Jump to content

Taking issue with the "significant coincidences" symptom


Recommended Posts

A few symptoms listed for mania in a "pinned" topic above are:

# heightened senses, noted clarity of thought

# noting events, coincidences, or events as being more significant than they are.

I take issue with these, because if you know anything about Carl Jung, Transpersonal Psychology, some eastern religions, or other spirituality, these "symptoms" can also be real paranormal events. They are called synchronicities. I have personally experienced very obvious psychic events that came as a result of a wrong phone call or finding an object on the ground.

OTOH, I have also been so manic that I had severe loose cognition and that is dangerous. When you start reading labels or signs and thinking they have significance. That is called self referential delusions. Not the same as real synchronicities.

Western psychiatry really fails us in this respect. So...you can't tell your psychiatrist about a spiritual event or it is labled a self referential delusion. This is WRONG. Don't ever tell your pdoc about a psychic event. Know the difference between a synchronicity and a self referential delusion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Experienced synchronicities can come about as a result of perfectly normal psychological processes - we're all wired to perceive a little more meaning than is actually there, because for many things the costs of missing information are greater than the costs of falsely perceiving information. The question pdocs are trying to answer is whether someone is doing so to a greater degree than a non-MI person would. If they were just after religious experiences, they could ask you if you attended church/temple/mosque when you came in, and prescribe antipsychotics based on that.

Could you explain what you consider the difference between a spiritual event and a self-referential delusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as a wiccan, i love to talk about jung and his ideas all the time.

when i took the mmpi, i found myself having to lie on all those questions about transcendental experiences, because i was afraid that the person interpreting the test wouldn't look at my answers in the context of my faith but rather according to the interpretation given in the DSM.

i've had to lie about my psychic experiences to all my pdocs except one, and he understands my experiences in the context of my religion. i had to be sure he would first before i disclosed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is ultimately a subjective science. We all know that. When it comes down to the details, guidelines, manuals, training, blah blah blah will only do so much.

Symptoms should be taken in the context of the patient and their belief system, "normal" social behaviors and attitudes [or what may be considered normal given the best of circumstances], family background, etc.

Unfourtunately that isn't always the case. And there is a distinct difference between a how you think the universe/world/life may/does work and what you think is possible versus magical thinking.

Context, like Loon said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as a wiccan, i love to talk about jung and his ideas all the time.

when i took the mmpi, i found myself having to lie on all those questions about transcendental experiences, because i was afraid that the person interpreting the test wouldn't look at my answers in the context of my faith but rather according to the interpretation given in the DSM.

i've had to lie about my psychic experiences to all my pdocs except one, and he understands my experiences in the context of my religion. i had to be sure he would first before i disclosed.

I've never understood why any kind of religious faith isn't considered magical thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Know the difference between a synchronicity and a self referential delusion!

Um, kinda by definition, if someone is delusional to the point of needing meds--then they kinda don't know the difference.

This is why TV psychics like on "Ghost Hunters" aren't smacked up on Zyprexa and guys wandering down the street with a copy of Julia Childs's Greatest Recipes Ever saying "Look! She predicted 9/11 and it says right here when they'll hit us next! Why won't you listen you FOOLS???" maybe should try it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Experienced synchronicities can come about as a result of perfectly normal psychological processes - we're all wired to perceive a little more meaning than is actually there, because for many things the costs of missing information are greater than the costs of falsely perceiving information. The question pdocs are trying to answer is whether someone is doing so to a greater degree than a non-MI person would. If they were just after religious experiences, they could ask you if you attended church/temple/mosque when you came in, and prescribe antipsychotics based on that.

Could you explain what you consider the difference between a spiritual event and a self-referential delusion?

That's a good post, Noemie. A spiritual event for me is a synchronicity. Have you ever read The Celestine Prophecy? Or a better one might be: Synchronicity: Through the eyes of science, myth, and the trickster:

http://www.amazon.com/Synchronicity-Throug...TF8&s=books

A coincidence becomes not-a-coincidence-but-a-synchronicity for me when it has several elements that, added, up, have enough extra meaning to qualify. A self-referential delusion was when I was semi-psychotic and common street signs had extra meaning for me. A delusion is flatter; more literal. Not rich like a tapestry.

You only see synchronicities if you are tuned to them and opened to them. For instance, I had one this morning that rather shook me up. I have a cocker spaniel that *loves* to go lay out in our heavily treed, green front yard. I live in a very quiet neighborhood with wide streets and few cars. Dusty is good for the most part with not crossing the street, but she will cross the street *very slowly* if she sees a friendly person or a dog. Sometimes I don't watch her as closely as I should and I tend to trust her too much. I was especially having issues with that last night.

This morning I received a phone call (wrong number) from a man who sounded amazingly like my currently astranged brother. He said, "Is Ginger there?" and hung up. I was in shock and stood there stunned for several minutes, because I remembered that my brother had a cocker spaniel named GINGER as a child who also loved to go outside, and she was hit and killed by a car.

I believe that was a synchronicity - a warning - to me to watch my cocker spaniel more closely. I have been trying to reunite with my untreated mentally ill/homeless brother, and it was too much of a coincidence that this happened, to be a coincidence. We were thinking of each other, and somehow, this caused a ripple in reality.

You have to believe in some sort of other dimension if you buy into this stuff. A spiritual connection among all things, if you believe in synchronicity. It has nothing to do with religion, and it may have more to do with science than "spirituality." Maybe the string theory of physics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Know the difference between a synchronicity and a self referential delusion!

Um, kinda by definition, if someone is delusional to the point of needing meds--then they kinda don't know the difference.

I could take that very offensively. I had my last psychotic delusional episode on January 7, 2000. Six years ago. Have been off meds due to physical reaction necessity a few times since and tend not toward the delusional side any longer. (I'm 51).

I DO know the difference and can explain it quite lucidly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, take a look at the DSM-IV definitions of the psychotic disorders, and they all end in "...that is not culturally appropriate given the setting" or some such phrase.

So VE, according to the DSM, you're technically wrong.

I'm not going to get on a soapbox here and tell VE whether he's factually right or wrong.

Anyways, I've always found that these "signs" (coincidences, if you will) are elements of our subconscious that have been surfaced by strange coincidences like those mentioned above. Reminders, if you will. And I could understand how the "hyperawareness" of BP mania could contribute. I.e., you're more aware of your subconscious.

It's not surprising that the religion and spirituality of many arises through intuition, and not a factual understanding of God/gods/etc. This explains how I personally am an agnostic deist (don't think about that for too long unless you want a migraine).

My closest brush with a strange coincidence, though I feel this has no subconscious significance at all, is when some woman called me and had gotten the wrong number. I noticed her area code (the same as my parents', and it doesn't cover a large geographical area) and asked her if she didn't mind telling me where in metro Indianapolis she was from. Turns out she lived just a mile or two from my parents, and had just moved in. So we chatted for about 30 minutes about the place and I gave her tips for living there. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MellowYellow: Thanks for the description. I'm wondering how, specifically, that would differ from a delusion, such that an individual would be able to tell the difference?

VE: Yeah. But, a lot of people have wacky beliefs without actually impairing their lives or the lives of others, so it doesn't particularly make sense to call it a disorder. What I *do* wonder is whether wacky beliefs that are clearly due to mental illness are an extreme version of normal wacky beliefs (further out there on some scale), or whether they're actually a fundamentally different kind of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herrfous notwithstanding, not all aspies denigrate religious people as "sheep". Nor do all atheists denigrate religious people as sheep.

This message brought to you by your Committee for Not Stereotyping Religious People, Aspies, or Atheists.

I was actually being sarcastic in regard to VE's comment.

*This brought to you by the Committee for Adding a Sarcasm Tag to CB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MellowYellow: Thanks for the description. I'm wondering how, specifically, that would differ from a delusion, such that an individual would be able to tell the difference?

VE: Yeah. But, a lot of people have wacky beliefs without actually impairing their lives or the lives of others, so it doesn't particularly make sense to call it a disorder. What I *do* wonder is whether wacky beliefs that are clearly due to mental illness are an extreme version of normal wacky beliefs (further out there on some scale), or whether they're actually a fundamentally different kind of thing.

A delusion is flat, literal. A synchronicity is holographic; has depth; there are many deep parts to it. You should read that book that I gave the link to, if you are interested enough.

I don't dispute the fact that most people think I'm "whacky." However, I fit in perfectly in my new hippie town where the exiled Tibetan Monks come every January to create a sand mandala - which they blow away after the painstaking creation, to show that nothing is permanent. No one thinks I'm whacky here! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MellowYellow: Thanks for the description. I'm wondering how, specifically, that would differ from a delusion, such that an individual would be able to tell the difference?

VE: Yeah. But, a lot of people have wacky beliefs without actually impairing their lives or the lives of others, so it doesn't particularly make sense to call it a disorder. What I *do* wonder is whether wacky beliefs that are clearly due to mental illness are an extreme version of normal wacky beliefs (further out there on some scale), or whether they're actually a fundamentally different kind of thing.

A delusion is flat, literal. A synchronicity is holographic; has depth; there are many deep parts to it. You should read that book that I gave the link to, if you are interested enough.

I don't dispute the fact that most people think I'm "whacky." However, I fit in perfectly in my new hippie town where the exiled Tibetan Monks come every January to create a sand mandala - which they blow away after the painstaking creation, to show that nothing is permanent. No one thinks I'm whacky here! :-)

Must be somthing in the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In other words, it's ok to be crazy as long as everyone else is."

'Sheep-flock' mentality. Accepted by society since... 4000 B.C.?

*offer not valid for Aspies"

I agree with Elvis. How is believing in fairies or unicorns any different than believing in Brahma, Abassi, God or the flying spaghetti monster? Is it the number of believers that makes the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A delusion is flat, literal. A synchronicity is holographic; has depth; there are many deep parts to it.

No. That is YOUR subjective experience. You cannot then use your subjective experience to justify synchonicity and invalidate everyone elses..

Sychronicity? NO. Coincidence, Yes. Probability tells us that any outcome is certain to occur given sufficient time. Remember the old saw about 100 monkeys typing long enough, that eventually one will produce Shakespeare's Hamlet?

Our minds are wired to sense patterns. If no pattern exists our mind will create patterns from truly random input. We also tend to ascribe power and meaning based on our own desires and need.

Religion and cultural norms are the two areas where psychiatry have put fences around. If you belong to the Cargo Airplane Cult in New Guinea and believe that airplanes are the source of plenty, that is acceptable. If you live in Belgium, you probably have an MI.

Synchronicity is magical thinking. You are saying that each person is the sole arbiter of it's existence. If I had recieved the phone call it would have no meaning. Does synchronicity exist then? What if everyone in my town recieved the call?

BTW, Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World is an outstanding review of how man ascribes meaning and power to forces and outcome.

a.m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to jump the fence here and agree with what noemie had said earlier --- Whose right is it to judge alleged "delusions" of the religious, if they don't impinge upon others' rights and beliefs?

If Jesus were amongst us today in Western society, how would he be treated? People would look at his words and his belief that he was God (or the way to thereof) and consider him a lunatic.

By modern standards and as per the New Testament, Jesus had his delusions, but they were all harmless. In fact, much of his thought has come to be the gold standard in modern society's ethics.

Interestingly, a Christian friend and I had long ago made up dialogues between a modern Jesus and God, whereby Jesus was put on Seroquel for his thought disorder:

God: "Sleeping on the job, again, Son?"

Jesus: "Father! Please don't smite Me...."

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Know the difference between a synchronicity and a self referential delusion!

Um, kinda by definition, if someone is delusional to the point of needing meds--then they kinda don't know the difference.

I could take that very offensively. I had my last psychotic delusional episode on January 7, 2000. Six years ago. Have been off meds due to physical reaction necessity a few times since and tend not toward the delusional side any longer. (I'm 51).

I DO know the difference and can explain it quite lucidly.

You certainly could take it offensively. Many people will take a parking ticket offensively, just because they think they shouldn't be punished for what is considered a tiny infraction; in a bar, a mere glance may be an offense. Offenses are merely a perception of one's own reality; I can do but little to alleviate what you may consider offensive, and I don't care to go out of my way to make what I consider a fact-based observation as inoffensive as possible.

And quite frankly it doesn't matter HOW lucidly you could explain anything. What would matter would be how the listener would receive it. After all, I could go to any number of websites and hear lucid explanations of how mthe US government blew up the WTC, how the Jews are taking over the world, how the Holocaust never happened, or how we are all infested with little tiny aliens but hey! we can get rid of them with Dianetics etc..

Delusional and lucidity can go hand-in-hand quite well. One does not have to froth at the mouth to have a need to be medicated. However, believeing in religious dogma or your synchronicity is not indicative of medication either so don't go flying off the handle thinking that that's what I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, it's ok to be crazy as long as everyone else is.

Hm... Are you not of The Body? *regards with suspicion*

I could take that very offensively.

But you're not going to, right? Spiritulity Board and whatnot, etc.

Personally I find this a fascinating question

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it the number of believers that makes the difference?

Exactly so! If more people respond to a new drug than don't then it is considered to work by empirical methods. Most of the world population believe in existence beyond the physical realm. Therefore empirically it must exist. If only a handful of people believe in the flying spaghetti monster then empirically it does not exist.

if were were in a position to look into this material existence from outside, we would not then be here and susceptible to the limitations that give rise to the phenomenon.

If we could see things from the outside we would probably wouldn't care. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly so! If more people respond to a new drug than don't then it is considered to work by empirical methods. Most of the world population believe in existence beyond the physical realm. Therefore empirically it must exist. If only a handful of people believe in the flying spaghetti monster then empirically it does not exist.

There's a logical fallacy there, somewhere, HLS.

I'll officially wait for our resident logician, null0trooper to comment, but for now I offer the following argument.

I'm reading your statements as:

*IF the medication works in enough people, THEN by empirical methods it is considered to work.

*IF enough people believe in nonphysical existence, THEN there must be a nonphysical existence.

For some reason, I'm finding your statement on faith instead analogous to:

*IF enough people BELIEVE the medication is going to work, THEN by empirical methods it is considered to work.

The core here is that this involves belief, and not logic. Regardless of whether you have comitted a logical fallacy, the analogy is irrelevant.

I'd never thought that logic could apply to faith, anyways...

...but that's just my agnostic-deist ass, and if anybody here is offended, just ignore me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, yes...

Statistically, if a drug is tried and a certain percentage of subjects respond positiely, then one may consider it succesful and put it on the market. This is done after rigorous scientific design, testing, etc., of course. Whether or not more people than not respond has nothing to do with the consideration of it working; after all, when one parses the studies, many of the meds we are on may only be effective in say 20% of the subjects. And yet, they are considered to work.

Now empirical means "subject to verification by observation or experiment" (Mr. Webster, as always); thusly, mere belief cannot in any way be proof of any sort of existence beyond the veil, as there is no way (currently, at any rate" we can observe or experiment on it.

Truly, one must watch the words one uses; a dictionary can really bite you in the ass...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think anything is possible this IS in fact the world (from generation to generation) thought that the world was flat, that the idea of germs was ludicrous, that the sun revolved around the earth (instead of the other way round), that running a sub 4 minute run would kill the runner etc but time and science has proven these things to be untrue. maybe all we need is a bit more time and study in the matters. Coincidences and synchronicities can be spiritual in the context that there was some mental or not "standard rational world" thinking or acting going on when the experience happened. Thus its action created in a person something that felt sacred or supernatural.

now for the absolutely "it must be literal or bah to it folks" this is what I used for my thoughts on spirituality just basic MW (items 2 and 5)

so go forth aspies and pull it apart(joking I'm married to an aspie)

Main Entry: 1spir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly so! If more people respond to a new drug than don't then it is considered to work by empirical methods. Most of the world population believe in existence beyond the physical realm. Therefore empirically it must exist. If only a handful of people believe in the flying spaghetti monster then empirically it does not exist.

There's a logical fallacy there, somewhere, HLS.

That would be begging the question, I think. I'm out of dexidrine so my brain is taking the day off. Here's a list. You figure it out.

http://brimstone.com/~jasona/hobbies/ranting/logic.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now empirical means "subject to verification by observation or experiment" (Mr. Webster, as always); thusly, mere belief cannot in any way be proof of any sort of existence beyond the veil, as there is no way (currently, at any rate" we can observe or experiment on it.

Truly, one must watch the words one uses; a dictionary can really bite you in the ass...

I don't agree that I have misused the word. Scientists first develop a THEORY! from logic or observation or by what they learn from others. If they are convinced that they are right, 'FAITH in their theory' Then they test it by Empirical methods. If the result seems overwhelming in favour, then they accept it as TRUTH. Sometimes they are WRONG. Now! I can apply the same reasoning to religion. I have learnt from others the theory that all the miraculous 'Life, the Universe, Everything' exists in concert and the conductor is a single highly evolved existence they call GOD. This to me seemed more logical than what we see around us having come about thru coincidence out of the chaos of the big bang. (No arguments on this please! it is purely my opinion and others will argue differently) Therefore I had some FAITH in this theory! Now thru my life I have seen empirical evidence that it is TRUE! (Don't ask!) You may argue against the logic of this, but nothing can be proven conclusively therefore Empirical methods have a degree of faith and logically faith must have a degree of empirical evidence otherwise how will we decide what to put our faith in. eg. to decide whether to believe in God or the FSM we must look at the logic of both and our feelings and decide (Empirically) which we want to put our faith in.

But don't take any notice of me, I'm crazy AND stupid! :cussing:

Herrfous

For some reason, I'm finding your statement on faith instead analogous to:

*IF enough people BELIEVE the medication is going to work, THEN by empirical methods it is considered to work.

I don't see a problem! If people believe the medication works, then they must have seen evidence that it worked or may work, therefore one could conclude empirically that it works. ;)

Velvet Elvis

Point

I don't get what your point is???? except for the dexedrine. make mine a double :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess evidence and proof are the power words here right? So when people thought the world was flat it was so until such time as a "respected figure" gave them "evidence" that no it was indeed round and then gave all sorts of "proof" to disprove all the "proof" and "evidence" that had been previously used to prove the world was flat. But this requires dismissal because it was so long ago but couldn't it be "possible" that the very things that are currently "unproven" and "without evidence" will be proven with evidence in due course of time? Maybe not in this life(or maybe very soon in this lifetime) Isn't that a possibility? or do the probabilities make you more comfortable as opposed to having to "see", have proven, or have scientifically acknowledged such spiritual issues because they might freak you out?

lilie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess evidence and proof are the power words here right? So when people thought the world was flat it was so until such time as a "respected figure" gave them "evidence" that no it was indeed round and then gave all sorts of "proof" to disprove all the "proof" and "evidence" that had been previously used to prove the world was flat. But this requires dismissal because it was so long ago but couldn't it be "possible" that the very things that are currently "unproven" and "without evidence" will be proven with evidence in due course of time? Maybe not in this life(or maybe very soon in this lifetime) Isn't that a possibility? or do the probabilities make you more comfortable as opposed to having to "see", have proven, or have scientifically acknowledged such spiritual issues because they might freak you out?

lilie

err.. who are you aiming this at???? :) You seem to be agreeing with what I have said! I stated that sometimes they are wrong. ;) In fact quite often. Therefore empirically there is no absolute proof of anything. We accept things as they appear until proven otherwise. I accept that I am a living organism in a material world. Of course I could be a computer program in a Matrix, but I have insufficient evidence to accept this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitions change all the time-given enough time-live 3,000 years and the dictionary may say something different. We're just discussing the possbilities here. and BTW do they absolutely HAVE to be mutually exclusive? Because the dictionary said so? New words are added often and changed and/or expanded often. Doesn't mean something isn't possible.

lilie

2004 updates to the dictionary (I'm sure you have 2006)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/200...ictionary_x.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitions change all the time-given enough time-live 3,000 years and the dictionary may say something different. We're just discussing the possbilities here. and BTW do they absolutely HAVE to be mutually exclusive? Because the dictionary said so? New words are added often and changed and/or expanded often. Doesn't mean something isn't possible.

lilie

2004 updates to the dictionary (I'm sure you have 2006)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/200...ictionary_x.htm

I'm going by the terms as used in the strict philosophical sense. When it comes to meaning, philosophers are pretty much the experts. As much as anyone can be an experty, anyway.

In scientific and philosophical discourse words must have predefined static meaning or no communication is possiable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In scientific and philosophical discourse words must have predefined static meaning or no communication is possiable.

How often do we misunderstand what each other has written? Biblical language was very inadequate, hence the use of analogies, parables etc. Even now many people read false things into the written word either by misunderstanding or to suit their purpose. It is better to talk face to face with things of a delicate nature to hopefully reduce misunderstanding. Your implying that science and religion are black and white, whereas in most things there is inevitably shades of grey and where it ceases to be science and becomes religion is not clearly defined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In scientific and philosophical discourse words must have predefined static meaning or no communication is possiable."

I'm thinking that VE may be the type for whom objective thought is not easy. He needs someone to "tell" him what the rules are and then he can begin to think about the situation. But if theres a situation that he can't find written "rules" for then it may not be in him to come up with his own interpretation of a situation. A lot of people can't just spontaneously think about an event or ponder its spirituality without some sort of guide book to guide their thought processes. Others can have an experience think about it nine different ways and not need to be "justified" or "have proven" that which they have experienced for themselves.

sometimes it's just easier on the mind to have something to cling to. that's cool too.

lilie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In scientific and philosophical discourse words must have predefined static meaning or no communication is possiable.

How often do we misunderstand what each other has written? Biblical language was very inadequate, hence the use of analogies, parables etc. Even now many people read false things into the written word either by misunderstanding or to suit their purpose. It is better to talk face to face with things of a delicate nature to hopefully reduce misunderstanding. Your implying that science and religion are black and white, whereas in most things there is inevitably shades of grey and where it ceases to be science and becomes religion is not clearly defined.

Science is objective. Faith is subjective.

The two can not be farther apart. Um. Excpet perhaps in the morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In scientific and philosophical discourse words must have predefined static meaning or no communication is possible."

I'm thinking that VE may be the type for whom objective thought is not easy. He needs someone to "tell" him what the rules are and then he can begin to think about the situation. But if theres a situation that he can't find written "rules" for then it may not be in him to come up with his own interpretation of a situation. A lot of people can't just spontaneously think about an event or ponder its spirituality without some sort of guide book to guide their thought processes. Others can have an experience think about it nine different ways and not need to be "justified" or "have proven" that which they have experienced for themselves.

sometimes it's just easier on the mind to have something to cling to. that's cool too.

lilie

That's insulting.

In formal discourse you have to agree on the definition of terms at the onset. Otherwise you have no way of knowing that I don't mean cat when I say dog. I know what I mean when I say a word. I have no way of knowing that when you use a word you use it with same meaning as when I use it unless we first agree agree upon definitions. If we're going to talk about anything where meaning is important, this is a perquisite to discussion. Before my brain broke I was shopping for phd programs in philosophy. This is sorta what I did/do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is objective. Faith is subjective.

The two can not be farther apart. Um. Excpet perhaps in the morning.

As much as I believe and agree with you, VE, I suggest you harken back to your days of studying the biosciences. Where I work, that's definitely subjective.

In any event, the real conclusion arrived at in any bioscience experiment is that "we have not disproved [hypothesis]", i.e., "this supports our hypothesis" (but doesn't prove it). There is no true fact science can arrive at (only a true theory at best). In any event, I would have to say that modern science is inclined to a lot of subjectivity, mostly tossing out results that you don't particularly like and/or will not lead you to further grant money. ;)

And don't even get me started on quantum physics.

Interestingly, I learned a sort of lesson when I took a course on German documentary films 3 years ago while in college. Although this has to do with history, and not with science, I still find it relevant. One finds that documentary films are often subject to the artist(s)' subjective desires, be they conscious or subconscious.

As a final project to the seminar, a friend and I partnered to film our own documentary, and despite feeling that much of our footage was objective, upon viewing the whole film ourselves, realized that it was largely subjective.

In many fields, it goes, so much for the "facts".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is kind of exactly the thing I was talking about. One needs "subjectivity" one needs "objectivity" one has to have the absolute "facts" "proven" or "shown" but what isn't discussed is the possibility of not having these things perfectly present or explained to a fine, commonly decided upon definition before a discussion can take place.

When the mayflower folk graced this land with their presence they didn't often know what they were dealing with in terms of communicating with the people that already lived here. So in time a form a sign language was built between them then of course the learning of the language came then interpretation then certain types of communication then well slaughter. But anyway there were steps that were made even without exact formulaic expressions of definition. Things were loosely defined then tightened as time went by.

I think so it is with spirituality and instances of coincidences. some need say 12 examples of "this" type of situation to happen preferably to someone else while they look and document in order to begin to define, interpret, and deal with it. Most often rejecting it if it doesn't fit their "criteria". Spirituality even when taken with the dictionary definition or whatever scientific definitions want to be given just will not be dealt with others unless some "expert" somewhere "tells" them the rules of dealing with whats considered spirituality.

If a person takes it upon themselves to (oh no not that) have a situation that cannot be easily bookmarked or found in an educational passage somewhere then the fur flies and generally the main vote becomes"some professor somewhere said that what you are feeling is happening does not exist, is not real to you, and therefore is neither spiritual or coincidental". Makes it easy for them to close their minds and walk away.

But of course the land of spirituality isn't so easily dismissed so there will most always be (at the very least) those two teams: the ones that need "someone" (of particular importance to them) to validate their thoughts for them and tell them what to tell others to think and others who only need themselves and their life experiences to validate their experiences for them.

People are just hard wired differently

lilie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lot of stuff that sounds similar to the line "well, that depends on what your meaning of what the word "is" is."

Is: "pres 3rd sing of BE"

It's pretty simple really--if one wishes to have a straightforward conversation, or more importantly, a healthy debate, than the parties need to know that they are speaking the same language, with the same definitions. If there is confusion about a particular term, it must be cleared and agreed upon and then debate must continue.

Otherwise you have nothing but blabbering nonsense, for while one person tries to make a point in what he is certain are clear and concise terms, another speakd a language all their own; their is no common ground, no consensus can be reached, no sense made.

Sock puppets would be better debate partners in these cases. I'd make one but my dogs work just as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...