The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Your preference: The psychological approach vs the paranormal approach. (17 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7
George Hunter
View Profile
Inner circle
1579 Posts

Profile of George Hunter
In his July 27 post, Dr. Spector engaged in some interesting assertions (or assumptions) that I have some reason to doubt.

1. If people believe in ANY transcendent reality, the belief is obviously rooted in stress-induced regression to an ancient defense mechanism. Really?

2. All belief in any and every alleged transcendent reality (apparently) can glibly be placed in the same category. So believing in Karma or the God of Abraham is the same as believing in leprechauns or Big Foot?

3. While belief in about anything is a reversion to ancient superstition, skepticism (apparently) is a much more rational, scientific, enlightened, modern worldview.

This third assumption is often challenged, today, from the perspective of our emerging post-modern future. Post-Modern thinkers view the European Enlightenment as a closed-system ideology that substantially failed; most-modern people are enormously more open to Mystery, etc.

This assumption can also be challenged from some knowledge of the past. Serious skepticism has been around at least since the pre-Socratic Sophists in ancient Greece. Gorgias, for instance, reportedly contended that "Nothing exits," or if Reality does exist, humans are not capable of understanding it, much less communicating it. THAT is serious skepticism! More broadly, I have read that there were skeptics in every ancient culture for which we have records. It is possible, I suppose, to then suggest that skepticism (and cynicism) today may involve reversion to an ancient orientation. Furthermore, I have met many skeptics whose view seemed to be at least partly rooted in stress or some other emotional force within them; the population of cold, detached, unemotional, objective, unbiased skeptics represent a very small, scattered, (and endangered) tribe--at most. HOWEVER, like Gorgias of old, some of them speak with authority on anything and everything, and credulous people seem to believe them!

George
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12590 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Well said, George.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12590 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On Jul 27, 2014, Marmen wrote:
Sealegs. The colourful, annoying characters haven't completely gone away. I know one of them who is still here. However, this does bring up a point. A performer SHOULD be a colourful character! That is why I can't bear watching magicians. They bore the crap out of me. And mentalists are even worse. They are the most colourless personalities in showbusiness. When I see entertainers on stage I don't want them to have the personality of a bank manager. Without some sort of colourful personality they may as well not be doing it. Alas most of them have the personalities of dial tones.


Sadly, I have to agree with you. But there are notable exceptions.
Dr Spektor
View Profile
Eternal Order
Carcosa
10571 Posts

Profile of Dr Spektor
You read in more than I type. These are all interpretations and quite stretched ones.
Point 1 I never said the ay you put.

Second point, I never said that either.

Where did I say point 3?

Ah who cares. And you Bob, well put? My point was - and this went with an earlier point you made - entertainment comes first - those who need to believe in being something to buy into selling to others for realism often are the ones who seem to want to sell their powers as "real" for purposes beyond entertainment. I notice whenever someone has commented negatively on me or my posts, you always pile on. Fascinating. Maybe its just coincidence.

You can scoff and laugh at what I wrote - however, your posts clearly seem to be showing your own arrogance and elitism... I pointed out some thoughts, got attacked and showed that since you all decided its one way - heck, my opinions should be ignored... and you all talk about this way or that where my point was there is flex. You then start to twist my typed words to make me sound reductionistic. What I said is we all believe is something - we all do... that is about it. And those beliefs, whatever they are, are often intensified under stress.

I don't recall getting into the skeptic debate either - and I won't bother as clearly my words will be attacked. They also believe in something. Maybe not what you believe though... but sometimes you find out many things about people under stress you wouldn't suspect.

How you twisted all your comments below demonstrates why most people think the penny posters are a bunch of arrogant blowhards who constantly pontificate about their views as the only views, define mentalism narrowly and so on.

So whatever, - take the time to read my posts and perhaps look at your own cognitive frames for interpreting them before posting. Or maybe ask a question to ask me to elaborate if something is unclear? Nah, that would be too civil.

Good luck all.



Quote:
On Jul 27, 2014, George Hunter wrote:
In his July 27 post, Dr. Spector engaged in some interesting assertions (or assumptions) that I have some reason to doubt.

1. If people believe in ANY transcendent reality, the belief is obviously rooted in stress-induced regression to an ancient defense mechanism. Really?

2. All belief in any and every alleged transcendent reality (apparently) can glibly be placed in the same category. So believing in Karma or the God of Abraham is the same as believing in leprechauns or Big Foot?

3. While belief in about anything is a reversion to ancient superstition, skepticism (apparently) is a much more rational, scientific, enlightened, modern worldview.

This third assumption is often challenged, today, from the perspective of our emerging post-modern future. Post-Modern thinkers view the European Enlightenment as a closed-system ideology that substantially failed; most-modern people are enormously more open to Mystery, etc.

This assumption can also be challenged from some knowledge of the past. Serious skepticism has been around at least since the pre-Socratic Sophists in ancient Greece. Gorgias, for instance, reportedly contended that "Nothing exits," or if Reality does exist, humans are not capable of understanding it, much less communicating it. THAT is serious skepticism! More broadly, I have read that there were skeptics in every ancient culture for which we have records. It is possible, I suppose, to then suggest that skepticism (and cynicism) today may involve reversion to an ancient orientation. Furthermore, I have met many skeptics whose view seemed to be at least partly rooted in stress or some other emotional force within them; the population of cold, detached, unemotional, objective, unbiased skeptics represent a very small, scattered, (and endangered) tribe--at most. HOWEVER, like Gorgias of old, some of them speak with authority on anything and everything, and credulous people seem to believe them!

George
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
sandsjr
View Profile
Special user
840 Posts

Profile of sandsjr
Marmen, I like the dial tone line. (I've never heard that one)

Here's a scary thought... some of the younger guys here are saying, "Huh?"
Dr Spektor
View Profile
Eternal Order
Carcosa
10571 Posts

Profile of Dr Spektor
Quote:
On Jul 27, 2014, IbiMania wrote:
Dr. Spektor,
I believe you are taking unnecessary offense. I did not say you concluded, I merely mentioned that we did meaning a bunch of us. And I did not mean 100% fixed conclusion. it is more of an agree to disagree situation. I mentioned this because you happened to repeat a point mentioned earlier.

What I find ironic is, for a person who takes offense and gets defensive so easily to a point of leaving a discussion, you make quite offensive remarks yourself.


"How about read up on basic performance theory, our Max. entertainment, educational theory and such"

Assuming the person on the other side is ignorant is pretty easy.

However this wont stop me from agreeing with you where I find you to be right and that is about the muslim example, yes it would not go down very well to make psychic claims there.

And I also admit me trying to fit it into 2 factors was not very wise because there are other factors like laws, marketing, unique selling point etc. that can affect ones choice. However on this thread the 2 cases I mention seem to be the likely case.


Well, then I apologize if I overreacted.

As an imperfect person, like most humans I know, it seemed from my limited POV thus:

I posted, and you said we on the thread already concluded X then instead of discussion around what I raised, reiterated from your concluded points the 2 views again. To me, this seemed pretty clear dismissal of comments. Maybe it was the words you chose, but their arrangement felt quite dismissive.

I raised these theories and concepts, because I'm drawing on social constructivism, the golden triangle, cognitive frameworks, etc. as if you know those, I would expect there was some basis to my meagre attempts at saying there may be more to this than the 2 options.

I am imperfect and I apologize if I misunderstood - but based on your comments, I gave the example of that performance I did taking into account the audience as a major factor than getting into an explanation for what effects they would experience being psychological or psychic. It was the audience that had me choose to adopt more psychological / physiological approach and deal with faith and values outside the direct effects - but I could buy into that... I also can inner script myself other premises depending on audience. I'm not saying everyone should do that - some people create a character they want consistent 24/7... I don't need to so I don't bother.

So, my apologies again if I overreacted. I think watching some posters lord it over others and twist words maybe had an effect of me becoming like the monsters I used to fight or falling into the abyss I gaze on.

So peace my colleague - and beware Oxymandiases that lurk around here.
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12590 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Should that be Oxymandi? Smile

Where do you seeing me "piling on." I just liked what George had to say. No reflection at all on you. His points about ancient skepticism were well put, IMO. Sorry if you interpret my simple opinion as "piling on."


Are you just in a bad mood today, maybe?
Dr Spektor
View Profile
Eternal Order
Carcosa
10571 Posts

Profile of Dr Spektor
Perhaps = but he ripped into my comments and expanded it - your comment was general enough to encompass the entire message which to me was way whoop

Yeah, bad mood - death in family and all that. Should be elsewhere. Guess I will head there.

My apologies.....
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
IbiMania
View Profile
Regular user
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
108 Posts

Profile of IbiMania
Quote:
On Jul 27, 2014, Dr Spektor wrote:

Well, then I apologize if I overreacted.

As an imperfect person, like most humans I know, it seemed from my limited POV thus:

I posted, and you said we on the thread already concluded X then instead of discussion around what I raised, reiterated from your concluded points the 2 views again. To me, this seemed pretty clear dismissal of comments. Maybe it was the words you chose, but their arrangement felt quite dismissive.

I raised these theories and concepts, because I'm drawing on social constructivism, the golden triangle, cognitive frameworks, etc. as if you know those, I would expect there was some basis to my meagre attempts at saying there may be more to this than the 2 options.

I am imperfect and I apologize if I misunderstood - but based on your comments, I gave the example of that performance I did taking into account the audience as a major factor than getting into an explanation for what effects they would experience being psychological or psychic. It was the audience that had me choose to adopt more psychological / physiological approach and deal with faith and values outside the direct effects - but I could buy into that... I also can inner script myself other premises depending on audience. I'm not saying everyone should do that - some people create a character they want consistent 24/7... I don't need to so I don't bother.

So, my apologies again if I overreacted. I think watching some posters lord it over others and twist words maybe had an effect of me becoming like the monsters I used to fight or falling into the abyss I gaze on.

So peace my colleague - and beware Oxymandiases that lurk around here.


I am sorry for the mistakes on my part. I mentioned the conclusion because I thought you were bringing back the skeptic vs. intelligent debate and found some repetition in your point which was already posted by someone earlier. I failed to notice the new point you were contributing and that's on me: My bad.

As I later mentioned, I think your point about other factors influencing the pretense is good and I can actually relate to it since it is illegal to use the superpower pretense in 90% regions I have visited including the one I am currently living in.

Thanks a lot for posting.
and you have a really cool site.
After True detective season one, I bet the interest around it must have increased.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12590 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On Jul 27, 2014, Dr Spektor wrote:
Perhaps = but he ripped into my comments and expanded it - your comment was general enough to encompass the entire message which to me was way whoop

Yeah, bad mood - death in family and all that. Should be elsewhere. Guess I will head there.

My apologies.....


My deepest condolences. Sorry to hear about that.

Be well.

Bob
George Hunter
View Profile
Inner circle
1579 Posts

Profile of George Hunter
Spector:

My deep condolences, also.

I was reflecting from what you said, and seemed to assume, and two of my three points ended with a question. I was also offering some contrasting perspectives. If you experienced all, or any, of that as a personal attack, I am sorry.

Of course, your priority time is now with your loved ones. For the time being, please forget about us! Then, in good time, we will be eager to welcome you back to the forums.

George
reese
View Profile
Inner circle
of Hell
1034 Posts

Profile of reese
Dr. S. My heartfelt wishes for a smooth passage for your loved one and hopes that your own suffering will sometime be alleviated. My very best to you & your own. Tim F.



.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Your preference: The psychological approach vs the paranormal approach. (17 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.2 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL