Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Felix]

I was fortunate to have known Doug Boyd, who wrote a few books about shamans and magicians, this one is my favorite:
https://amzn.to/2m0WzxW

[Jklint]

...only to the extent of one's gullibility using that to coerce what they want. Superstition makes one vulnerable. Are you intimidated by their magic?

I suppose you, as a materialist, would have to think like that, wouldn't you? Ooops, I put a label on you and nominalists hate labels. Oh god, I did it again. Sorry. Yes, I am afraid of magic. I believe in magic. I have my own counter-defenses against it. I am a fan of William Burroughs, who also believed in magic. Magic and deception always go together and that is why Westerners who come here are always taken in.

Indeed, I am more materialist prone but that's not written in stone either. You continue to denote me as nominalist because I don't subscribe to any paradigm of Plato's forms including that of soul. I tried to convey the message a few times that your nominalist designation is also erroneous and doesn't yield that conclusion; but alas, it's useless so believe as you like. No skin off my back.

For me forms are designed by function, a chair for instance upholding my butt at some distance from the floor since it's unlikely that the floor will be coming up to meet it. Why would that require some abstract a priori version of it out there somewhere in the ether in order for us to come up with a design for a chair? Sounds ridiculous! Is the Large Hadron Collider which must host a million different designs in its operation also a Platonic entity existing independently? There are no such ghosts in the machine. Plato's ideas re forms are PURE fabrications, brain farts devoid of reality which explain nothing...though it may have been a good idea at the time, perhaps even a necessary one as being the most potent definition of an abstraction as incipient to and a prime mover of Western thought.

Best way to describe the usefulness of Plato's forms is what Lear spoke, nothing will become of nothing..

Also, if magic and deception always go together, which is true, forgo the deception and the magic disappears. Everyone, the audience and the magicians, know it's all just clever deception regardless of how miraculous it seems.

I keep squashing my intentions not to reply. I really got to stop this. There are much better ways to spend my time.

[GaryLouisSmith]

I was fortunate to have known Doug Boyd, who wrote a few books about shamans and magicians, this one is my favorite:
https://amzn.to/2m0WzxW

I am unable to examine the book you recommended because here in Nepal I can only get ebooks. My guess it is a positive, healing type of shamanistic magic and a path to higher consciousness. Maybe I’m wrong.

Here in Nepal and Bengal there are two types of magic or the paranormal or mystical power. There is positive and negative. Right-handed and left-handed. Modern yoga and old style yoga. Daksinacara and Vamacara. If what you are after is higher consciousness and enlightenment then you want modern, right-handed, positive, daksinacara yoga meditation. If what you want is vamacharya, left-handed, negative siddhi power, then you want to be an old style sinister yogi. The left-handed type is more popular, including mantras and rituals against vamacara yogis and yoginis. Modern or raga yoga is for the educated, urban elite. The villages are a much more sinister place.

When I write of yogis and the Hindu paranormal, I am speaking of old style left-handed yoga. That is much more prevalent among the people I hang out with. Any questions?

[GaryLouisSmith]

I suppose you, as a materialist, would have to think like that, wouldn't you? Ooops, I put a label on you and nominalists hate labels. Oh god, I did it again. Sorry. Yes, I am afraid of magic. I believe in magic. I have my own counter-defenses against it. I am a fan of William Burroughs, who also believed in magic. Magic and deception always go together and that is why Westerners who come here are always taken in.

Indeed, I am more materialist prone but that's not written in stone either. You continue to denote me as nominalist because I don't subscribe to any paradigm of Plato's forms including that of soul. I tried to convey the message a few times that your nominalist designation is also erroneous and doesn't yield that conclusion; but alas, it's useless so believe as you like. No skin off my back.

For me forms are designed by function, a chair for instance upholding my butt at some distance from the floor since it's unlikely that the floor will be coming up to meet it. Why would that require some abstract a priori version of it out there somewhere in the ether in order for us to come up with a design for a chair? Sounds ridiculous! Is the Large Hadron Collider which must host a million different designs in its operation also a Platonic entity existing independently? There are no such ghosts in the machine. Plato's ideas re forms are PURE fabrications, brain farts devoid of reality which explain nothing...though it may have been a good idea at the time, perhaps even a necessary one as being the most potent definition of an abstraction as incipient to and a prime mover of Western thought.

Best way to describe the usefulness of Plato's forms is what Lear spoke, nothing will become of nothing..

Also, if magic and deception always go together, which is true, forgo the deception and the magic disappears. Everyone, the audience and the magicians, know it's all just clever deception regardless of how miraculous it seems.

I keep squashing my intentions not to reply. I really got to stop this. There are much better ways to spend my time.

OK, you are not a nominalist, but you sure to sound like one with your "nominalistic" ideas. One cannot forego deception, because deception is a real thing existing external to the mind. It is not something that a magician or any other human being does or fabricates. I don't expect a nominalistic rationalist to be able to understand that.

[Jklint]

Whatever you like. Nothing more to be said.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Whatever you like. Nothing more to be said.

Did I win?

[Jklint]

Was it a contest?

[GaryLouisSmith]

Was it a contest?

elenchus

[Felix]

GaryLouisSmith: When I write of yogis and the Hindu paranormal, I am speaking of old style left-handed yoga.

I don't think there is as clear a divide between the two as you suggest, e.g., Aurobindo believed that the Gods actually existed and Ramakrishna had extremely vivid visions of the Divine Mother.

GaryLouisSmith: I am unable to examine the book you recommended because here in Nepal I can only get ebooks. My guess it is a positive, healing type of shamanistic magic and a path to higher consciousness. Maybe I’m wrong.

Mad Bear, the Native American shaman that Doug Boyd wrote about, was certainly not a new age kind of healer, he practiced a Coyote trickster kind of occultism - quite a colorful character.

[Jklint]

Was it a contest?

elenchus

Too bad it didn't happen more often.

[Newme]

Sound advise - which also applies to the cognitive distortion or fallacy of jumping to conclusions. OTOH, Being paralyzed with indecision or skepticism doesn’t work either.

The bottom line seems to be to take the symbolic, spiritual truth and don’t insist on literal historical truth - of scripture etc.

Google "Eusebius" and try to find a copy of his classic book dating to the 4th Century C.E. (A.D.).

This pretty much explains everything about the early Christian/catholic church leading up to Constantine.

I searched but didn’t find the book. What’s its name?
Will you summarize what you know about Christian origins & what you religious leanings (if any) are?

[h_k_s]

Google "Eusebius" and try to find a copy of his classic book dating to the 4th Century C.E. (A.D.).

This pretty much explains everything about the early Christian/catholic church leading up to Constantine.

I searched but didn’t find the book. What’s its name?
Will you summarize what you know about Christian origins & what you religious leanings (if any) are?

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... 2760054690

This should give you the Amazon citation for the book.

Title is "Church History."

Author is Eusebius.

This is written sometime around 325 A.D. -- the 1st Council of Nicea. Eusebius was there and chronicled it.

[h_k_s]

Google "Eusebius" and try to find a copy of his classic book dating to the 4th Century C.E. (A.D.).

This pretty much explains everything about the early Christian/catholic church leading up to Constantine.

I searched but didn’t find the book. What’s its name?
Will you summarize what you know about Christian origins & what you religious leanings (if any) are?

There are various authors on Christian origins beginning with St. Paul, then St. Mark, then St. Matthew, then St. Luke, then St. John the apostle (not to be confused with the other John's). These are then followed first by Josephus around 79 A.D. and then later by Eusebius in 325 A.D. After Eusebius it gets cloudy together with the history of Rome, Byzantium, and the Catholic Church (big-C, after the 1054 split-up from the Eastern Orthodox Greek Church).

[h_k_s]

Google "Eusebius" and try to find a copy of his classic book dating to the 4th Century C.E. (A.D.).

This pretty much explains everything about the early Christian/catholic church leading up to Constantine.

I searched but didn’t find the book. What’s its name?
Will you summarize what you know about Christian origins & what you religious leanings (if any) are?

MY leanings?

I am a Romantic philosopher like Augustine, Aquinas (more like Aquinas though), Descartes, and Leibniz.

That makes me a Deist, not to be confused with a Theist nor with an Atheist nor Agnostic.

There are 4 flavors of peoples, you know?!

[Felix]

h_k_s: There are 4 flavors of peoples, you know?!

Up, Down, Charmed, and Strange, right?