How to select which supernatural to believe?

[Nay_Sayer]

I usually go with this supernatural.

[Belacqua]

Basically, how you interpret something is how you frame it, and different ways of framing the same information can result in different insights, so in the case of something like therapy, it makes sense to have something that resonates with the individual, like you say, to help unpack and make sense of the mind. Doesn't really matter if it's the truth or just a useful perspective, because if nothing else, the journey itself will probably lead to insights its own.

I think this is the key point. When I talk here about poetry or talk therapy -- or even tarot -- as providing insight, I'm not talking about science-type data. It may be best to avoid the word "truth" and just go with "best interpretation." Or "insight" or "wisdom." 

Here I'm talking about what the phenomenologists call the "life-world." This is not the world of science, but the inner world we experience. It's where we live. And this world is formed from the very beginning by our interaction with culture, and all the symbols that culture requires. All our meanings, values, and desires are here. 

So deepening our understanding of ourselves and this lived experience occurs through further interaction with culture and symbols.

[emjay]

Basically, how you interpret something is how you frame it, and different ways of framing the same information can result in different insights, so in the case of something like therapy, it makes sense to have something that resonates with the individual, like you say, to help unpack and make sense of the mind. Doesn't really matter if it's the truth or just a useful perspective, because if nothing else, the journey itself will probably lead to insights its own.

I think this is the key point. When I talk here about poetry or talk therapy -- or even tarot -- as providing insight, I'm not talking about science-type data. It may be best to avoid the word "truth" and just go with "best interpretation." Or "insight" or "wisdom." 

Here I'm talking about what the phenomenologists call the "life-world." This is not the world of science, but the inner world we experience. It's where we live. And this world is formed from the very beginning by our interaction with culture, and all the symbols that culture requires. All our meanings, values, and desires are here. 

So deepening our understanding of ourselves and this lived experience occurs through further interaction with culture and symbols.

Yeah, I think we're probably talking about different things here. What I was mainly thinking of was that for any subject, beit psychology or anything else, there can be multiple schools of thought, and not any of them in particular is necessarily the definitive, objective truth, but collectively or individually they may still represent some partial truth, an approximation of the truth, or even just a useful personal truth.

But clearly you're talking about something else. I have to admit I often find it quite confusing exactly what you're trying to get at with your talk of symbolism etc, but ultimately I think that comes down to the difference between our personalities... you seem to describe a very rich inner world of seeking experience for the sake of experience... of basically mindful experience. For example, when I was younger I used to write obsessively and religiously, journalling basically, but always with a view of analysis, so I'd analyze my experiences and my mind and that's where I then and now mostly found/find my joy. Whether any of those theories was a definitive, objective truth, or even partial truth, is anybody's guess, but what they certainly were were useful personal truths, formative... part of the journey.

But of all that writing, the proportion dedicated to experience for experience's sake...ie literally or figuratively stopping and smelling the roses... was very small. In fact all I can really remember on that score was writing about a Blackbird that I happened to observe once. Whereas for you I'm guessing you spend a lot of time smelling the roses, immersing yourself in experience for experience's sake, no questions asked, no analysis undertaken. That seems to be the main difference between us.

[Jehanne]

That you would, apparently, claim that no evidence for God is sufficient in the present while claiming that we are incapable of dismissing any evidences given for God in the past?

Yeah, sorry, that doesn't square with what I posted at the beginning of this thread.

Is the Donation of Constantine authentic (that is, written by Emperor Constantine), or, was it a later forgery?

[Belacqua]

Yeah, I think we're probably talking about different things here. What I was mainly thinking of was that for any subject, beit psychology or anything else, there can be multiple schools of thought, and not any of them in particular is necessarily the definitive, objective truth, but collectively or individually they may still represent some partial truth, an approximation of the truth, or even just a useful personal truth.

Ah, I see what you mean. 

Yes, I don't think that psychology or the arts find truths, the way math or science do. Like knowing what atoms make a particular molecule is something that can be demonstrated by multiple people in multiple ways -- objective, repeatable, empirical, etc. 

But the various schools and approaches of the more aesthetic methods are, as you say, not definitive or objective. 

It might make sense to say that the objective sciences discover truths, while the arts and the talking-cure types of psychology build useful structures. Like if you've put together a narrative that makes sense of how you got to be the way you are, it can serve as a solid place to stand while you think about your future. Cynics might say it doesn't even matter if it's historically true, as long as it works. 

But clearly you're talking about something else. I have to admit I often find it quite confusing exactly what you're trying to get at with your talk of symbolism etc, but ultimately I think that comes down to the difference between our personalities... you seem to describe a very rich inner world of seeking experience for the sake of experience... of basically mindful experience. For example, when I was younger I used to write obsessively and religiously, journalling basically, but always with a view of analysis, so I'd analyze my experiences and my mind and that's where I then and now mostly found/find my joy. Whether any of those theories was a definitive, objective truth, or even partial truth, is anybody's guess, but what they certainly were were useful personal truths, formative... part of the journey.

But of all that writing, the proportion dedicated to experience for experience's sake...ie literally or figuratively stopping and smelling the roses... was very small. In fact all I can really remember on that score was writing about a Blackbird that I happened to observe once. Whereas for you I'm guessing you spend a lot of time smelling the roses, immersing yourself in experience for experience's sake, no questions asked, no analysis undertaken. That seems to be the main difference between us.

This is a really interesting analysis for me to read, and I'm grateful that you took the time to write it. 

It's true that my whole life has been about the experience of beauty. All my training is in the arts, and what little I know of religion or philosophy has come about by trying to understand the arts better. And if my study of the intellectual subjects is lacking, it's because I tend to approach them also as aesthetic experience. 

I do a certain kind of analysis on these experiences, but you're right that it's not generally aimed at finding some kind of truth that I can restate in a conceptual way. (With the exception of some stuff I wrote about one artist's historical development, which was supposed to be accurate history.) 

The model for me here, I guess, is what Socrates says in the Phaedrus about Greek myths. His companion asks him if he thinks the myths are true, and Socrates says he doesn't care about that -- he only reads the myths for what they can tell him about himself. All the Greats are this way, and that's why we read them, I think. Trash literature acts like psychoanalysis in reverse, and hides us from ourselves. But the Greats reveal.

[Angrboda]

Yeah, sorry, that doesn't square with what I posted at the beginning of this thread.

Is the Donation of Constantine authentic (that is, written by Emperor Constantine), or, was it a later forgery?

You remind me of Brian37. When I first got to AF and openly advertised my Hinduism, he would stalk me in threads, demanding that I prove that my Hindu god exists, claiming that I had an obligation to do so. It was funny in a pathetic kind of way.

[Jehanne]

Is the Donation of Constantine authentic (that is, written by Emperor Constantine), or, was it a later forgery?

You remind me of Brian37. When I first got to AF and openly advertised my Hinduism, he would stalk me in threads, demanding that I prove that my Hindu god exists, claiming that I had an obligation to do so. It was funny in a pathetic kind of way.

I do not engage in such behavior. When I come to the Board, I pick 'Today's Posts' and go from there. I pay attention to threads that I have posted in.

[Angrboda]

You remind me of Brian37.  When I first got to AF and openly advertised my Hinduism, he would stalk me in threads, demanding that I prove that my Hindu god exists, claiming that I had an obligation to do so.  It was funny in a pathetic kind of way.

I do not engage in such behavior.  When I come to the Board, I pick 'Today's Posts' and go from there.  I pay attention to threads that I have posted in.

Sure, sure. Whatever you say. Ask me about the Donatio again. Go on. You know you want to.

[Jehanne]

I do not engage in such behavior.  When I come to the Board, I pick 'Today's Posts' and go from there.  I pay attention to threads that I have posted in.

Sure, sure. Whatever you say. Ask me about the Donatio again. Go on. You know you want to.

Donatio Constantini.

[Angrboda]

Sure, sure.  Whatever you say.  Ask me about the Donatio again.  Go on.  You know you want to.

Donatio Constantini.

Thanks, professor. Now go look up the definition of metonym for me. Much obliged.