An addendum that somehow didn't get posted apologies.

You have to appeal to the "Child mind" which is where religion comes in. The "Child" is rather strong and as much as we like to think we are "Grown up" we still want to be the child we were and believe in magic.

I have only started to look into 'Archetypes' and consider them more prominent in our psychological make up then we give them credit for...

Sorry for the repost. I messed up a few quote tags in the original reply and I can't edit the post anymore. Thanks Kichi, for pointing this out.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You can't just point to a dictionary and think that you have resolved an
argument.

I can point to a dictionary and tell you that since you are not using the words as they mean, your argument is nonsensical.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Words simply aren't that concrete.

Yes, they are. In the sense that within a specific context they have specific meaning.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: As I had already pointed out, even our concept of "reason" changes as we learn more about the nature of reality. What we deem to be "unreasonable" at one point in time, suddenly becomes "reasonable" at another point in time. Our very understanding of what we deem to be "reasonable" chances dynamically.

Don't equate "reasonable" with "reason". "Reason" is the way we gain knowledge. "Reasonable" is our conclusion if the apparent knowledge gained is not contradictory to the knowledge we have. It is definitely expected that the idea of what is "reasonable" would change as knowledge grows, but reason itself does not change.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: So how could a dictionary even help in cases like this?

By indicating the content of current knowledge.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: If you could simply turn to a dictionary to decide every argument all of science and philosophy would be finished and there would be no mysteries left.

Nonsense. Not all arguments, just yours. When an argument is presented, before evaluating it, one has to make sure if makes sense. If it doesn't then there is no need to go any further. Once you start making sensible arguments, I wouldn't have to point out the semantic errors and we can move on to the content of the argument itself. As long as you don't the content is indecipherable.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Any time you want to know something just run off and see what the dictionary has to say about it.

Nah. I google.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You can't build a philosophy based on semantics.

Philosophy cannot be "based" on semantics. And it cannot be built without it either. A philosophy that does not even bother to learn the meaning of the words it is expressed in would be incoherent and self-contradictory.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: It simply doesn't provide a strong enough foundation to build upon. It would be like trying to build a house on quicksand.

And a philosophy without semantics is like a house built of quicksand.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That's totally false. I'm willing to discuss anything with anyone who is truly interested in the concept that I'm attempting to convey.

And how do you propose to convey the meaning if you don't use the words according to their meaning?

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: But if they are going to stand there with a dictionary attempting to try to claim what I mean based on dictionary definitions, that's would make communication impossible because they would be attempting to force concepts onto me rather than genuinely trying to understand the concepts that I'm trying to get at.

So we have established that you have no interest in the meaning of the words you are using to describe your concepts. How else is one supposed to understand what you are saying unless there is an objective standard for communication? Psychically?

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Like I say, I'm more interested in communication than in talking to a robot who just stands there arguing the semantics of words.

Communication without semantically correct communique is pointless. Neither party can be sure if the message was understood as it was intended.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: If you think I've misused a word, instead of arguing with me about the meaning of the word, just ask me to clarify my point.

Rather than misusing the words, its as if you don't understand what they mean and which premises must be true for the concepts represented by those words to be applicable.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That is the essence of true communication.

Communication requires that the communicating parties share an area of communicative commonality - in this case, words with objective meaning.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: And communication is the ultimate goal of speech. Not arguing about semantics.

Absence of semantics would make communication impossible.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: But let's face it, you're just extremely hostile to my concepts,

Because they don't make any sense.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: so you aren't the slightest bit interested in trying to understand them.

Because without semantically correct arguments, certain understanding is not possible.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: All you are interested in doing it creating a barrier where it's impossible to communicate at all an pretend that it's all my fault because I supposedly don't even have the ability to use words correctly.

What you don't have is the ability to grasp the inescapable premises that your arguments are intended to deny.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That's overly pompous on your part and totally false to boot.

That I'm exacting?

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: And that's why it would be a waste of time to attempt to communicate with you. Face it, you just don't want to hear it. And that's all there is to that.

As long as you have no intention of making a rational and self-consistent argument - no, there is not point in communication. But don't presume that if you do make such an argument, the its fallacies and errors won't be pointed out.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Just because witchcraft doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that it's nonsense.

Witchcraft - practices using something supernatural which is by definition beyond human understanding. How can it make sense when its very existence requires something that cannot make sense?

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You can't just point to a dictionary and think that you have resolved an
argument.

I can point to a dictionary and tell you that since you are not using the words as they mean, your argument is nonsensical.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Words simply aren't that concrete.

Yes, they are. In the sense that within a specific context they have specific meaning.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: As I had already pointed out, even our concept of "reason" changes as we learn more about the nature of reality. What we deem to be "unreasonable" at one point in time, suddenly becomes "reasonable" at another point in time. Our very understanding of what we deem to be "reasonable" chances dynamically.

Don't equate "reasonable" with "reason". "Reason" is the way we gain knowledge. "Reasonable" is our conclusion if the apparent knowledge gained is not contradictory to the knowledge we have. It is definitely expected that the idea of what is "reasonable" would change as knowledge grows, but reason itself does not change.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: So how could a dictionary even help in cases like this?

By indicating the content of current knowledge.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: If you could simply turn to a dictionary to decide every argument all of science and philosophy would be finished and there would be no mysteries left.

Nonsense. Not all arguments, just yours. When an argument is presented, before evaluating it, one has to make sure if makes sense. If it doesn't then there is no need to go any further. Once you start making sensible arguments, I wouldn't have to point out the semantic errors and we can move on to the content of the argument itself. As long as you don't the content is indecipherable.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Any time you want to know something just run off and see what the dictionary has to say about it.

Nah. I google.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You can't build a philosophy based on semantics.

Philosophy cannot be "based" on semantics. And it cannot be built without it either. A philosophy that does not even bother to learn the meaning of the words it is expressed in would be incoherent and self-contradictory.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: It simply doesn't provide a strong enough foundation to build upon. It would be like trying to build a house on quicksand.

And a philosophy without semantics is like a house built of quicksand.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That's totally false. I'm willing to discuss anything with anyone who is truly interested in the concept that I'm attempting to convey.

And how do you propose to convey the meaning if you don't use the words according to their meaning?

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: But if they are going to stand there with a dictionary attempting to try to claim what I mean based on dictionary definitions, that's would make communication impossible because they would be attempting to force concepts onto me rather than genuinely trying to understand the concepts that I'm trying to get at.

So we have established that you have no interest in the meaning of the words you are using to describe your concepts. How else is one supposed to understand what you are saying unless there is an objective standard for communication? Psychically?

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Like I say, I'm more interested in communication than in talking to a robot who just stands there arguing the semantics of words.

Communication without semantically correct communique is pointless. Neither party can be sure if the message was understood as it was intended.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: If you think I've misused a word, instead of arguing with me about the meaning of the word, just ask me to clarify my point.

Rather than misusing the words, its as if you don't understand what they mean and which premises must be true for the concepts represented by those words to be applicable.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That is the essence of true communication.

Communication requires that the communicating parties share an area of communicative commonality - in this case, words with objective meaning.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: And communication is the ultimate goal of speech. Not arguing about semantics.

Absence of semantics would make communication impossible.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: But let's face it, you're just extremely hostile to my concepts,

Because they don't make any sense.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: so you aren't the slightest bit interested in trying to understand them.

Because without semantically correct arguments, certain understanding is not possible.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: All you are interested in doing it creating a barrier where it's impossible to communicate at all an pretend that it's all my fault because I supposedly don't even have the ability to use words correctly.

What you don't have is the ability to grasp the inescapable premises that your arguments are intended to deny.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That's overly pompous on your part and totally false to boot.

That I'm exacting?

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: And that's why it would be a waste of time to attempt to communicate with you. Face it, you just don't want to hear it. And that's all there is to that.

As long as you have no intention of making a rational and self-consistent argument - no, there is not point in communication. But don't presume that if you do make such an argument, the its fallacies and errors won't be pointed out.

(February 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Just because witchcraft doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that it's nonsense.

Witchcraft - practices using something supernatural which is by definition beyond human understanding. How can it make sense when its very existence requires something that cannot make sense?

No worries genkaus...sorry if I messed up your original.

LOL< cross chatter in threads..that was strange.....

@ Abra
In other words? That witchcraft is nonsense has nothing to do with my "views of life", no amount of wishing on my part would change that. I can have a wonderful discussion about witchcraft with you, as long as you don't insist that it is real, because then we're not having a serious discussion. Which is unfortunate, because the subject is fascinating.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with respect.

In other words....anyone who believes in witchcraft has a few screws loose. Strange, because it seems to me that this is exactly what I said in the first place. Do you feel as though people are persecuting you, or refusing to respect you when they don't believe in magic?

(February 8, 2012 at 3:04 am)Rhythm Wrote: LOL< cross chatter in threads..that was strange.....

Just trying to entertain and inform you Rhythm

So? If you believe this to be the truth, then why not respect people who
believe in witchcraft? Shouldn't be any skin off your nose. Nobody's asking
you to donate funds to building a witch's college or anything like that.

Also, if you can explain my 'magic' in terms of science that wouldn't bother
me in the least. All you'd be doing is demonstrating that it always had a
scientific basis all along. I don't doubt that myself.



I agree. It's truly sad what happened during the burning times. Most of
those women were just midwives. Potentially athesits, pagans, and most
ironically the vast majority of the poor women were probably actually
Christians being persecuted by other Christians as "witches". It's one of the
saddest stories in all of history. Tortured and burned alive. How horrible.

All because of the superstition that Jesus and Satan are bitter enemies.

That's truly sad.



That's no reason to refuse to respect someone for their beliefs and views.

Respect, respect, respect. Have we moved on bickering about that now rather than dealing with whats actually being criticized? Which would be witchcraft. You do realize that you can respect a person while being completely opposed or even antagonistic to their beliefs, yes?
(for example, Tack seems like a nice guy, we'd probably get along just fine IRL, we get along okay here, but if his beliefs were walking around unaccompanied by his body, I'd probably stab them in the liver.)

As a quick aside. The witchcraft that had science behind it..became science, what was left behind was just trash,...and you should probably know that, being the history of hard sciences and all...you being a long time scientist.

(February 8, 2012 at 1:08 am)Abracadabra Wrote: witch·craft/ˈwiCHˌkraft/
Noun:
The practice of magic, esp. black magic; the use of spells and the invocation of spirits.

Especially black magic? Where the hell did they come up with that nonsense?

And what's a "spell"? That term right there is highly misunderstood and highly debated even among people who claim to practice "witchcraft". Many people who practice witchcraft as a religion don't even like to use the term "spell". They prefer to think in terms of psychic awareness and the orchestration of will via psychic channels. Replace the term "psychic" with "cerebral" and you could almost be a secular atheist and practice witchcraft at the same time.

Invocation of spirits? What does the term 'spirit' even mean to you?

I can call up a spirit anytime I want. But it may not fit your definition of what you require a 'spirit' to be.

Let's look at a simple definition again:

spir·it/ˈspirit/
Noun:
The nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.

Well, I can certainly call up my own spirit anytime I so desire. And if you are familiar with the concept of the Occultist's Qabalah (which you probably aren't) I can also call up any spirit associated with the Qabalah anytime I so desire.

Are those "spirits' just facets of my very own spirit? Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. Who's to say? Even I can't say for sure, and I'm the one who's been calling them up!

That's why I'm still an Agnostic Spiritualist. If I could say with absolute certainty that the spirits I invoke are not merely facets of my very own spirit, then I'd be a Gnostic Spiritualist instead of an Agnostic Spiritualist.

But to claim that I deserve no respect simply because I'm open-minded to concepts that can be loosely labeled as "witchcraft", is truly nothing more than your own closed-minded prejudice and conclusion-jumping that I somehow associate "witchcraft" with ideas that you might imagine it should be.

You're imagination of what "witchcraft" should be, and my imagination of what "witchcraft" should be may be like parallel universes and have basically nothing in common at all.

All you're doing is trying to push your ideas of "witchcraft" onto me and and then passing judgement on me based on your ideas of what you think "witchcraft" should be.

That's ridiculous.

The irrationality in witchcraft is that it believes that you can change reality just by willing it. That somehow simple intention (or expression of it), without associated action, can alter reality. This goes against the primary axiom of existence, i.e., existence exists independently of any consciousness. That is why witchcraft is illogical and irrational and anyone believing it works should be treated accordingly.

In before witchcraft is redefined as magic without anything magical.
(also..in before bickering over the definitions of "existence" and "reality"...lol..just to be sure)

(February 8, 2012 at 3:08 am)Abracadabra Wrote: That's no reason to refuse to respect someone for their beliefs and views.

A person respects something that he/she holds in esteem, i.e. considers to be worth something or of value. Your views and beliefs are of no value to me. In fact, they are of negative value. So no, they do not deserve any respect.