Tolerance: Can there be too much?

[Willie Lumplump]

One of my recent posts has raised the question of tolerance. What sorts of ideas should we tolerate, and what ideas should we not tolerate? Is it possible to have too much tolerance? What are the possible or probable consequences of too much tolerance?

I offer the following example of reasonable limits to tolerance: Anybody who exploits another person's emotional vulnerability by selling superstitious nonsense should expect to receive accusations. We as a society have retreated far into superstition from the time the Enlightenment, and today we routinely tolerate all manner of dangerous foolishness. I say "dangerous" because we need all our rational faculties to solve problems that threaten civilization and life on this planet. Who will stand up for reason and denounce superstition? We should, and I think that waccobb is a good place to do it.

[mykil]

There really can never been enough tolerance in our world Willie, argument is how wars are stared my friend. You may warn people of others abnormal behavior but even then you are crossing a few boundaries in my opinion, what ever happened to turn the other cheek? In this day and age we have to learn not to tolerate curtain aspects of our government behavior, but all in all it begin form someone somewhere not tolerating something somewhere and everything getting out of hand.

[Willie Lumplump]

In the past I've argued that to save the planet and each other we need to exercise our full powers of reason. We are not exercising our full powers of reason when we assert that "a" and "not a" are both true. That's a fundamental principle of logic. Here's "a": "There can really never been [sic] enough tolerance in our world." And here's "not a": "We have to learn not to tolerate certain aspects of our government [sic] behavior." If you are willing to believe that a proposition and its exact opposite are both true, then I contend that you are not in a good position to save the planet and human civilization, both of which are in grave danger. Furthermore, I'm absolutely convinced that our quasi-fascist goverment actively promotes this kind of irrationality. Here's "a": We seek peace and are willing to work with other countries to achieve it." "Here's "not a": "If we believe you to be a threat, we are justified in bombing you back into the stone age." The government wishes us to believe that both propositions are true. And, I dare say, most Americans do indeed have that belief. Every time you accept both "a" and "not a," you ease your slide toward irrationality, and it's irrationality, not intolerance, that is the basis of war.

[ThePhiant]

Wilie
please define

superstitious nonsense

please define

dangerous foolishness.

please define

Who will stand up for reason and denounce superstition

?
please define reason

We should, and I think that waccobb is a good place to do it.

I think that is going to be a hard one

[Willie Lumplump]

Wilie
please define...

I'm using all these terms in their generally accepted sense--no idiosyncrasies, no neologisms. Any dictionary will suffice.

[ThePhiant]

well, Mykil is a dangerous fool who spouts a lot of superstitious nonsense at times, but I don't think he even knows how to use a dictionary.
can you be a little bit more vague????

I'm using all these terms in their generally accepted sense--no idiosyncrasies, no neologisms. Any dictionary will suffice.

[mykil]

Willie; LULU wrote word for word my first script that I was going to reply with. I think that someone just rubbed you the wrong way a little and you got upset a littlie and decided to vent! If this is so no worries we all [well not me] get in a mood now and again! Peace, and I hope you feel better!!!!! Oh and LULU BITE ME!!!! LMAO!!!

well, Mykil is a dangerous fool who spouts a lot of superstitious nonsense at times, but I don't think he even knows how to use a dictionary.
can you be a little bit more vague????

[Willie Lumplump]

Willie; LULU wrote word for word my first script that I was going to reply with. I think that someone just rubbed you the wrong way a little and you got upset a littlie and decided to vent! If this is so no worries we all [well not me] get in a mood now and again! Peace, and I hope you feel better!!!!! Oh and LULU BITE ME!!!! LMAO!!!

[/quote]

I'm criticizing certain ways of thinking, not you personally. And I'm not immune from the kinds of thinking that I'm criticizing. Sometimes I just can't seem to get over an irrational idea, and I just have to make up my mind to recognize its irrationality and live with it. In fact, a superstitious idea that has troubled me off-and-on for 25 years has just popped up again recently. I imagine that I'll take this nonsense with me to my grave, but to my last breath I'll recognize it as nonsense.

[Willie Lumplump]

well, Mykil is a dangerous fool who spouts a lot of superstitious nonsense at times, but I don't think he even knows how to use a dictionary. can you be a little bit more vague????

Perhaps you could be a little less vague about what I'm being vague about?

[Braggi]

Perhaps you could be a little less vague about what I'm being vague about?

Willie, it's your topic in general. Not everyone gets it. In addition, you said use a dictionary when definitions from your personal view would make more sense. Sometimes a dictionary doesn't say what somebody means, if you get my drift.

In response to your question, I think it's less an issue of tolerance than one of trust. I've had problems with this issue all my life. When someone said something I was pretty sure was wrong, I felt the need to inject my superior knowledge into the mix. Sometimes it was welcome, but more often it was not. I (Sometimes I was embarrassingly wrong, but that's an aside.) It's a real yoga for me to keep a handle on that one, be conscious of when it comes up for me (before I open my big mouth, that is) and then decide whether it is proper to correct the person or statement. Diplomacy is key as is the ability to just let it go if that's the best response.

What I really have trouble with is the same thing you have trouble with: the True Believers. It's fairly easy to cure someone of their ignorance, assuming even a basic level of communication and trust. However, it's very difficult to cure someone who "believes," whether that belief is right or wrong. It won't matter how many studies or experts you trot out, a belief is a belief.

It takes a lot of trust for someone to allow you to challenge their beliefs. Most people don't trust us that much nor will they ever. That's just how it is. They probably shouldn't.

-Jeff

PS. It is kinda weird, however, that these folks are often the same ones complaining that the schools don't teach critical thinking. Eh?

[ThePhiant]

you said use a dictionary when definitions from your personal view would make more sense.

Sometimes a dictionary doesn't say what somebody means, if you get my drift.

couldn't have said it better myself

What I really have trouble with is the same thing you have trouble with: the True Believers. It's fairly easy to cure someone of their ignorance, assuming even a basic level of communication and trust. However, it's very difficult to cure someone who "believes," whether that belief is right or wrong. It won't matter how many studies or experts you trot out, a belief is a belief.

I once asked a christian methodist, who believes that the earth exist for only 5000 years, how he could explain dinosaur bones, he said God likes to test our faith in him!
I doesn't get any better than that!!!

[ThePhiant]

Perhaps you could be a little less vague about what I'm being vague about?

OK that is fair enough, well let me repeat myself
Wilie
please define

Quote:

superstitious nonsense

please define


Quote:

dangerous foolishness.

please define


Quote:

Who will stand up for reason and denounce superstition

?
please define reason

[Willie Lumplump]

OK that is fair enough, well let me repeat myself
Wilie
please define

Quote:

superstitious nonsense

...

If you ask me to define a word, I'm not about to compete with Webster's International Dictionary--or any other dictionary, for that matter. Our ability to communicate depends upon a shared understanding of what individual words mean, and those meanings are set down in dictionaries. To the extent that we invest words with meanings known only to ourselves, we reduce our power to communicate. Is it possible that you're really meaning to ask a different question? Is it that your asking for examples rather than definitions?

[Willie Lumplump]

Willie, it's your topic in general. Not everyone gets it. In addition, you said use a dictionary when definitions from your personal view would make more sense. Sometimes a dictionary doesn't say what somebody means, if you get my drift....

I'm not sure I've found the thread that ties together all your thoughts. Anyway, about "definitions from your personal view," I addressed this point in a post to ThePhiant. Generally I'd expect a word to lose its usefulness to the extent that a personalized definition departs from a dictionary definition. Although, I suppose one might explicitly provide a new meaning. I remember Humpty Dumpty's reply to Alice when she challenged his definition of a word. He said something to the effect that "it means whatever I say it means, neither more nor less. It's simply a question of who is to be the master." I'll have to look up the exact quote.

[Braggi]

Anyway, about "definitions from your personal view," I addressed this point in a post to ThePhiant.

OK, Willie. You're using phrases and ThePhiant asked what you meant. You've refused to define what you mean so give some specific examples.

Please give some examples of "dangerous foolishness." Please denounce some "superstition(s)" for us. Maybe then we'll know what the Hel you're talking about.

One person's most cherished belief is another person's dangerous superstition. Change people and the situation reverses. Only examples can describe where an individual is coming from even if both people agree completely on the definitions of the words.

-Jeff

[Willie Lumplump]

OK, Willie. You're using phrases and ThePhiant asked what you meant. You've refused to define what you mean so give some specific examples.

Please give some examples of "dangerous foolishness." Please denounce some "superstition(s)" for us. Maybe then we'll know what the Hel you're talking about.

One person's most cherished belief is another person's dangerous superstition. Change people and the situation reverses. Only examples can describe where an individual is coming from even if both people agree completely on the definitions of the words.

-Jeff

First, here are the definitions of superstition that I copied from dictionary.com. Of course, the same definitions are available to anyone, and that's why I haven't provided them before.

1.	a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.

2.	a system or collection of such beliefs.

3.	a custom or act based on such a belief.

4.	irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.

5.	any blindly accepted belief or notion.

Before listing some superstitions, I'd like to address the notion that "one person's most cherished belief is another person's dangerous superstition." This in itself is a dangerous notion because it implies that logic is relative.
And if logic is seen as relative, we have nothing to anchor us to reality. Let me give an example: "All zebras have stripes. Here is an animal with stripes. Therefore this animal is a zebra." That argument is fallaceous. It is illogical. Its illogic doesn't depend on your point of view. Even if my point of view is as culturally determined as yours, even if you are as smart as I am, even if your intentions are as good as mine, that argument is still illogical. Even if we both agree that the argument is valid, or even if everyone on earth agrees that it is valid, it is still illogical.

The zebra case is an example of one kind of illogic. Other kinds of illogic have to do with rules of evidence. It is illogical to believe in a proposition for which there is no evidence. There is no evidence to support to the validity of tarot, therefore it is illogical to believe in it. Furthermore, tarot is invested with an ominous significance. Therefore, tarot meets the definition of a superstition. The fact that you might believe that it's valid doesn't change a thing. It is still a superstition.

Examples of other superstitions are belief in spirit guides, astral projection, and astrology. Scientology is partly a hoax which does not, by itself, make it a superstition. However, since its claim to validity is based partly on a preposterous and illogical belief in powerful beings who came to this planet during the Jurassic Period, I would include it as a superstition.

Superstitions in general tend to be dangerous because they tend to undermine our ability to reason by creating a mental arena within which rules of logic don't apply. And I would say that that the boundaries of this arena probably are not fixed. If the boundaries shift and contaminate areas of reason that we depend on for our survival, we are in real trouble. On a smaller scale, if an individual is having emotional problems, and if that individual seeks help through the practice of a superstition such as tarot (as one wacco member did recently), there is a significant possibility of long-term harm. Not only would the person in need forego valid treatment, his (or her, in this case) ability to reason logically would also be compromised, and in the long run the loss of the ability to reason is bound to be deleterious.

[Neshamah]

In the past I've argued that to save the planet and each other we need to exercise our full powers of reason. We are not exercising our full powers of reason when we assert that "a" and "not a" are both true. That's a fundamental principle of logic.

Yes, but we are not always in a position to say whether 'a' or '~a' is correct. I'd rather allow both positions, and then at least some people will be right.

I prefer to err on the side of being too tolerant and too permissive, rather than try to enforce anyone's necessarily imperfect conception of the truth. When it comes to beliefs, I tolerate all kinds of things I am certain are wrong. I do so because repressing any beliefs opens the door to repressing correct beliefs. Repressing strongly held beliefs is likely to do far more harm than permitting those beliefs to be held. Obviously tolerance cannot be unlimited. I for example tolerate the killing of the unborn because unborn children are still linked to the mother. However, I am much less tolerant when it comes to the killing of adults.


~ Neshamah


P.S. Logic requires assumptions. Those who make use of astrology adopt assumptions that most of us would reject, but that does not mean there are not some who apply astrology logically within their framework. Assumptions are generally kept by at least some people for as long as they work. Lots of people lead perfectly happy lives following assumptions that are likely false, but just because something is not true does not mean it will not work. If they are happy and are not hurting anyone, then I think their assumptions are just fine.

P.P.S. The issue is less clear when those assumptions are likely to cause harm. Even there, as long as the harm is limited to that person or to children within that person's care, the overall happiness of everyone is greater when people can follow their own assumptions and make their own mistakes.

P.P.P.S. Iraq would likely be a better place if everyone adopted democracy and placed less emphasis on whether a person is a Sunni or a Shiite. However, we create much greater harm by trying to impose this 'better' worldview, then by letting people and cultures face the consequences of their own decisions.

[mykil]

OK; now you really have my attention! Is there anyway in hell you can elaborate on this superstition, irritation form the past? Please, I am for real and want to know what could be bothering you for all these years? I am curious for my own personal gain and would be most grateful if you may go into a few details! Peace!

I'm criticizing certain ways of thinking, not you personally. And I'm not immune from the kinds of thinking that I'm criticizing. Sometimes I just can't seem to get over an irrational idea, and I just have to make up my mind to recognize its irrationality and live with it. In fact, a superstitious idea that has troubled me off-and-on for 25 years has just popped up again recently. I imagine that I'll take this nonsense with me to my grave, but to my last breath I'll recognize it as nonsense.

[Willie Lumplump]

Yes, but we are not always in a position to say whether 'a' or '~a' is correct. I'd rather allow both positions, and then at least some people will be right.

Global warming is happening. Global warming is not happening. Let's believe both so that at least some people will be right. Blacks are an inferior race. Blacks are not an inferior race. Let's believe both so at least some people will be right. AIDS is caused by the HIV virus. AIDS is not caused by the HIV virus. Let's believe both so that at least some people will be right.

I prefer to err on the side of being too tolerant and too permissive, rather than try to enforce anyone's necessarily imperfect conception of the truth. When it comes to beliefs, I tolerate all kinds of things I am certain are wrong.

Well, when they come for you to drag you away to Guantanamo to be tortured and held without right of habeus corpus, don't complain. It's wrong of course, but you tolerated it when the same thing happened to others.

Logic requires assumptions. Those who make use of astrology adopt assumptions that most of us would reject, but that does not mean there are not some who apply astrology logically within their framework.

National Socialism requires assumptions. Most people reject those assumptions, but that doesn't mean that there aren't some who apply National Socialism logically within their framework. If the assumptions of a belief system are false, it's irrelevant whether or not the assumptions are applied logically.

Iraq would likely be a better place if everyone adopted democracy and placed less emphasis on whether a person is a Sunni or a Shiite. However, we create much greater harm by trying to impose this 'better' worldview, then by letting people and cultures face the consequences of their own decisions.

You are under the impression that the United States wishes to impose democracy in Iraq? Then why has the U.S. overthrown so many democratically elected governments around the world and installed brutal dictators?

[Willie Lumplump]

OK; now you really have my attention! Is there anyway in hell you can elaborate on this superstition, irritation form the past? Please, I am for real and want to know what could be bothering you for all these years? I am curious for my own personal gain and would be most grateful if you may go into a few details! Peace!

OK. Fair enough. My first wife and I divorced 25 years ago. We divorced not because we didn't love each other but because we were torn apart by forces that seemed beyond our control and by small-minded friends and family who pushed their own agendas at our expense. I am a naturalist, that is, I don't believe in anything supernatural, like God for instance. Nevertheless, for many years I had the sense that my wife and I had committed a great sin, an unforgivable sin for which there must be terrible punishment. Sometimes I still sense echoes of that belief. Yet, I don't believe in God and therefore can't believe in sin. So my sense of sin is illogical--even superstitious.

[mykil]

It all comes back to god now doesn’t it? I myself am a Recovering Christian and am proud of it! I just assume our elders in our past wrote allot of those in that particular period in time as sort of a guide to live by. You have to admit, not killing or stealing or fucking thy friend’s wife was a good trait to live by and still is. Yet I think as we evolve in our time we have to let go of certain aspects of the big book and really sit back and laugh. In this we can see the good and the bad and really get a sense of where we were, where we are and where on earth or beyond we are headed. Putting up with another’s belief system is as old as the hills, to me this is kind of like putting up with republicans! I don’t adhere to there wayz in life, nor do I wish too! Yet they are people too! When you were younger, you were younger. Let the past go and you will be free, try living in the now and let go of the pain in your heart is the only way of life for me Willie. Give into the now and you too will be FREE WILLIE! Living in the past and letting certain aspects of you pain resurface is not an evolution, more of stepping backwards and not living up to your full potential. There are a number of wayz to rid your soul and body of reoccurring bad trauma. Massage for one works miracles! Looking up your lovely ex wife and having a meaningful conversation may promote closure as well, or spark way more hellish memories eh? Peace!

OK. Fair enough. My first wife and I divorced 25 years ago. We divorced not because we didn't love each other but because we were torn apart by forces that seemed beyond our control and by small-minded friends and family who pushed their own agendas at our expense. I am a naturalist, that is, I don't believe in anything supernatural, like God for instance. Nevertheless, for many years I had the sense that my wife and I had committed a great sin, an unforgivable sin for which there must be terrible punishment. Sometimes I still sense echoes of that belief. Yet, I don't believe in God and therefore can't believe in sin. So my sense of sin is illogical--even superstitious.

[Neshamah]

Willie Lumplump,

Here's what I said:

Quote:

Neshamah wrote:
Yes, but we are not always in a position to say whether 'a' or '~a' is correct. I'd rather allow both positions, and then at least some people will be right.

In the examples you cite, we are in a position to say which is correct. I stated that I choose to err on the side of being too permissive. That does not mean I think everything should be permitted. I agree with you that there can be too much tolerance, but in general, I think lack of tolerance is the greater problem. When excessive intolerance becomes acceptable, it is just as easy to repress the correct views as the incorrect ones, and the U.S. government thrives on marginalizing or repressing views it does not tolerate.

You are under the impression that the United States wishes to impose democracy in Iraq? Then why has the U.S. overthrown so many democratically elected governments around the world and installed brutal dictators?

The U.S. does as it pleases because it is no longer accountable to the voters, partly because so many do not vote, and partly because our government and media have become intolerant of views outside of a narrow spectrum represented by Guiliani on one end and Clinton on the other.

I usually agree with you; this is a new experience.


~ Neshamah

[Braggi]

Before listing some superstitions, I'd like to address the notion that "one person's most cherished belief is another person's dangerous superstition." This in itself is a dangerous notion because it implies that logic is relative.
And if logic is seen as relative, we have nothing to anchor us to reality. Let me give an example: "All zebras have stripes. Here is an animal with stripes. Therefore this animal is a zebra." That argument is fallaceous.

And your writing appears to me to be pointless. Get to the point. I'm trying to direct you there and you keep sliding into ... uselessness.

I'm not sure what you're up to with this thread, Willie. You've given us nothing to work with. What are you complaining about? I've taken my best guess and you claim to not know what thread I was responding to. I feel insulted by that response.

Allow me to expand on my point and see if it fits with you: on one hand we have a fundy Christian and on the other a fundy Muslim. Both have beliefs and both believe their beliefs are the only safe belief and the other's belief is a dangerous superstition. We are not talking about zebras here. I'm trying to draw you into a serious discussion. If it doesn't work, I'll give up on this thread.

So, should these two folks be tolerant of each others' beliefs or should they just attempt to kill each other knowing they can never save the other through conversion? They both KNOW for certain the other is wrong.

I don't think either is being too tolerant to just let sleeping dogs lie. Better that they discuss the weather and move on into their separate lives. I think this is both possible and reasonable. Reason dictates they behave and tolerate each other. That isn't dangerous. To do otherwise is unreasonable and could be dangerous. Yet both are living a superstition in my opinion. It's only dangerous if it gets dangerous.

What do you think, Willie?

I'll take on spirit guides and tarot in another post or two.

-Jeff

[ThePhiant]

YOU LOVED EACH OTHER???????????????????????????
what kind of irrational poppycock is that!!!!!!
Love doesn't exist! because you can't prove it's existence
therefore your statement is irrational and illogical
if you can prove to me that love exist, clancy will give you another $1000 and Mykil will give you a kiss.
PROVE IT!!! Dr. HumpHump

OK. Fair enough. My first wife and I divorced 25 years ago. We divorced not because we didn't love each other but because we were torn apart by forces that seemed beyond our control and by small-minded friends and family who pushed their own agendas at our expense. I am a naturalist, that is, I don't believe in anything supernatural, like God for instance. Nevertheless, for many years I had the sense that my wife and I had committed a great sin, an unforgivable sin for which there must be terrible punishment. Sometimes I still sense echoes of that belief. Yet, I don't believe in God and therefore can't believe in sin. So my sense of sin is illogical--even superstitious.

[Braggi]

OK, Willie, allow me to inform you of the completely reasonable and rational way I use Spirit Guides in my own life in a way that is safe and does not preclude my making rational decisions. I'll simplify for the sake of brevity.

I have ancestors, both direct and indirect that have died. These ancestors all had knowledge that could be considered "wisdom" if that knowledge is applied to problem solving. One of those ancestors is my father. Another is my grandfather. Another is my son. When confronted with a problem, I often search my mind looking for an answer. Sometimes, it makes sense for me to imagine that my father, or some other ancestor, would want me to apply wisdom and experience from their lives to help me solve my problem. By attempting to view my problem through the eyes of my ancestor, I am using the power of a Spirit Guide to help me solve my problem. Sometimes I even take it so far back I imagine what lessons a cave man would want me to know to help me make the most of a situation or survive a crisis.

I think this process is completely rational and the farthest thing from dangerous. I'm calling upon the wisdom of my ancestors and I'm astonished how often absolutely perfect answers arise from my Spiritual questioning.

I leave it to you to determine whether I'm just taking an extra moment to ponder my situation and coming up with a better answer due to my attentiveness or whether I'm tapping into a Cosmic, Supernatural, Spiritual consciousness that I'm channeling. I don't question the source. I'm sure it's just my own best and most reasonable self coming up with the answer I know is best. But sometimes it sure does feel like I'm communing with the Spirits.

Dangerous? Not for me. What do you think?

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

One of my recent posts has raised the question of tolerance. What sorts of ideas should we tolerate, and what ideas should we not tolerate? Is it possible to have too much tolerance? What are the possible or probable consequences of too much tolerance?

So you are asking a question about tolerating ideas, not about tolerating people (who have intolerable ideas).

And from what you write elsewhere I take it you mean by "not tolerating" an idea:" not letting it pass without critique, as in your post about tarot and a person who offers tarot readings (a message that somehow disappeared in the digital void ).

There is also the meaning of "not tolerating an idea" as silencing the person who utters or promotes the idea.

Unfortunately the two meanings are sometimes conflated by people who consider even politice criticism as an effort to silence a person. Critical Thinking is then seen as negative, aggressive thinking.

I don't think one should always critique an opinion one think is incorrect. It's a matter of prioritizing and of context. But in principle for any idea we should create contexts where people can critique it without retribution.

And in principle we should never silence a person for their ideas.

That's why Barry created "Censored & Un-Censored," as a space for the Strong where you enter at your own risk. I think the only rule there is that you cannot attack people personally, which is what you kind of did in your original tarot posting.

But we are here talking about tolerating ideas.

Which leaves me with the question whether there are certain ideas that only can be discussed under the "Censored & Un-Censored" rubric. Jokes about gender, race, religion, etc. apparently.

And what about tarot? Should any advocacy of tarot be restricted to the dangerous ideas of the "Censored & Un-Censored" rubric since it goes so much against reason that those who care for reason need to be warned?

[ChristineL]

...

Superstitions in general tend to be dangerous because they tend to undermine our ability to reason by creating a mental arena within which rules of logic don't apply. ...

You're assuming that if someone has a belief system, (which you have decided is a superstition), they have taken leave of their logic, are incapable of critical thinking and are dangerous. Are you aware that many of the people who have the most respect for this planet of ours and have advocated keeping it balanced for generatins do so out of their spiritual beliefs, i.e.; many Native American Tribes (those very tribes who went to the Capitol prior to the dropping of the Abombs on Japan to beg the President not to do this), those who follow the Celtic traditions, the Buddhists and others.

When the Native Americans went to Washington they basically stated that the balance of things would require that if we dropped the "gourd of ashes" on another country, it would eventually be dropped on us. Not only spiritual, but damn logical...don't you think?

Then there's the Kabalists, whose theories on the origins of our solar system and all matter being in constant motion were proven out scientifically in the last century. The "big bang theory" and all matter is made up of atoms which are in constant motion.

Since my earliest childhood I saw and knew things I had no way of seeing and knowing. I was almost always right...I was born with six senses as opposed to five. I have studied Tarot, Palmistry and Numerology. I would never suggest readings can take the place of therapy and have often suggested therapy to clients I considered beyond my scope. Readings are a form of guidance system and I have convinced many a skeptic and non-believer of their validity through a simple short reading. The modern "science" of Palmistry was founded by a gentleman named Behnam who was a medical doctor in the late 1800's, early 1900's. He noticed patients suffering the same diseases had the same marks in their hands; on the lines, the finger joints, nails, etc. The only problem with his book is the cultural biases of his time. He literally photographed and made prints of thousands of hands. It works...it's amazing how much can be seen about a total stranger through a close look at their hands. Come on Willie, broaden your mind a little...the book is called the "The Laws of Scientific Hand Reading" by William G. Benham. Out of print but findable.

I agree that any extremism in belief, and the need to prove to be the only ones that are right, are at the root of many wars and other horrors. This usually happens when beliefs become organizations and the few want to control the many. I too am a "recovering Catholic". Those of the Celtic traditions, Kabalists like myself, Shamans of the Native American tribes (as well as African ones, etc.), and Buddhists don't put a lot of energy into fighting wars to prove themselves right, take over the world, destroy the planet in the name of a God-given right to dominate it or into converting others.

I will also concede there are many quacks in my profession. However, there are many quack psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, medical doctors...etc., etc. Even those professions are the products of "belief systems". For example, no other western country seems to have such a strong belief in wide-spread ADD and the necessity for widespread use of psychotropic drugs to treat children who don't conform.

Just for the record, I've had enough therapy (with with carefully chosen genuine Western therapists with degrees) to have confirmed that I am relatively (I don't believe anyone is 100%) mentally/emotionally healthy. (At least within our Cultural belief system of what that is.)

I would consider your total atheism to be illogical, along with your insistence that any kind of spiritual belief system is superstition and potentially "dangerous".

Oh, and I do (as I'm sure many of our members do) know all striped animals are not zebras just as I know if I hear hoof beats...it could be a zebra...but chances are it's not.

Remember, there was a time in Western History when people like me, and you for that matter, were so little tolerated we were burned at the stake, pressed to death, drowned and hanged. This usually happened after being tortured. Of course, all this came out of a set of superstitions by your way of thinking, extremism and need from the few to control the many by mine. As much discrimination and "judgement" as I may encounter, I am grateful I don't have to worry about that.

[ChristineL]

...

And what about tarot? Should any advocacy of tarot be restricted to the dangerous ideas of the "Censored & Un-Censored" rubric since it goes so much against reason that those who care for reason need to be warned?

Those who care so much for "reason" need no warning and can just decide not to read the posts, no matter where they appear. It's a little like turning off the TV when you object to the program...Maybe we should have a special section for Scholars...

[mykil]

uh-oh here we go again, will you two get a room!

[Willie Lumplump]

Looking up your lovely ex wife and having a meaningful conversation may promote closure as well, or spark way more hellish memories eh? Peace!

I just yesterday talked to my ex wife for the first time in 25 years, and we did find closure, but it worked out a little too well, and now I have another big problem. Oh, well. What did I expect? Peace?