Aha. While i choose to stand corrected, i’ll add (in the spirit of nitpicking) that i was not conclusively proved wrong (as much as i did not show that zilch was wrong)

I may be getting the hang of this. :some kind of friendly smiley:

***Dave: I’m not sure I agree—to some extent it should be a feedback loop (what one believes influences what one does and how one does it; what one does and how one does it influences how one believes).

I think you just hit upon the difference between a moderate and an extremist.  There are two kinds of feedback: positive and negative.  Positive feedback systems (like a microphone picking up the output of the speaker it is controlling) tend to become unstable and drift toward one extreme or another.  Negative feedback systems (like a gyroscopic balance system) are stable and return to a nominal state.

(yawns - up all night) on the evolution of words

While lexiconographers have a duty, or at least an obligation under their job description, to monitor the evolution of language, they would also have a role as loremasters; recording/displaying archaic usage along with modern usage of a given word. This is more about the aforementioned shrinking macquarie, rather than roget.

in this regard, the definition of dubya as a dirty lying rotten scumbug who still doesn’t seem to have been indicted for vote rigging and general acts of mass destruction will always come after 1. arsehole in a comphrehensive dictionary.

Night-night

DOF: I think you just hit upon the difference between a moderate and an extremist.  There are two kinds of feedback: positive and negative.  Positive feedback systems (like a microphone picking up the output of the speaker it is controlling) tend to become unstable and drift toward one extreme or another.  Negative feedback systems (like a gyroscopic balance system) are stable and return to a nominal state.

I’m not sure I follow here.  Is what you mean that a belief system that’s driven solely by rigid dictates (or, on the other end, a lack of guidelines) will tend to heterodyne to either extremes of behavior or extremes of belief or both, whereas a system where beliefs and “the real world” check each other will tend to be relatively stable?

Not sure I follow either - it’s a very undeveloped idea.  Somebody could probably do a good sociology research project about this, but here goes:

Positive feedback: you have a set of ‘Damn the torpedoes’ rules that determine if you are one of the true elect.  In the social group context, everyone is trying to demonstrate that they are truer than everyone else.  The more extreme, the better their feedback.  Because of the cosmic significance of being ‘true’, outside-world consequences won’t enter in as feedback.  If no other factors intervene, the system will go to extremes.  (Think Westboro Baptist Church)

Negative feedback: you have a set of guidelines and feedback comes from outside-world consequences in addition to the social group context.  Negative outside-world consequences result in pressure back toward center.  (Think Mennonite Central Committee)

What are the feedback components?  How does conceptual source, social reinforcement, and accounting for consequences flow through the group?  What is the function of ‘inclusive vs. exclusive’ in relation to the conceptual source? Hmm…

Hmm… continued; In a positive feedback system, the output drives the input; in a negative feedback system, the output limits the input. 

Probably not much good beyond metaphor value to compare social groups to electronic circuits.

Probably not much good beyond metaphor value to compare social groups to electronic circuits.

Depends on the complexity of the circuits, doesn’t it? I think we’ve got a ways to go yet, before we can model social groups electronically.  A good word to describe the problem of predictiing societal behavior is “intractable”.

A good word to describe the problem of predictiing societal behavior is “intractable�?.

Oh, I don’t know about that.  Depends on the granularity of the prediction, on which contingencies it turns, and how abstract it is.  Anyone want to guess at the Republican campaign strategies for the current election season?

LuckyJohnny: I may as well ask; Sadie, what’s the story of your new avatar?

Only the best television show of all time (in my humblest opinion)! Here’s a comprehensive guide to The Prisoner, which aired seventeen episodes in 1967.

For all you folks who miss my hippie chick avatar, I promise she’ll return again, so don’t grieve too much. 

Sadie: Only the best television show of all time

Ah. Patrick McGoohan. I recall him from Dangerman in the early 60s.

Les: For example the word “Pagan�? is a direct reflection of this Christian bias

Dad (88) googled ‘paganism’ some months ago and we had an interesting conversation about it.
According to Wiki: The term pagan is from Latin paganus, an adjective originally meaning “rural”, “rustic” or “of the country.” As a noun, paganus was used to mean “country dweller, villager.”
And then the xians got hold of it and made it into what it is today.

Interesting.

I guess that explains the ‘pagan’ practices of solstice celibrations, fertility rites and other agriculturally significant beliefs, without (as much ) emphasis on trying to pin down the more general nature and origins of the mundane

Anyone want to guess at the Republican campaign strategies for the current election season?

DoF, I was talking about human societal behavior…

According to Wiki: The term pagan is from Latin paganus, an adjective originally meaning “rural�?, “rustic�? or “of the country.�? As a noun, paganus was used to mean “country dweller, villager.�?

Yep, and peasants know how to party! They celebrated their “blessings” with revelry, indulging in earthly pleasures (still do!).  Their very lives depended on being in tune with the earth and its critters, digging in the dirt and such. Not so all those churchy rich folks who did/do nothing but “the Lord’s work.”

The Earth is Satan’s domain, after all, and anyone who so thoroughly indulges in its pleasures MUST be in need of salvation!

Lets all give OB a good ol’ HAIL MEPHISTOPHELES!

--THE ARCHFIEND--

re: “pagan”

I appreciate and really think we should celebrate the “pagan” holiday almost as global holidays (I’m like to read about calendar reformers, am an environmentalist, favor global governance, etc, for the same reason.).

However, I worry about the propensity for humans to confuse aligning one’s appreciation of values with a dogma based on those values. Perhaps this difference is the same difference between pagans (non-dogmatic) and Wiccans (dogmatic?) <-- on this I’m just guessing from a totally uninformed position and happy to be corrected.

In the language taught to me in Christian upbringing, “It is important to be a steward of the Earth, nut don’t confuse the creation with the Creator.”

Pagans vs. Wiccans:  a more familiar analogy to the relation would be that while all Presbyterians (Wiccans) are Christians (pagans), not all Christians are Presbyterians.

The quote about stewardship is a good example of Christian dogma, that the “creator” deserves more (and separate) attention than the “creation.” Using that analogy to illustrate what most (if not all) Wiccans believe, the very acts involved with practicing stewardship of the earth are considered communion with the “creator.” So too the act that results in the creation of new (human) life… the Charge of the Star Goddess says, “All acts of love and pleasure are my rites.”

The quote about stewardship is a good example of Christian dogma, that the “creator�? deserves more (and separate) attention than the “creation.�?

I don’t understand this. I was using (and understand) “stewardship” without any reference to a Creator. Stewardship is what you do to an item or area under your responsibility. You might do it as an act honoring a God, the Star Goddess or another diety, but it is an act in and of itself.

So, I wasn’t using it as an example of dogma. Rather, it’s a responsbility itself. However, in being a steward, don’t mistake the creation over which you’re responsible for some diety, i.e. celebrate the Solstices, but don’t worship the Earth as a conscious entity.

Let me try to explain a bit further…

Before becoming an atheist, I’ve been a Christian, and I’ve been a pagan, and of course the differences are many; but one of the most fundamental is that as a Christian I was taught that human beings have stewardship over the Earth because we are “higher” beings than the rest of its inhabitants - because we have souls.  On the flipside, pagans are taught that humankind may be more intelligent than most of the planet’s creatures, but on a spiritual level, all creatures are equal… even animals possess a spirit/soul.  So its not so much that the Earth itself is a conscious entity, but that all its inhabitants are a part of the whole; that the “divine spark” of life runs through every living thing, and even the smallest act can be an act of worship, because “god” is everywhere and in everything.

Does that make more sense?

Does that make more sense?

No, OB, the pagan beliefs don’t make any more sense than Christian teachings.  But they’re a lot more congenial.  And we could do with a lot more congeniality, whether it makes sense or no.  Respecting all creatures and the Earth is increasingly becoming a matter of survival, even if there is no divinity involved.

goddammit, I posted a reply, but I don’t see it… grrrr

Although I’ve left gods behind, except as characters in some fantastic stories, I still feel it’s a moral obligation to take care of this rock we live on so that future generations aren’t scrabbling for survival.  Unlike Christians, neither pagans nor atheists can look forward to getting a “do-over” after Jesus descends (and a thousand years of tribulations, woo hoo).

(If the “lost” post appears, my apologies for double-dipping)

thanks for the clarification. My apologies to SEB and others for asking too many theistic questions. This post, which borders on semantics, is almost certainly my last, for that reason.

The question may hinge on what you mean by “divine”. If you consider all created entities “divine” and worship the “divine”, and thus worship creation (and its inhabitants), there would be conflict between the two ideologies.

(A couple of questions to clarify: Is your automobile - a created product - spiritually equal to a human, its creator? Is cutting down a tree spiritually or morally equal to murdering a human?)

If you are congenial, as the last commentor noted, to all beings, I don’t think there is conflict - at least not with the Christian teaching I received growing up.

Now this line of Christian teaching could more closely align with paganism that it would with the line of fundamentalist Christian teaching about dominion. Dominion is more often considered a right held by higher spiritual beings (thus dogmatic), versus stewardship a responsibility by simply more intelligent and capable beings.

I don’t know that it’s possible to ask too many theistic questions so no need to apologize. As long as the folks participating seem to be gaining something from the conversation then I’m unconcerned with how many theistic questions it contains.

The question may hinge on what you mean by “divine�?.

This post, which borders on semantics, is almost certainly my last, for that reason.

Well, fuck off Tony.
I like OB’s stuff better.
??? Vs stewardship. What the fuck was that about?
Wiccan Vs Pagan is Outside the equation.
This talk about stewardship is really a semantically (bullshit) argument.
Either ALL living creature have souls or not.
KISS.
Consciousness, mate, that’s the question.
What is it? Define IT and you have THE answer to ALL questions.
Do we (?) really have dominion Über Alles?
KISS.
What the fuck are ‘capable’ beings? You? Me? Les’ cat?
I go with my compatriot – Death to Humans.
(Don’t worry mate, I’m on my 3rd bottle of mix-up stuff – getting agro – should go to bed – Santana is still going SSSSMOOOOTH – someone’s gotta tell me to shut the fuck up soooooon.)
It’s just stuff mate. Don’t be offended.
What is consciousness? That’s the ultimate question in my mind.
And just coz we have it, is that all there is?
Is there a connectedness between us ALL (living creatures)?
Like – what the fuck are we doing here? What the fuck ARE we here for? What’s the purpose of this stuff? Is there a purpose? 
Too deep. I know.
Go to bed, Johnny boy. It’s 3.30am.
And Santana keeps just cruising ... too loudly ... too smooth ... fuck ! there’s no smiley for ‘cruising’.

wow… okay. I’m just gonna leave that alone. 

I just wanted to clarify that, in case it was lost in the thread, I don’t believe in dominion, in terms of a right. But I do believe we should practice stewards - but not as a religious obligations, but

Higher spiritual beings? Consider me an agnostic on that one. I’m more of the mind that if biological beings can evolve souls as much as intelligence, maybe yes. But maybe souls are an absolute, in which case no. It’s not a simple question, though.

I don’t equate consciousness/sentience with having a soul or vice versa. Otherwise, we’ll soon be arguing over whether computers have souls and whether they need to be “saved” LOL

Capable beings? That was simply a way to describe beings capable of stewardship? You, me...yes. Les’s cat? I can only say that for my cat, I am the one scooping his shit, so no for mine. 

Thanks to Les for letting me ask questions here. Many of you might recognize where I’m coming from, and I appreciate your letting me find my way by probing and asking politely.