Page 1 of 1


Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:50 pm
by forever
I am asking an honest question and requesting a response from all who read it.

People threw off religion and ran to RSE as well as other groups that professed to have answers that religion didn't/doesn't provide. We took a journey through Ramthaland and here we are. Coming out of it, waking up. Asking questions. Connecting and disconnecting dots. Hopefully we are here not prove an individual point or to be right or wrong. Hopefully we are here to access and share information that is instrumental in educating and healing.

In the process (key word) i shared an unimaginable personal experience. That to me is sacred. In doing so it created a firestorm (imo) that leads to this post and the questions i am now asking as a result and within the framework of connecting dots and making the correlation between religion, cults and pseudoscience. In an attempt to achieve clarity and deeper understanding of brainwashing, mind control and pseudoscience. I am asking for an honest debate without any attack on anyone for their opinion.

Words carry an impact. Things like compound, cult, mind control, pseudoscience that many connect to RSE. That are imo accurate. I am defining and correlating.

Question: In examining RSE objectively (i hope) and taking it apart piece by piece starting with the cornerstone of, "consciousness and energy creates the nature of reality". Then bringing in quantum mechanics/physics (their version) to prove it. That is the pseudoscience. They use teachings on the brain (without providing a valid source) In Phoenix Rising the children are exploited to advertise for RSE with the focus being on the brain. In other words what a person believes becomes reality/physical.

Question: How is religion different than consciousness and energy creates the nature of reality?
Religion teaches we are saved by "faith". To just believe. That God can heal of us anything if we just believe.

What is the difference between what RSE teaches just believe. And what religion teaches-just believe?

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 7:54 pm
by forever
Patience please. I am wading through information. Perhaps it should be titled defining delusion/reality rather than pseudoscience?

Joe, i ask you to explain the difference between the mental health definition of delusion/reality compared to the accepted practice within the religious community. Then in defining reality i posted a question of the difference between RSE doctrine compared to religion. In this post i am tying all three together, mental health, religion. RSE. In questioning "reality".

In the mental field anyone that has or talks to something invisible is considered delusional, unstable, disturbed? While in religion it's considered perfectly "normal"?

Both RSE and religion are based on something unproven and teach-just believe. But within the mental health field the same thing is diagnosed as mental illness? How does one define the difference between delusion vs reality?

If someone is religious and something remarkable happens it's automatically accredited to their God. Is that dissonance...?

I am using three models in questioning/defining, analyzing the difference between delusion vs reality. It's unsettling to see that the bottom line seems to read the same, that "reality" is whatever someone believes? Scary.

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:02 pm
by joe sz
excellent questions, forever.
careful, you might become a "philosopher." :shock: Philosophy is not about is about refining the questions that lead to better answers. Philosophy is the Great Debate.
I have been writing a monograph that addresses the questions you ask because they are the very questions most former cult members have asked and i have had to somehow struggle to answer them during interventions or post-cult conversations.

I have to go to work now, (at the mental hospital) but i will post soon ;-)

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:46 pm
by forever

I have cut my teeth on EMF breaking away from RSE, regaining myself. The tough questions have to be ask. Emf is a library for people that are struggling to comprehend RSE yes, but isn't limited to RSE. Not only are the similarities between religion and RSE scary-but the same abuse and control tactics are methodically used in domestic abuse. Control is control. If you were to go to a domestic violence shelter it's the same trauma and fear and self doubt. People so mind raped, brainwashed and deflated they have no inner resources left to draw from.

The answers to the questions i have ask give someone a broader awareness and picture so they won't go from one deception to another.

Philosopher? :lol:

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 2:39 pm
by joe sz
pseudo science, religion, RSE.
no discussion can proceed without some definition of terms and premises.
Over the years a few EMF posters have accused me of having "an agenda." Some of the accusations and vitriol include being "Roman Catholic", being totally skeptical, dismissing 'spiritual experiences' etc.
What I can'r seem to get across to some people is that I have no agenda against religion(s) or spiritual experience, and i am not like David Hume the philosopher who was a total skeptic --died atheist. If anything, in philosophy I have sympathy with the "Pragmatism" of Charles Sanders Peirce (sic), William James, and perhaps some modern Emergentists based on Alfred North Whitehead's ideas.

pseudo-science is a false application of science or making science claims when not respecting the scientific method. Ramtha and quantum theory is a prime example of pseudo-science. It is also a primitive form of philosophical "foundationalism" no longer viable due to new discoveries in math and science combined with false "Gnosis" or ramtha's revelations.

many of the problems with recovery from RSE and similar cults has to do with epistemology or how we know. I find a lot of ex-members confusing faith, gnosis and reason (science) and thus not able to express themselves properly or understand when someone else is making the distinctions.

Human beings according to Quispel "know" in three ways: Gnosis, faith, and reason. To be fully human, to flourish, we have to apply all three in a strong way---this is not about "balance".

below is a section of something i wrote last month:
If I am losing you here, there is good reason for it, so let me unpack this gnosis thing for you so you can keep the faith in the forthcoming typology.
Peter Meusburger et al. (eds.), Clashes of Knowledge, 2008 contains an article (Chapter 7) by Wouter J. Hanegraaff, “Reason, Faith, and Gnosis: Potentials and Problematics of a Typological Construct.” Hanegraaff refers to the research of Gilles Quispel (1916 - 2006) in Gnosis: The Third Component of the European Cultural Tradition (Quispel, 1988/2005). With Quispel, Hanegraaff notes that gnosis is a “kind of intuitive, non-discursive, and salvational knowledge of one’s own true self and of God.” Some of you reading this will want to confuse this definition with faith or with the irrational therefore useless knowledge. If you do either, you will dismiss your head as useless, as containing a crazy brain: Gnosis by Quispel’s account has been an essential component of knowledge that drives human evolution along with reason and faith. These three components are not mutually exclusive. No one component can thrive without the other, so the decision here is not that reason is better than faith or that gnosis is merely crazy talk about something we cannot talk about. The decision is how we handle gnosis, how does it express itself, and how is it doing us any good? We can argue the same for reason and faith, both of which we have plenty of evidence for mishandling.
To simplify this presentation, here is Hanegraaff’s “Typology of Three Basic Kinds of Knowledge:”

Characteristics of Knowledge Claimed
Analytic category Communicable Verifiable or Falsifiable
Reason + +
Faith + -
Gnosis - -

As indicated, gnosis is not communicable and not verifiable. It sounds like a dodge or a scam, does it not? If not a scam, then an easy ploy for scam artists to use, nevertheless, because there is literally nothing there to communicate about. I was once quoted in Newsweek in 1988 saying that New Age gurus are selling metaphysical snake oil and getting away with it. What I meant was that gurus are offering techniques for achieving enlightenment when techniques are the very thing that will keep the seeker from that goal. Followers of the controversial cult leader Chandra Mohan Jain (Rajneesh or Osho, 1931 – 1990) often remarked that he was not there, that he was merely an “emptiness” through which eternity spoke. That may have been true to the extent that the gnostic attribute in all sentient beings is what drew people to him, but the behaviors he evoked from his decadent formation of gnosis were often ridiculous, a waste of precious time, and sometimes dangerous. His followers would not begin realize this until they rigorously rejected the form (the cult formation). Gnosis is not communicable in any form. That is the basis of this saying: If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill the Buddha.
We are all gnostics whether we are very good at it or not. Homo sapiens has an awareness of awareness that no other mammals appear to have. Our very brains in the neocortex expose the difference. We explore and invent things as no other animal does. We yarn to know the meaning of life.

So, what I am indicating is that "religion" or faith is something that we just do as humans whether we do it well or not.

RSE pretends to be gnosis which is its primary attractive force as we all have the yearning to "know" directly through experience, but what RSE is is nothing more than a Faith, faith in experience of Ramtha without reasonable evidence for Ramtha.

Doing it well is what I am concerned about whether Buddhist Atheist, Jew, Catholic, Muslim,, Gnostic, whatever.

JZ Knight has butchered the best of the faith, gnosis, and reason impulses in human beings.
Ex-members of RSE find themselves confused (as I was when i left my cult in 1980--for many years) about these essential features of human life, and as a result some never seem learn to properly appreciate faith or reason again. Others still want to hold on to a false gnosis that I call "premature divinitis" or relying too much on private experience to guide them while not exploring proper use of reason and science with the proper application of faith.

I hope that helps.
a lot to chew on... :shock:

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 2:44 pm
by joe sz
the characteristics of knowledge typology above did not print out well: will try again

Characteristics of Knowledge Claimed

Analytic category Communicable Verifiable or Falsifiable
Reason + +
Faith + -
Gnosis - -

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 2:48 pm
by joe sz
will try again:
Characteristics of Knowledge Claimed
Analytic category
Reason + + is both Communicable and Verifiable or Falsifiable
Faith + - is Communicable but not Verifiable
Gnosis - - is not Communicable and not Verifiable

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:27 pm
by forever

Thanks for response. Words are a pain in the @##$. Words also create misunderstandings. Let's replace "agenda" with the word position/stance. :D

As you know i was in Pentecostal many years and staunch in my faith, belief in God. Not the church-God. There's a difference. I devoured my bible.

Here's the dilemma. The point i was trying to make is that there is no science that proves God exists. And yet we believe in something we cannot see, physically handle, smell, hear or taste. And that we talk to and perceive as present. Is "real". It has been my life work to understand it.

There is not an even application of anything in our society. The mental health field, science and religion all contradict each other. Within mental health anyone that has an invisible friend-is nuts. :D While the exact same behavior is considered "normal" in another community-religion.? Does that make logic/sense to you?

And there's the pseudoscience of RSE that if you look carefully what it's really saying is , "just believe". In religion it's called, faith. But essentially it's the same thing. I am not attacking religion-i am drawing distinctions. The insanity is the interpretation of something? I am serious Joe. You know within the mental health field that to have an invisible friend is diagnosed as mental illness. We want verifiable evidence, proof. Something physical to verify an invisible? We can't prove the existence of God so religion calls it "faith".

Here's the struggle: How can we as a society or EMF support community tell someone they didn't experience what they think they did just because we know RSE is BS. And it is. But that does not negate or explain finding ones card on the fence. RSE is BAD news. However, the similarities between RSE and religion are ...?

Religion requires a life time commitment and money. You cannot belong if you don't pay. people that make "faith pledges" have been taken to court for not paying. It too is the carrot in front of donkey. To live and be a certain way so when you die you get a reward. Not verifiable! I was in religion. Saw the hypocrisy and left. Society is ripe for a pseudoscience explanation of God because it's something rather than nothing.

Within immediate family there's a scientist and another family member with hundreds of hours on math/physics. To them RSE is a joke. Another is Muslim. We have interesting conversation. :-) It gets testy. Add the rest of the family- Pentecostal :?: . :D

The point i am trying to make is that there is no verifiable proof/evidence that defines God. Everything in our society is built on opinion-not proof.

In the Pentecostal church i was healed in a moment of a migraine. It doesn't happen. Anyone that's had migraines can tell you that. It did. In that context-just's called faith. Take the very same experience and place it within RSE structure and it's called;
consciousness and energy creates reality.
In mental health it would be called...imagination?

See the point?

What it comes down to is various groups, ( RSE ) institutions, mental health have a manual or doctrine, an intellectual understanding based on opinion not verifiable evidence/proof and it's used as a point of reference to define/determine or diagnose something. What i have said is applicable across the board. I could really muddy the water by bringing in our med field.

Religion does do what RSE does. People want and need something to believe in. I am not criticizing it. How people live their life is their business. What i am saying is that everything is a matter of interpretation. And that is what it all comes down to-opinion. There is no "authority" on anything. There's only opinion.

RSE presents itself as having an explanation. A concrete fail proof application of philosophy to create and bring about a desired result in the here and now. Whereas religion has a remedy for the after life. The common thread is "just believe". One calls it faith-another calls it focus or C+E=Reality. Another calls it mental illness. What i am seeing is that for the most part it's semantics between RSE and religion. And then some.

Proving a miracle doesn't identify or define the cause. It only serves to destroy purity and simplicity of it.

All of us want answers. We want to understand our self. We want to understand what's invisible. We want that knowledge to be an equation that's logical. When in fact it's counter productive. RSE pretends to make it logical using pseudoscience.

Joe-we want to make LOGIC of anything out of the ordinary. A miracle. (as an example) What is logic?

Can logic be defined as a module of accepted thinking? How are we to use logic on something that is larger than what is commonly familiar? And how are we to ever go beyond where we are if we use it as a standard to prove or disprove something? Technology is an example. Where were we 100 years ago?

Remember the Jetson cartoon (probably not) that we considered fantasy? Space age. Microwaves, large screen television, space cars etc. Here we are. ...on a computer? :-)

Knowledge, gnosis comes from within. It does. You can hand someone the proven answer to something but the comprehension comes from within. We cannot use logic to define something that exceeds it. In technology we can build upon proven concepts and it's absolute. Not as easy with God. It's an individual thing-like it or not. We all have to answer our own questions. It's a step by step process of building upon and going beyond a previous understanding /experience. I have wanted answers that no one can give to me. I have to do it myself.

Imagine the life of a scientist. People that have security clearance that spend their time in a lab-alone. Trial and error experiments. To gain an understanding/knowledge of something. A virus. Looking for a cure. They are not allowed to share that information or research. No one would understand it anyway. :-) or even find it interesting. :-) And it is the same with gnosis. It isn't a group activity. Making disciplines the object/structure only destroys potential rather than cultivate it.

I have gone full circle and have concluded that spirit is the active ingredient. And I am not sure it can be defined and organized. IMO. There is no logic or intellectual understanding that can explain or define God/spirit. Identifying destructive groups is another matter. All i am saying is be it religion or new age both can be destructive and dangerous. As can mental health and the med field, politics and science. Any time someone allows someone or something else to do their thinking for them-it's dangerous.

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 7:59 pm
by forever

Gnosis can't be taught. It comes from within. I don't see faith, reason, gnosis as separate. It's one thing.

I had already had unimaginable experiences long before RSE. I went there for an explanation. I understand the pseudoscience aspect. Meaning that RSE uses unproven science as a foundation for disciplines that are to prove the validity of what's taught?

Joe, David, Ockham and whoever, we cannot dismiss finding of cards on fence as luck, coincidence etc. It simply isn't possible. It's a physical, tangible experience. David, you have been there.

Consciousness and energy creates the nature of reality sounds profound-it isn't. It's semantics and common sense. And can be said as, you you think is the foundation of every choice you make and the result of that choice is an experience that you have created.

The equation is: Think/attitude+choice=reality. Common sense. Nothing eloquent or profound about it.

Isn't perception something we have not mentioned as the deciding factor in decision making? Perception being the sum total of wisdom/knowledge gained from all our experiences to date?

At RSE i didn't think the disciplines were an avenue to gnosis but an EXPLANATION of it. Something everyone already has within them. To various degrees depending on how much attention they have given it or attempt to understand it.
I didn't come from religious home but an aunt gave me a bible when i was 8. At that age i was compelled to attempt to read and understand it that I hid from my family so i wouldn't be ridiculed.

All any us can speak from is our individual experience. What's real to one isn't real to someone that has not had similar experience. We watch war on television in our comfortable recliner and have an intellectual understanding of it. Much different than the soldier or people that experienced it. What's "real" to them is much different.

I caught the part about people relying too much on their individual experience (unless i read it wrong)???

IMO we need to be careful telling anyone what they should or shouldn't think. The priority is to help them understand WHY they think it.

Please explain finding cards on fence.

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:36 pm
by forever
Alright everyone. Brain storming here (as you know :-) ) for answers. Here's what i have come up with.

That organized anything is a construct of thought-doctrine. Politics, education, religion, RSE, atheism, medical field, law. No science or absolutes in any of it. Just some basic concepts.

Gnosis cannot be taught. Isn't possible.

Why do some find cards and others don't? Or make it to the void-others don't. Yes, i was shocked to discover (article on emf) that the Gods above on the tank move walls etc. Okay, but that doesn't account for how someone even GOT to the tank to begin with, found the door and got inside? Not an easy task.

Here's my conclusion. The same people that experienced miraculous things in religion through "faith" are the same people that find cards etc. Not because that particular religion is "right" . People from many different religions have miraculous experiences. So obviously it isn't the religion that performed it. Or, education, political affiliation, financial status, race, creed, color or gender. No more than finding ones card validates Ramtha.But it doesn't answer the question either.

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:24 am
by joe sz
whoa, forever!

in mental status reports i do your gush of questions come close to a "flight of ideas."

I have done over 300 successful interventions over the years. In a few days i have watched a cult person in a self-sealing set of rationalizations "snap" or rather pop like a cork was released after shaking up a bottle of champagne.

The next couple of days after the "seal" has been broken through can be very demanding--i have had to go for 18 hours straight many times answering and dealing with questions and insights---it is exhausting work. Like chasing a horse let out of a corral while it is asking you, Is this good to eat, Is that hill over there okay? Is that river safe to cross? Can I run with other horses?

Inevitably, the newly exited cult member turns to me or my colleague if i have help and asks:
So, what is the truth? How do you know which religion is real? etc etc

They want final answers as if i am/we are a guru all of a sudden..

It is then that I kill myself (figuratively) and tell them they are asking the wrong questions and asking them in the wrong way.

It is possible to find an elegant way to follow a religion, or not follow one.
Some Amish thrive in their sealed system because there is enough room for personal expression and private time with "God." I would find Amish life stifling--I like some tv, i like sports, I pay attention to news, and I like to read a wide variety of books. I really enjoyed the film Mr. Turner (just saw it this afternoon) about the artist William Mallard Turner

I enjoy being "English" (all outsiders are the English to Amish for those of you unfamiliar with the culture)

being elegant when we strive to flourish is quite different than being merely remarkable..terrorists in ISIS are remarkable, but they are anything but elegant.
One thing JZ is not is elegant

I am using elegance in the sense of a mathematician who gets really excited when they discover an elegant theorem with a kind of simple beauty that makes it very useful and dependable.

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:35 am
by forever
Hey Joe,

Appreciate your response.
When something is important to me i go with it. I have 24/7 to research and process. I also have a very quick mind. Process quickly and on to the next question in the blink of an eye. That fast. Once i am on something i stay on it until it's resolved. It's like being in labor and not coming up for air until the child is delivered. Intense. Follow through.

I wasn't attacking you Joe or dismissing your exit work. I was shocked at your response to my miracle and didn't understand your reaction until i scanned a few of your articles. Now i understand. How other people live their life is their business-not mine. It's takes everything i have to run my own life. And quite frankly i have learned not to tamper with other peoples reality. I am not an authority on how others should live, be, and don't want to be.

What i was pointing out is that facts are interpreted according to ones belief. In realizing Ramtha isn't real and the "teachings" were taken from other sources caused me to question the cause of the miracle i shared. Process of elimination. As well as finding a card on the fence at RSE? I am not asking you or anyone else to define reality for me. I am saying we have to be consistent in applying basic concepts and criteria.

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 4:48 pm
by Ockham
I would have to change the RSE motto a little bit: consciousness plus energy equals fantasy.

Now, fantasy in one's head can replace reality for that one person. When the mind interprets its internal fantasy as reality, that could generally be regarded as a psychological disorder.

Reality is what is still here after you die. Fantasy is what goes away when you die.

I will give RSE one thing, but they kind of put it backwards in their literature. Reality is bounded and limited by your senses to perceive what reality is. What you think is real, is what you can sense. Now, what RSE would have you believe is that your senses make what is real: maybe inside your own brain. Does an exoplanet in some other star system not exist just because you never thought of it or sensed it? The beings living there would probably say they do exist.

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:10 pm
by forever

The stars "come out at night". Where are they the rest of the time?

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 10:43 pm
by forever
RSE Website has changed. It's sloppy as if thrown together carelessly. Advertising alien cds and Ramtha crop circle stickers. It's sad. Our bad ass warrior that (in theory) so bold and bombastic from behind the veil of a woman. Won't show his face.

I am not sorry i went there. At that time in my life it gave me something and was inspiring. At that time the theme was much different. It was
believe in yourself
. It wasn't about believing in Ramtha. Not at that time.

We have had relationships that didn't work out. The question is what did we learn? We can play the "what if" game. How different would my life have been. I know of several people that worked 25 years for the same company and were depending on retirement. They retired and the company folded-no retirement.

Everything we do we do by faith Joe. We depend on others to be what they say they are. Do what they say-promise. That is why RSE has been successful. Most of us have learned (hard way) that things are not as they seem and people don't keep their word. RSE marketed knowledge vs faith. Do you want to KNOW your retirement is safe or do you want have faith/believe it is? Knowledge vs faith. To know vs believe requires developing the ability. Psychic (example). And attend RSE to learn it :D Of course it didn't happen because the disciplines became the substance. It's diluted, piluted and the fire/passion is out of it. People became dependent and lost sight of the priority.
Believe in yourself
The DNA stunt is to generate interest,stoke the coals.

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 11:02 pm
by joe sz
And quite frankly i have learned not to tamper with other peoples reality. I am not an authority on how others should live, be, and don't want to be.

You may want to revisit that statement or sentiment someday. I get that if you are not an authority, then do not tamper. But I think we do even if we do not!

I once got into a "deep" discussion with a very wealthy "student" of Ramtha in Santa Fe.
Name drop warning 8) : Shirley MacLaine would stay at Athena's house in the 1980s when in town.

Athena was of the mind that we should not interfere with another's "karma." My wife was her seamstress, so were were casual acquaintances and I went to a Ramtha meeting at her house in 1985/6 or so. Athena knew of my work as an "interfering" exit counselor, thus the conversation.
I had to make an extreme point to get her to agree that sometimes it may be necessary, even a duty, to intervene/interfere. We were standing on San Francisco St near the central Plaza. I asked her if she would do anything if a man suddenly grabbed and started dragging a small, screaming girl into a car next to us? She actually had to think about it, but finally said, "Of course."

The tension here, I think, is between the right to be and believe and the duty to inform, then knowing when to act and when to leave things alone.

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:18 am
by journeythroughramthaland
Wow, What a roll forever. I must have missed the posting you are referring to regarding your experience,when you get a chance let me know. I can understand your questions even if I also understand that by their nature when boiled down to their essence many are the same questions that philosophers, scientists, artists have been asking since the dawn of man (and woman to be pc).

One can explore many of these questions using thought experiments as Joe just did with the man dragging a screaming child into a car but basically, the question becomes about the existence of morality and does it really exist, an age old conundrum. The best we can do is say that morality is a normative function. If you think of Joes example, if it were a woman dragging a screaming child into a car, a small and delicate woman would you react in the same manner and in the same time?? Would you stop and think if someone were removing the child from imminent danger? Basically, while interesting to discuss and get answers none of them would lead to "prove", or disprove morality. I remember a question about this from my philosophy studies where a train is going down the tracks coming to a fork in the road, on one portion of the fork is your true love, and on the other is your family. You are the person operating which way the train will go, what would you do?? There is also a similar one about a life boat.

You asked the question about what is the difference between RSE and religion? Basically, why is belief in Ramtha any different then belief in God. I will attempt to address that but with the previso that I am far from an expert on religion and more well versed in RSE.

For me the major difference would be as far as my understanding of some of the many major religions is that their teachings involve the acceptance of a mystery which is beyond the current human understandings. Where in RSE it is the contrary, the teachings are all is knowable and it is there to help one achieve this state which they would call enlightenment. RSE does not teach faith, it cloaks itself in the cape of science (be it in the most unscientific manner)i.e. pseudo science. It eliminates the mysteries of life which in my opinion are miraculous in themselves.

The way in which they do this is insidious; ones mind has developed to find answers, solutions, however complex. This is the human condition. However, because of this and the nature of communication, available free thinking time, we all tend to want to be given the short answer, hence the birth of the sound bite be it "let them eat cake" or "if the glove don't fit you can't convict" ours is not a time for philosophers, ours a time in which no space really exists to explore these questions which are beyond the limits of human comprehension.

I am not saying there is no value in doing so, only giving my perception of a growing global reality. Speaking of perception, When you speak of consciousness +energy= reality being the same as prayer and healing I would say while they may be similar they are not the same. Again, we have one C&E=R which claims to be science based (false) and one which claims to be faith based (true) I am only saying true or false about the claims made in the way those two things work. I personally happen to believe in the science of placebo effect. It is acknowledged that within approx 30% of the population it exists. Does that mean that those people are singled out by God? Is it Gods way of keeping the human race alive?? Is it merely because we are all part of a great simulation and the simulators get to have extra players 30% of the time? I don't know, and I am currently comfortable with the fact that I may never know.

RSE uses questions such as these (basically all conundrums, unsolvable at present) as a technique to dull ones senses (perceptions) making one do mental push-ups until ones mind is so exhausted it simply accepts what ever it is being told as an answer.

"Isn't perception something we have not mentioned as the deciding factor in decision making? Perception being the sum total of wisdom/knowledge gained from all our experiences to date?"

Perception is ones way of perceiving reality; but do we, or more importantly, can we ever see reality? Our minds filter out things in our environment in nano seconds, our minds make countless decisions for us well before we are aware of it, so do we ever have free will?? Yet another of those unanswerable questions.

There are many physical, emotional and environmental conditions which can effect our perceptions of reality, any thing which threatens our perceived sense of reality is minimized while what confirms it is maximized. Knowing how and why these things work as such does not stop them from happening, but can effect ones decision making, reactions to things and their relationships with others. In addition, the knowing how and whys can add to a further clarification of reality.

Forever, your questions are classic as well as complex. If I get what Joe is saying, I think he is suggesting that perhaps you might try refining you questions so that they are more manageable. As in his horse metaphor, create a new larger corral for yourself, not one simply to contain your questions, but one which you understand because you have constructed it and you then can continue to open the corral door and make it larger and larger…..

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:30 pm
by joe sz
I echo not take in more than we can chew!

science never claims to be absolute. new evidence can lead to new conclusions. and by all means, check out the man behind the curtain!
pseudo-science begs you not to look at the man behind the curtain. it begs you to trust your intuition, your "gnosis" self, your direct experience primarily.
science is rigorous, frustrating, and often uncertain but elegant and useful for all human beings no matter what you believe when it gets it right.
pseudo-science tends to appease the naive with certainty.

Mark Twain did not say:
A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
- This quote has been attributed to Mark Twain, but it did not originate with him. Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-92) attributed it to an old proverb in a sermon delivered on Sunday morning, April 1, 1855. Spurgeon was a celebrated English fundamentalist Baptist preacher. His words were: "A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on." Even earlielr, in 1710 Jonathan Swift wrote on the same topic in The Examiner.

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:02 pm
by joe sz
I am rereading Wittgenstein's Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers 2001

The argument took place in 1946 at the Moral Science Club weekly meeting at Cambridge, King's College in the UK.

Carl Popper was the guest and Ludwig Wittgenstein the chairman. The great mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell was present along with maybe 30 others by invite only, mostly elite students at King's.

The topic was: "Are There Philosophical Problems?"

Wittgenstein had declared the end of philosophy and that reading Plato was a waste of time. He said philosophy was useful for solving a problem like "helping the fly out of the fly bottle", not for finding anything about truth.
Popper was the guy who posited the infamous "falsifiability" principle in science. If you cannot test it, science has nothing to do with it, he said. That principle has been challenged, btw, with good evidence.

Philosophy and science have never been the same since Wittgenstein. He was a genius that shook up the entire industry and still does, even if you argue against him.

The book is a fascinating bit of journalistic research to find out what really happened at the ten minute meeting when Wittgenstein brandished a fire place poker to make a point. The event became the stuff of legend in the coming years.

The men present were brilliant, yet very few recount the event the same way--they all saw something different and with bias if they were a "disciple" of the irascible Wittgenstein at the time. The book points out how cult-like Wittgenstein's student following was. They dressed like him with open collar shirts, tweed jackets, and sneakers, and they mimicked his linguistic nuances and hand gestures.

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:58 pm
by journeythroughramthaland
Hi Joe,

I had heard of the book and story before but never got to it, I will on your recommendation. I Have often thought science and philosophy and mathematics to be inseparable, more so like rungs on a ladder, not the ladder itself sometimes you must transverse one in order to get to the other. One only hopes that one is going in the more productive direction. There are no guarantees, in both science and philosophy todays dreams can turn into tomorrows nightmares. As in science, ones ability towards self examination regardless of the consequences as Newton gave way to Einstein etc…. is a lesson I wish I had learned at an earlier age.

As a young child I had (and still do have ) an intuitive ability in math and music. While I can't prove it scientifically, it may have to do with genes. My Grandfathers (who I never met) on my mothers side was a famous child prodigy, a violinist who toured Europe and the states and became a composer and conductor. On my dad side, he was a piano teacher. I have perfect pitch, yet would have to struggle today to read music. I would get bored with my lessons and just ask the teacher to play it once more and then pretended like I was reading the music. While I still play and enjoy it. a whole wider world existed in the written music world which I would be hard pressed to take advantage of at this time.

My Grandmother whom I did get to know and love, was quite an incredible woman I have just recently heard her story of growing up though she passed 20 years ago. Apparently she was a child genius who was taken under the wing of a rich family and sent to the best schools at a very young age. She became an economist and was in the Brookings Institute in the 30's Which is still a mens club of sorts today so I guess she had something!

In my early years of schooling I breezed through math like it was nothing, it never felt like work, until I got to algebra and geometry.

In both of those as in the music I arrived at answers almost immediately. I argued that I didn't see the need for obtaining an answer down to the last decimal point or why I had to prove that isosceles triangles all have right angles, just telling me was enough for me to grasp the meaning.

All this long winded explanation is to demonstrate how ones own intuitive knowledge while helpful in some ways may be ultimately detrimental in others.

I am an accomplished woodworker and furniture builder, My geometry teachers admonitions have rung in my ears many times as I have tried to figure out ways in which to accomplish various angles and curves etc. I still do it through trial and error, or, job that part of figuring it out to someone else. Once you learn something (at least for my self ) and continue down that road without foundational knowledge the only thing you gain is in resourcefulness and an ability to cope with frustration. I now understand why one cannot be wrong even by one decimal place. In woodworking and I am sure in mathematics it is called compounding error, much like how compound interest grows. One might not think that a 64th of an inch is a lot, but put a hundred pieces together and you will have a piece over an inch longer or shorter then you wanted. So, it may not fit at all or might be grossly undersized.

When one examines all of the errors @ RSE both in science, mathematics, logic, etc the ability to face the compounding of these errors becomes more and more diffi-cult. (pun intended) For myself, in wood working I have on several occasions (fortunately not in the recent past) had to stop thinking about how I could fix my error, be it by using trim or changing the original design or space and simply chuck out the old piece and start anew, the consequence being me being out of pocket but my customer getting what they should have expected in the first place. Sometimes that is what one has to do, simply chuck it out and start anew. It is always a balancing act, especially when your customer is yourself.

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 12:30 am
by forever
Stanford is now teaching quantum mechanics on YouTube. Scanning i counted at least 25 hours-free. I have also researched what's being taught at RSE.

Alice Baily is an author of many books on occult going back to 1920. Once again-writing a book and having an opinion does not make anyone an expert. In researching that material i have not seen where she claims the information is coming from an ascended master she is "channeling". (spare me)

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 4:46 am
by Ockham
I heard that the $1500 week long, "event," of March 2015 spent a lot of time showing videos from History Channel. That's big fee for something that can probably be seen for free on History Channel's web site. I wonder if RSE bothered to license those videos? I have a History channel DVD and the box specifically states that it is not licensed for public presentation.without prior authorization. I believe RSE could not successfully claim fair use under the educational use provisions of the DMCA.

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:48 pm
by Angelette
I went to an event where there was breaking news abotu the underground denver airport and they showed us a show in true tv about it, that had aired preiviously that weekend. we watched a tv show. it made everyone paranoid.
they say there is masonic symbols there and its true evil. and there is a statue of a breifcase above the luggage which implies suitcase nuclear bombs.

Re: pseudoscience/define

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 8:18 pm
by Ockham
Ha ha! I like that. It didn't occur to True TV or the ramsters that there is a suitcase above the area where you pick up your suitcase because that can be understood without needing translate any language. If they see a sculpture of a coffee cup above the door of a cafe, I wonder if they think that symbolizes Socrates drinking hemlock because he drank it from a cup? Maybe it means there is a secret ceramic factory hidden under the cafe!