| Well, since I've been noting in here for a long time, people probably
have an opinion where I'm coming from. However, to dispel any
doubts....
The most important thing to me is using one's mind. That, to me,
requires the ability to research where necessary, experiment where
possible, not be afraid to try something novel if it will advance
knowledge, and to keep, as I've said elsewhere, an open mind, but
not so open one's brains fall out.
One thing I do believe is that everything is unified, and if something
appears to behave anomalously through one understood set of "laws"
[i.e., analog of a set of conditions that produce a consistent model]
that doesn't necessarily invalidate those "laws"; rather, it might
imply that the anomaly may be due to the action of other "laws"
that overlap the first set [e.g., picking up a steel nail with a
magnet doesn't invalidate the "law" of gravity].
I question anything that's said just because someone else said it
(as Medieval "scholarship" endlessly ruminated on the Classical
scholars such as Aristotle). I also have a high suspicion of a
report of an isolated incident without corroboration, but won't
totally dismiss it.
I try to give people beneit of the doubt; past a point, however,
if a report starts to stray off, my "doubter" engages (e.g., the
story about the house plagued by demons seemed worth looking at
it, but as the figure of Ed Warren became clear in the background...)
and my critical facilities work overtime.
I don't like those who use gullibility to take advantage of others,
particularly those that "take" the gullible for cash (bogus charms,
"can't lose" money schemes, etc.).
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| I've been looking at my self and attitudes to try and come up with
a clear picture of my values that could be put into this file.
Basically, I respect personal honesty, flexibility and the willingness
to try to put one's thoughts into action. I like to think that
I am open to new ideas and spiritual paths that I haven't walked.
(Unless pressured that "this" path is the only one, in which case
I also dig in my heels.) I enjoy talking with others who are also
seeking their way in the world, because I don't feel that anyone
here has all the answers.
I am very closed to people who ask for advice, help, healing, or
what have you, and then reject what I or others have to say because
it doesn't fit their model of life. If you don't want to hear it
don't ask. I'm also closed to unsolicited advice "for my own good"
I've always agreed with Thoreau on anyone out to do me good.
|
| {1942-63}
------------------------------------------------------------------
I am the son of an ex-R.C. nun (Polish-speaking order) in the USA.
I grew up a very orthodox R.C., consequently, but explored Zen and
Vedanta in my late teens and early 20s. Consequently, I came to
appreciate the manner & parables of Jiddhu Krishnamurti of Ojai CA,
...who might well be called an ex-Theosophical-Society Freethinker.
In my formative years ('42-'60) R.C. orthodoxy was rigidly-controlled;
its harsh no-nonsense attitude towards non-material phenomena I thought
simply proprietary. Its denial of reincarnation, a serious deception.
-- I rather flatly told a Jesuit I knew at Boston Collge in '63:
" Catholocism is a perfectly defensible mystery-religion, if only
it would admit it were! " Brashest insolence @ 21 & still true.
{1963-84+}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
But none of these matters are theoretical. You can experience aspects
of the Actual (vs 'real') World yourself. You must have simple courage
to believe that you have done so and that you are not self-misled.
I'm not liable to be talked into thinking I gullibly mislead-myself:
my past-lives regression session in '84 confirmed what I had known.
(see Note 105 Been Here Before? .50 and .51 for some more details.)
It's all really that ordinary: you contain your past(s) & your end(s).
You can choose to delegate that away @ your temporary peril; so I
chivvied Steven Kallis, Jr. about Reagan On Psychics, in Note 186.*
You hardly need anyone's permission to be who you know you are.
This is not @ all what has been called Enlightened Egotism, however;
that seems to have been coopted quite strenuously by neoObjectivists
(Ayn Rand & Nathaniel Branden, who has since abandoned Objectivism.)
My bias is one of an irrepressably-distributive mutual aid & support,
with charity amongst all, for all, without typical malice for most!
Call me irrepressable...
|