WitchHazel

Member
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by WitchHazel

  1. Yet you still have a problem. For example when a bucket, becomes a “chair” when you are camping. The “characteristics” of what makes a “chair” and what makes a “bucket” have now collided. Without a narrow, and agreed upon focus, or boundary, or limit, it is easy to wander, and get lost. Another example is what makes a “book” is it the fact that it is bound? That it is written? That it has a defined beginning and an end? We all knew what a book was, at one point. It was something we held, in our hands, it had pages that we turned. And then “stories” both fiction and non-fiction, became this new thing called e-books, and now the two terms are combined they are books. The characteristics have shifted over time, for what we consider a book to be, or not. A very current example where this law is failing us, is in the discussion of what makes me a woman, and you a man. And please forgive me, if I am wrong about you here, but judging just from the little I can see in your picture you are a man. I can see you have hair on your head (not all men do) you have facial hair (again not all men) and I am guessing a penis. I will be honest that is something one can assume or guess, unless they have knowledge of said parts. I am a woman, red hair, blue eyes, freckles, and yes all the lady parts, boobs and beyond. Caitlin is also a woman, however, she still has a penis. She has grown some boobs, and may or may not be changing the “beyond” the belt. She has her entire life been the “book” of a man, yet her whole life she has known she is Cait. By the first law, she can not be a she, because A is always A. A dog is always a dog, regardless of characteristics (color, hair length, # of legs, tail or no tail), an object like a chair, shifts some as I have said, and people well they never have all combined well into simple rules and boxes, not really. So one must narrow the focus, and the parameters, for the conversation, that one plans to have “rational” thought and conversation about. The law of non contradiction comes second and it states simply that “two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time”. Technically that bucket/chair has again failed the rational thinking, is it a bucket, or is it a chair. However, when we define a chair, as anything we can sit upon, and chair becomes a characteristic only, and not the identity. We are back into a rational law of identity conversation. However, Cait and Bruce - we still struggle here; as she is either a man or a woman, he is either a woman or a man; and both statements can not be true. And yet she like many before her, and many to come, are real and trying very hard to live lives outside of the current group understanding, of their identity. Then if we move to the third law, in hopes of not going mad, and being able to stay rational we move to the excluded middle. And here I prefer the Latin tertium non datur: “no third (possibility) is given”. Because we are charged basically with creating a hypothesis, and then proving it, and making it correct; or not proving it and making the hypothesis false. In other words, (much like my response here today) I am either right, or I am wrong. Period, end discussion. There is no middle ground, there is no gray area, there is no third option, as that possibility, is not given. It is my personal belief that one sees this in Christian religion every day, when the same book is used, and the exclusion principles come into play. The Baptist states that they are correct, Catholics are wrong. The Mormons know they are correct and that makes the Catholics AND the Baptists wrong. After all they each have their own interpretation, hypothesis, distilled practice; and it must stay “right and true”. If it does not, then they and all they believe, must be wrong. There is no third option available, so they must cling to, and hold true, to their beliefs. And since proving things is hard, it is too often easier to point across the street, at the other church, and work instead to prove they are indeed wrong, and here is where, and how and why. Because to stay in one's own house, and work on one's own agreements and beliefs, and perhaps find they are indeed wrong, is much, much more frightening. Now it has been a long time, since I have taken this class formally, and like most things (at least in my life) some finer points are forgotten. So please feel free to “correct” my way of thinking and explaining. I simply would ask that you do it kindly, and hopefully with out red ink! I often think the laws work best, to break down pieces, and even semantics, and redefine the bigger picture, in steps. I think of it a little like politics, it is often best to cut your teeth in a neighborhood district, or school board, before the city council; and the city council, before the state house and senate, and the state before DC etc etc. And one takes a base, to encourage rational thinking, and then needs to move up to include more parameters, like the laws of propositional logic, and inference and such. After all there is a reason people have struggled with defining not only logical discussion, but the boundaries that make it so, since before we had a written language for humanity. Regardless thank you for a nice opportunity of a thoughtful conversation, and opportunity to learn or relearn! In my life at least, they are often lacking it seems, especially online.
  2. Hmm perhaps it is the witch in me; but I read this as you wanted to discuss the laws of thought, the way they are used in considering topics. And not in the way they apply to a person's version of "God". If I am wrong, I will happily step aside. If I am not, I would start with the law of identity; because it is often considered the first law. Loosely meaning 'each thing is the same with itself, yet different from another'. As your example stated A is indeed A. Meaning everything that exists has a specific nature, just like each person that exists has its own identity. The law allows us to break down what something is, by the pieces of what comprise it, it's characteristics. And it allows that it is "what it is, and can not be something else". And example could be a raven is a bird, it is larger than a crow, it is black, and has a black beak; yet just because I see a dog that is all black, it can not be a raven, and must be a dog. The characteristics may change, but the identity remains the same.
  3. There are MANY places in the world that witches are hunted and killed, about 500 annually are murdered in Tanzania. Witch hunts are still common in Africa, South America, and India. And yes sometimes the Bible comes up as a reason. However, in places like Tanzania, it is very much a place that still believes in witch doctors, and such, and appeasing the "gods" when something goes bad (people get sick, weather, livestock dies etc) and needing a blame token. How that tends to work is find the "bad witch/es" murder them (often by hacking them to death with machetes, or setting them on fire while they are alive) to appease the "gods" so they will return the favor again to the community. To say that "Christians" are the ones doing it, is not accurate, at least not in those scenarios. However, there are places, more so in South America and even India where the Bible is used as a justification to get rid of the "bad witch/es". That doesn't come from a pulpit though, of a belief structure of local practicing Christians.
  4. Wizard, I apologize if I lead you to think I was worried. As a witch, I see on a regular basis, where people are killed for witchcraft. There is a lot of fear, even in the US, that witches are “gonna-get-cha”. I do however think it is the responsibility of people, to speak against, and act against “the really bad stuff”. Engaging in worry however, is just a waste of good energy. Coolhand Exactly - at what point do people realize, hey there are some really bad people, that are doing some really bad things, and that's not okay. I have a nephew who is working with the Freedom Fighters, helping the innocent people there. He was an Army soldier for the US there, served as a Combat Engineer, and is now retired. Those folks that are on the ground, many of them built relationships, with in the communities, that are now under attack. And there is a lot of questioning as to why people aren't discussing it, supporting solutions to stop them etc. As with all regimes throughout history, they start with those that are easiest to separate from the herd, the more peaceful people, etc. We have seen it before, under other names, other leaders, other causes, and other geographical points on the globe.
  5. Reading the news, I am reminded today of the quote from Pastor Niemoller: ​First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. In regard to the first documented (and documented may be a key word in the news) of two women being beheaded accused of "witchcraft and sorcery" by the jihadists' in eastern Syria. Link to the news HERE: http://news.yahoo.com/first-beheads-two-women-syria-monitor-073538672.html Many people in the states have pressed the news of the Christian murders aside, because they are "way over there" and also from their annoyance with "Christians" here in the US. I wonder if the news that they are expanding, killing women, and "other practices" (alleged, since VERY often in the world today we still see a lot of fear, assumption, and blame tossed with the term witch, which does differ from the practice of - and executiuons to "solve the threat") if it will change at all how people view the situation.
  6. Thank you Atwater, that was kind of you to respond. Keystrikr, I see, so by attack, you mean more of a someone sharing an opinion online, that was "less than flattering". That is an interesting issue that a large number of organizations have now, with the ease of many review sites, etc. Where one person, or a few, can choose to be very vocal, on their experience, or information, or even "information". Many corporations have had to make decisions about how to handle such things; and it doesn't seem to be a real cut and dried, black and white learning, or best practice for most. I can imagine that happens often with ULC people, or sites; for the simple fact that it happens with religions, as a rule, online these days, all too frequently. Thank you for your clarification.
  7. Source: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/jehovah-s-witnesses-donate-publications-to-guatemalan-schools/article/432961 I thought this was really interesting, for several reasons. Almost half of Guatemalans are Roman Catholic with about 25 to 40 percent of the population being Protestant. Yet they asked for the teachings of the JW's because they were available, accessible and in the correct language. Professor Maria Cortez stated that the publications were requested “to rescue the values and moral principles that are much needed in society.”And now some of the materials, specifically a video, have been added to the actual school curriculm. The original goal was to help curb youth crime in the country, where they also have one the highest child homicide rates in the world. Assuming you are not a JW (cause I am guessing JW's would be happy with the work) can you see value in the teaching, and use of their materials in this, or do you think it is off base, and can't help and may even cause more strife? The article, which I did source at the top, is a good and concise read of the topic.
  8. What kind of attacks, were you referencing Keystrikr?
  9. Congrats on choosing to follow what is best for you! I have to admit your post reminds me of some research I did last year, when I was looking at employee engagement. Faith leaders, and more specifically those that were Christian leaders, were not very happy as a whole. In fact the data from the 2011 study of America's Religious Organziations, stated that many pastors felt disconnected, and as if they had no one they could confide in. The pressure to answer to the board, and the congregation, and lead volunteers, and always been in a position of leading, and positivity takes its toll. Seldom is there a person there for the actual pastor. Not to mention the need of having to raise funds, and make worship a business, often even raising their own salaries. I think anyone that has ever worked with a non-profit can relate to the idea of working for the "love of it" not for the "hours or the money". And in that same line there is often not money available for training, or support, although the pastor (often with out any training) is placed in a position of having to meet many needs. The burn out rate is high, and with good reason, that is easy to see, easy to see coming, but not easy to change. I am glad you have found a path that makes sense for you, and your schedule; so you can go forward in work that you most obviously believe in and are committed to doing.