Seems to be common

Post #319,612 by crazy 1/6/10 6:42:55 AM 1/6/10 6:45:58 AM Reply	Seems to be common "I believe" all this stuff, and I am aware that, like everybody else, I am probably wrong. You quote the believe so you can redefine it at will, and then state that you feel strongly (probably > 50%, right? > 80%? >90%?) that you're wrong. Hell of an internal inconsistency you live with. Is it stable (which means you probably live in a state of unease), or are you always receiving more information (pro or con) that might sway you one way or the other, and if so, did you ever lean strongly in one direction or the other, and almost abandon the split viewpoint? Doesn't baby chick imprint syndrome suck? Did you offer up any kids to it? Edited by crazy Jan. 6, 2010, 06:45:58 AM EST Expand All History
Post #319,613 by crazy 1/6/10 6:57:42 AM Reply	I just stumbled onto this http://www.dilbert.c....strip.sunday.gif This seems to be the general attitude. When someone tells you something that seems insane and expects you to act on it, you resist, you argue your point. If that person is an authority (parent, religious leader (appt by your parent), boss, cop, etc) you shut up and if possible act on it, since the hassle to resist isn't worth it (usually). And sometimes, the craziest shit ends up being true, which knocks your foundation out and you have to rethink the world around you.
Post #319,665 by mhuber 1/7/10 1:06:38 AM Reply	Internal consisency is for well-engineered systems I'm using a brain optimized for maximum reproductive potential. Currently running on a blend of hydrocarbons that includes some long chain molecules that don't enhance its effectiveness. The inconsistency is stable at this point, it took some fluctuations to get there. It does not make me uneasy. I deeply love my almost certainly wrong faith. Not the official version, the real community and tradition. Consider Dante's section of hell reserved for Popes. How many religions have something like that? We pretty much assume out leaders are damned. With our current Pope, is there any doubt? Aquinas, wrote volume after volume of theology, the core of the Catholic system. And then one day he told his colleagues theology is bullshit and retired. Then there is Mr. God Himself. Questionable birth in a freakin' barn, short career as a heretical rabbi, offed by a Roman governor in the boonies, then Rome turns into the center of His cult and is now just a city in an otherwise has-been country. For a guy who wants to be right and make sense, this is a real bad religion. Me, I know I'm almost certainly wrong. You want me to go through the cognitive work of changing that baby chick imprint so I can be wrong a different way? I'm not wired to be right, and this faith is gloriously wrong! Yes, I did sacrifice children to it. I wasn't going to, but then I heard the REM song and realized I had almost denied them the experience of losing their religion, almost didn't give them that to rebel against. One almost died a Jehovah's Witless, but we worked that out on her deathbed. One takes Catholicism seriously for now but I think she takes her zombie-fighting training more seriously and she has my sense of surrealism, the other two have rejected it from a position of knowing what they are rejecting. I raised them Catholic but I raised them questioning more. And odd way more.
Post #319,677 by crazy 1/7/10 10:49:23 AM Reply	I deeply admire you
Post #319,839 by Ashton 1/10/10 4:05:14 PM Reply	Aquinas has company.. In another metaphysician's attempt to script a saner model of the Universe -- one demanding that acolytes Test By Experiment-on-Self each tenet, or don't bother to play: The intellectually-centered cohost of one G. I. Gurdjieff was named P. D. Ouspensky (Russians both.) G. always described himself (being er, 'moving-centered') as, "I am a teacher of dance." There are some Interesting algorithms within this arcane opera (how many knew that the plural of 'opus' IS 'opera'?) The enneagram for one; then, a theory of 'body types' wherein bipeds are much like breeds of dogs (though the planets were used as labels, in the event.) Nomenclature is always trivial, if you know there's a thoughtful [referent] behind each. one. So their efforts and repeated observations had produced certain +5 Insightful additions to the lore re the exasperating self-delusional homo-sap [-erectus too ... as often as can be contrived.], while safely remaining free of the burden of staffing YAN new religion cha cha cha. Thus free of burdening future generations with cathedral building and supporting millions of priests forever on the dole -- while telling you how to run your sex life (and how much to tithe for the priests' appetites re young boys + the sacramental wine which aids in the seductions.) As O. lay dying, yet forcing self to get up and walk around -- despite every instinctive urge to do nothing of the kind! -- (it appears that) his epiphany arrived. He announced to the 'students', "I am abandoning the System." QED It's ALL a Play; the Bard knew that more surely than all the didacts and other Authoritarian breeds (frequently these ranters are 'saturn-mars' body types and their performance with microphone or at a dais -- is as predictable as that: your cocker spaniel Will fetch that stick whenever you throw it.) You do the work to Know Thyself -- or go through the entire Play as a marionette == 'plaything', so it seems. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, and I'm happy, Doctor, I finally won out over it. -- James Stewart (Elwood Dowd) in Harvey.

Welcome to IWETHEY!