whole host of ways, generally rather bad for you. People might assert that it's not a matter of proof - you just have to try smoking 30 a day for 40 years and find out how bad it is for your health. However, through investigation, the hypothesis became a theory, and the theory became common knowledge with billions of dollars compensation resting on it. And please note, for a very long time, smoking was recommended by doctors and thought to be really rather good for us. Even if we disregard the mind-bending refutations of professional philosophers, it's as damn near proved as makes no difference. Why is it that we can't test IM? Is it that old problem of sceptical scientists' mental blocks fixing the data, or did you mean something else?

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

I'll call you Socrates instead.

I don't understand.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

As I keep saying, I am trying to use it as a place for serious discussion.

Yes, so you keep saying. You are trying to have a serious discussion with someone whom you openly consider to be a fool.

Bobcat Goldwaith appeared on the Today Show to promote his Shakes the (alcoholic) Clown movie and they had him "debating" a real, furious Barnum & Bailey clown. It was great -- the two nearly came to blows, and the "discussion" they had was disdainful, sarcastic, and very funny -- a little out of control for morning TV! Katie Couric held up her hands and hollered over the ruckus, "Would you please be serious," to which Bobcat howled, "Get serious??! We're CLOWNS!"

[cylon]

IM makes people feel too good for ultra-serious discussion. At some point the joy and fun is going to come out.

[moonrambler]

Cylon -- you know, though, IM often results in frustration and disappointment, rather than joy and fun. Which is the reason this topic got started in the first place.

JF -- what I had said was if somebody rode around with me for a couple days and was able to write off everything that happens as sheer coincidence and it doesn't strike them as at least a little bit odd, then perhaps I would take a different look at the whole thing, if they could explain how all this stuff happens, no matter how unlikely. But actually I think you're right -- I don't think this would get me to disbelieve, just like it wouldn't get you to believe. And that's ok.

Originally Posted by Angela

Yes, so you keep saying. You are trying to have a serious discussion with someone whom you openly consider to be a fool.

Bobcat Goldwaith appeared on the Today Show to promote his Shakes the (alcoholic) Clown movie and they had him "debating" a real, furious Barnum & Bailey clown. It was great -- the two nearly came to blows, and the "discussion" they had was disdainful, sarcastic, and very funny -- a little out of control for morning TV! Katie Couric held up her hands and hollered over the ruckus, "Would you please be serious," to which Bobcat howled, "Get serious??! We're CLOWNS!"

Last night, insomnia bout, trying to think of something I could think about which would help me get back to sleep, a song I hadn't thought of in years, haven't heard in probably 12 or 14 years, I went through it trying to remember all the lyrics, and at last I got all of them, and the song was Send In The Clowns.

And with that I bid this thread adieu.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Cylon -- you know, though, IM often results in frustration and disappointment, rather than joy and fun. Which is the reason this topic got started in the first place.

Of course. You can see my earlier threads. But a bunch of people utilizing it, getting good results, and trying to "come down" and get all heavy? It's the total opposite of what you're shooting for with IM. Whole point, is to feel good. Now if you're feeling good why would you want to get all dry and serious?

Originally Posted by moonrambler

And with that I bid this thread adieu.

Oh shoot. We'll just have to share our synkros in other threads. At least John was upfront that nothing you could possibly say would open his mind. Guess I'll leave too then.
(a song called "here comes the serious bit" shows up on shuffle, lol)

[Wax Frog]

As I think I posted elsewhere, I'm getting my nose back between the covers of Michael Brown's "Presence Process". While it's not about IM/LoA as such, it does touch heavily on the subject via the author's own conceptual model. More importantly for me (as is increasingly being pointed out to me, both deliberately and 'synchronistically'), it emphasizes the importance of emotional blockages. Perhaps it's not so much about "feeling good" as it is about at last freeing up the things that have been making us feel bad...

It also occurs to me that dabbling in, or even merely reading, this thread is an egoic indulgence, reflecting my inner conflict. An indulgence in what MB would call 'drama'. I too bid it adieu.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

Yes, so you keep saying. You are trying to have a serious discussion with someone whom you openly consider to be a fool.

No, I'm trying to have a serious discussion despite someone whom I consider to be a fool.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

At least John was upfront that nothing you could possibly say would open his mind.

Please stop misrepresenting what I say, cylon. I generally think you probably don't understand much of it or I give you the benefit of the doubt, but this looks quite deliberate. Anyone would think you were just trying to rile me.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Cylon -- you know, though, IM often results in frustration and disappointment, rather than joy and fun. Which is the reason this topic got started in the first place.

Ah but cylon isn't interested in noticing any negatives or misses, only the good vibes and the hits. Thank you for reminding us of daveangeles - I wonder...maybe off round the world in a DeLorean! Now if he is, I'm converted! No more arguments. I just quit there and then!

JF -- what I had said was if somebody rode around with me for a couple days and was able to write off everything that happens as sheer coincidence and it doesn't strike them as at least a little bit odd, then perhaps I would take a different look at the whole thing, if they could explain how all this stuff happens, no matter how unlikely. But actually I think you're right -- I don't think this would get me to disbelieve, just like it wouldn't get you to believe. And that's ok.

Yeah, I just read something on True Believer Syndrome and wonder what the hell I'm doing. Still, I had a nice time surfing earlier at skeptic.com and some of these might be of interest:

synchronicity
regressive fallacy
pareidolia
subjective validation
confirmation bias
Law of Truly Large Numbers

That's the serious bit cylon's ipod was trying to warn him to look into, but he's gone, lol.

That bit about the number 11 synchronicity (in the last link if you're pushed for time) is really interesting - we love to make meaning where there isn't any. I think it's telling that I, a sceptic, was quite persuaded by Geller's list, until I read on. But I took on board that you subscribe to skeptical sites and I find it hard to imagine what you make of these things, many of which you presumably have read before and still disregard or overturn in some way. I post them, however, for the benefit of other readers as well, of course, it's just that you seem to have engaged with me on this particularly lately.

Last night, insomnia bout, trying to think of something I could think about which would help me get back to sleep, a song I hadn't thought of in years, haven't heard in probably 12 or 14 years, I went through it trying to remember all the lyrics, and at last I got all of them, and the song was Send In The Clowns.

And with that I bid this thread adieu.

Sleep well. Just count DeLoreans. There are 6000 of them. It might end up with more sceptics on this thread than believers then! And on that note, if you're not all read out, I agree with the general drift of this: Skeptic Friends Network - Fence-Sitting which says that a skeptic is more of a fence-sitter, not a non-believer. Like I said before, many people call themselves skeptics when they mean confirmed materialist.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

No, I'm trying to have a serious discussion despite someone whom I consider to be a fool.

Well, the person whom you said this to is someone who is involved in the discussion, and you and he were saying things directly to one another, in fact, he is a central figure in this thread's drama, so it's hard for me to see how you were not having a discussion with him, but only despite him.

Looks like a moot point, though; looks like all the fools are bailing on you. Maybe you can attract some people who will give you what you want now.

[coLLege kid07]

Don't hate, appreciate

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

This thread is way long! lol

It's #711. Then I replied to myself a bit later when nobody responded. This was a Huey synchronicity, but it veered off and started bringing in Back To the Future stuff.

I've never seen a delorean in real life. But if I built a time machine, it would have to be one.

I always love the message in that movie: if you put your mind to it, anything is possible. In times like these, I think it's a message we need to hear as often as possible.

I liked the Huey Lewis and the News "Behind the Music". There were no drug overdoses and no one wanted to commit suicide. They all still like each other. They just recognized that they peaked and decided to do other things instead of beat a dead horse. It's almost, like, rational or something. Maybe that's why it keeps coming up in this thread of all places. They're rational pop stars. Which makes absolutely no sense and I'm fine with that.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

Well, the person whom you said this to is someone who is involved in the discussion, and you and he were saying things directly to one another, in fact, he is a central figure in this thread's drama, so it's hard for me to see how you were not having a discussion with him, but only despite him.

Well, you told me what I was doing here. I just corrected you. See I get to do that when it's me we're talking about.

Looks like a moot point, though; looks like all the fools are bailing on you. Maybe you can attract some people who will give you what you want now.

Well that sounds rather cute and I perceive it as condescending. You seem to be suggesting that I'm doing all this because of some psychological need, possibly quite problematic, that I have. Thus again you disregard my honest expression of my motives. Still, if it pleases you to think that, ok.

I am slightly disappointed that believers are leaving the thread (though it took ALG a couple of attempts, so maybe we'll hear from one of the others again, eh?). I had some hopes of more movement from some of them. But I'm only slightly disappointed, and after reading more about how common it is for people to believe in magic even when it is shown to be a trick, etc., I realise how few minds I'm going to really change ( true believer syndrome ).

As I said already, I am engaging in this because it is in the public arena and might be useful to others.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I've never seen a delorean in real life. But if I built a time machine, it would have to be one.

I always love the message in that movie: if you put your mind to it, anything is possible. In times like these, I think it's a message we need to hear as often as possible.

Times like what?

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I am slightly disappointed that believers are leaving the thread (though it took ALG a couple of attempts, so maybe we'll hear from one of the others again, eh?). I had some hopes of more movement from some of them. But I'm only slightly disappointed, and after reading more about how common it is for people to believe in magic even when it is shown to be a trick, etc., I realise how few minds I'm going to really change ( true believer syndrome ).

It is freakin' addicting, dammit. I wouldn't try to tear myself away from here because I really like to debate these sorts of things, except it takes a lot of time to respond to all this stuff.

True-believer syndrome is an expression coined by M. Lamar Keene to describe an apparent cognitive disorder characterized by believing in the reality of paranormal or supernatural events after one has been presented overwhelming evidence that the event was fraudulently staged.

There. Now I've got an apparent cognitive disorder. Except how the hell does that relate to believing in synchronicity? Who fraudulently drove that fake DeLorean down the highway to fool me into believing the concept? Where's the overwhelming evidence? I did look at a couple of the links about synchronicity -- one you put up and one that was cited in the article. They show lots of stats disputing the concept. Birthdays and all that. I was a Teaching Assistant in Statistics in college, so I'm very well versed in all this. I know probabilities, and how probability can be very tricky.

I got sucked back into this again because I went to get the mail and there in my mailbox was not one, but two, pictures of red oak leaves. On the cover of the new phone book of which two copies were delivered today. John, honestly, all I can tell you is this is experiential, and all those statistical charts and graphs about birthdays and gambling do nothing to dispel this. Even my dear skeptic Carl Sagan, in his novel Contact, went so far as to put a message of hope hidden away in the number pi, and also acknowledged that you can't prove somebody loves someone.

From Walt Whitman:

When I heard the learn'd astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide,
and measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer,
where he lectured with much
applause in the lecture-room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;
Till rising and gliding out, I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

There. Now I've got an apparent cognitive disorder.

Hey it looks good on you. I'm going to return mine, see if I can maybe exchange it for one in blue.

Feels so gratifying to have a genuine SYNDROME doesn't it? And we didn't even have to take those inkblot tests. Hey look, a monkey!

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Except how the hell does that relate to believing in synchronicity? Who fraudulently drove that fake DeLorean down the highway to fool me into believing the concept?

This reminds me of the Truman Show movie with Jim Carrey, where his entire life is filmed, and everyone is in on it but him. Of course that was a big budget tv show with a whole fake city for him to live in.

Our little synkros are fortunately free of charge.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Well that sounds rather cute and I perceive it as condescending. You seem to be suggesting that I'm doing all this because of some psychological need, possibly quite problematic, that I have. Thus again you disregard my honest expression of my motives. Still, if it pleases you to think that, ok.

It's my turn to correct you, then, since it's me we're talking about! I was suggesting and disregarding nothing of the sort. I thought you had given up supposing? I said:

Maybe you can attract some people who will give you want now

...meaning may you can attract some people who will give you what you want now. Like, maybe people who will listen to your serious questions and your serious objections to IM/LoA and I guess either support your opinions or give you some sort of rational, verifiable, scientific evidence to the contrary or express their own serious questions and objections? Or whatever it is you want.

Oh, wait, I just see this newer post of yours:

I realise how few minds I'm going to really change

Maybe that's what you're up to? Changing minds? You did declare from the very start that you're here to wake people up.

It's funny that you hear condescension in what I say, John Freestone. Because condescension is what I hear when you say things like that and, "well, that sounds rather cute" and "I think you're a fool" and "most people under 12, you mean?" and "Grand purpose. Now that's funny!" and "I read your celebration of how you've attracted pleasant surprises into your day and wonder what you're like on a bad day." and " I sense a dreadful desperation behind some of your commitments to make yourselves happy." (so many! I just went back and picked a few of your greatest hits.)

But I know that I was not intending to be condescending, so maybe you weren't either.

[John Freestone]

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.

[Geiger]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I'm not quite sure I get your meaning, Geiger, and I don't know why you posted a link to an article on critical rationalism, unless you were mixing this up with a supplementary part differentiating it from justificationism. The latter would seem more like the basis of your earlier statement.

My understanding of Popper's theories regarding critical rationalism is that nothing really can be proved (induction). Therefore I think the quest to prove (or disprove) IM is futile. However something doesn't have to be proved to be useful, and it can still be an interesting and valuable discussion of course.

In regards to IM I guess I'm a justificationist

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

I decided to check your other postings to see where you're usually posting, if you tend to disagree in this particular forum, that sort of thing, why you suddenly jumped in right at this moment to agree with the OP who hasn't posted here in ages, and saw that the most recent post you made before was an answer in this thread: Help me get motivated to learn the guitar

And I said out loud, "ah geeez," I can't even tell you how much I got the willies from that. If you had the slightest idea how big of an Eagles freakazoid I am, and I'm not exaggerating.

Thank you for the "good morning!" Can't wait to see how wonderfully the rest of the day goes!

Karma brother

[jawillie]

Ahh.. I am so glad I checked this thread out again today. I love starting the day out being told I have a disorder.

There is so much that goes on in the world that many people do experience. How can you dispute that?? So, Erin Pavlina is insane? Her experiences aren't real, she's just delusional?

I am not the greatest with words. I go mostly by feeling and I like my right-brained way of living. JF seems to be 100% left-brained. I urge you to read and check out Jill Bolte Taylor. What happened to her when she had a stroke. You can listen to her for free on iTunes.

[Angela]

Hey, John, how about that? You sign off and a bunch of new people show up!

Nah, just teasin' you. Thanks for your thoughtful reply, and by the way, although I am often prickly, in the case of that one remark about maybe you'll attract some new blood, I was being sincere. You seemed like you were butting your head against the wall (everybody was) and not getting anywhere as far as understanding or convincing, and that's also what I meant by "I'm pulling for you all" -- I was looking forward with pleasure to some sort of breakthrough in understanding, either of self or of others, while still enjoying the conversation as it is. Like I said, monitoring this thread has been like watching a suspenseful movie in which I want all the characters to come out well.

It's not your objections and your skepticism, I think, that have people feeling resisting you. Lots of people here have objected and been skeptical, including myself. Maybe you'd be surprised to know that I share much of your skepticism, just not about the power of deliberately thinking thoughts that feel good (which is how I consider the LoA).

Rather, I feel it's your propensity to make others wrong and need to be right that leaves people resisting you, and I think it may be a big part of the addictive nature of this thread. And I'm quite sure that me noticing this means this issue is mine, too. D'oh! I hate that. In other words, it's not your message, which is sound; it's your delivery.

Your making people wrong, by telling them that if they don't share your (non)-belief they are mentally ill or foolish, or you mock (your mocking often comes across as pretty bitter to me -- buy maybe you mean for it to come off more light-heartedly?), generates a space of no-freedom and no-love, which is absolutely fine, you're under no obligation to do otherwise, and I wouldn't change you. I'd just like to suggest that if you'd like to accomplish your aims in a place like this, generating freedom and love simply works better.

Skeptical materialism is accepted as part of the rich tapestry -- have you seen my earlier posts about a personal interventionist god?!? -- it's the "you're wrong, I'm right" stuff that's repellant. You can be an argumentative old bastard and still fit right in, but my wish for you is that you find a way to be who you are and still get what you want*, and I believe that you can let go of making people wrong and still retain your inner curmudgeon, if you'd like.

And anyway, whatever you do, whether you go or stay, whether you generate freedom and love or not, what you've said here has led to insights for people. There is no need or preference for you to retreat -- quite the opposite. You are a contributor, in the bigger sense of the word, I mean, not just here.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Lots of love to you, John,
Angela

*sincere, not snark, in case you are mulling.

[cylon]

I had a moment like John "why am I doing this", and now I know arguing and debating are not the fun things they used to be for me. I can get worked up but I run out of steam and stop caring. There are zillions of attitudes and opinions on the planet. All are different, and all can co-exist. Who cares.

Even someone thinking I'm insane... that's fine. Does it make it true? Do we need to be defensive about things that aren't real to us?

And if John hadn't said the thing about sparkly dolphins, that momentum never would have been added to the other momentum that was going through synchronicities, and we had a tidal wave of synkros here, and the result was a feeling of peace (for me).