Uncouth PerspectivesNot on the rug, man.

I have been very lax in my study of religion of late. It turns out that when you have assignments and constant pressure that comes with grad school, it’s much easier for it to be hobby. I’m going to file that under ironic and move on. My focus when I was actively working on my Master’s Degree was apocalyptic cults. This is a subject I am very interested in and the recent news of a Russian doomsday cult has really sparked my interest again. Hopefully I can fan that into a real flame of interest.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/16/doomsday.cult/index.html

What I find most interesting about this incident is that the leader is no longer with the group. He’s been arrestd and undergoing “psychiatric evaluation.” He told the group to hole up in their self built cave and they are doing it. One of the reasons I find this interest has to do what what a “cult” is and how it is formed. Or, rather, how hard it is to define those things. Like many things with religion, defining what makes something a cult is generally a subjective affair. Most often, a descriptive definition is used. I.e. a cult is something that has x, y, and z characteristics. For example, one might say that a cult does not have mainstream acceptance. However, there are people who call Mormonism a cult, yet it clearly has mass appeal. Even better, others, such as myself, would not agree that mainstream acceptance is a characteristic at all.

However, one that is widely adopted in this method of defining a cult is charismatic leadership. The Branch Dividians had David Koresh, Christianity had Paul, and the Insane Clown Posse have Violent J. One theory about containing/controlling cult behavior (if you would choose to do so) is that if you take out the leader, you take out the cult. I do not believe things are that black and white, but the theory is probably a good rule of thumb.

So, then, what kind of control did Kuznetsov have that his followers continue their practices and follow his commandments even after he is gone? They apparently communicating with him via letters but are mistrustful that he may be under the control of the authorities. It makes me think that a new leader has emerged with the remaining members that allows them to hold strong to their beliefs. If this is true, it poses an interesting twist to the idea of a charismatic leader’s role within a cult. It also shows one of the things at the root of cult behavior: a cult is sociological based “thing” which is guided by principles of the relationships between members more than the philosophical doctrine they supposedly cling to.

…just be good?

Even though I’ve studied it quite a bit, I have never understood why people argue that morals cannot be exclusive from a god / religion / whatever. The same-old “atheists have no morals” rhetoric.

Perhaps it is because those who express these feelings cannot control themselves?

I have to admit that the idea of people who cannot control themselves or urges being a part of something that gives enough structure to control those urges has great appeal to me… because hopefully those urges will be controlled. But I really feel that it needs to be something: a) substantative and b) not as bad or worse than the “urge.”

Also, one of the biggest problems is that the people who DO successful commit to something which makes their lives better or “beats the urge,” then often they try to push this on other people and/or when faces with an argument against the belief, they react poorly or violently. This is because the belief is more important in it’s ability to defeat the urge than in and of itself.

Take, for example, religion as the belief in this role. I’ve had great conversations with people who do not share the same religious beliefs as myself. Take, as another example, my doctor. My doctor is a very devout Christian and we have had very good discussions about religion. I don’t trust my life any less to him (…i hope) and we can have a very rational, friendly dialogue. But this is not always the case.

It is my theory that one of the greatest things in the way of pluralistic dialogue is the fact that many individuals belief is not based on the belief, in and of itself, but other factors, such as the belief acting as an agent against an urge or that “this is what the family believes so it’s what I believe.” The biggest problem with this is that when faced with challenges to the belief, even in casual dialogue, it’s hard for an individual to face disparate arguments.

It’s important to understand this. There are some people who you can be frank and open with, some you need to be more careful in how things are worded, and some who conversation may simply not be possible

Since I began writing on the topic of atheism, the landscape of who is involved in writing about or evangelizing atheism has changed dramatically. Today, there are “heroes” of atheism. Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens. And many, many more. The ability to form virtual communities has obviously bolstered the atheism “community”–a group of people who are not likely to find people close-by through simply talking to another person on the street. There are no “atheist” churches, synagogues, etc. There are those of you who might claim there are and they are called “universities,” but this is just ignorant or hyperbole; universities are places to learn and thus you’ll find: a) a whole variety of views, be they atheist, theist, republican, democrat, etc. and b) people interested in learning.

However, with the rise of these heroes and apparently representatives of atheism, the issue of “what is” atheism is even more stark and apparent. Many Christians in America seem downright confused about what atheism is or is not and deservedly so, I ‘d have to say. Why? Because “atheism” describes a person who holds a single, particular view and does not describe the type of values a person holds. Some theologians would disagree with me here, but this is the point I have been making for years–you cannot judge an atheist by his/her stance on God but rather by his/her value (ethical) system.

So, as I read through atheist postings, I get so upset when I read atheists proclaiming “atheism means this or that.” Some (atheists) say atheists are modest, or ethical, or nice, or the like. And, as an atheist, I say this is absurd. Because, as I’ve said, being atheist has no bearing on these sorts of things. It may be a harder argument to make, but I believe it hurts our ability be relevant in conversations about morality if we say atheist = moral. Because if you can make the argument atheist = moral, you can make the argument atheist = immoral. Whereas, my argument is that atheist does not equal immoral NECESSARILY. This is an important distinction.

The are other dangers in this line of thinking as well. If one steps forward and makes blanket statements about, say, how atheists are moral people who just to be left alone and not force their views on anyone, this can be retorted with something smart-ass like “well, what about the Communists?” And, in the context of the original statement, the retort is appropriate. I’m an atheist. Stalin was an atheist. I and Stalin do not share the same values. Not only do I not want to make poor arguments, but I definitely don’t want to be lumped in with someone like Stalin.

This may be a repeat, but I want to rant a little about labels in general. I hinted at some thoughts yesterday, but it’s been a while since I’ve talked about it, so perhaps it is time for a refresher.

I hate labels. I hate stereotypes. I had anything that predispositions a person towards something else, especially if it is another person. A person should be judged as a person, as an individual, not by his or her specific race, nationality, etc. This is not simply anti-descrimination rhetoric. This is the simple truth that all too often on a person-to-person level, people pre-judge because of meaningless and trite things.

Yesterday, I said that I might be labeled as a “compassionate atheist moderate conservative”. Two of those labels are almost ANTI labels. If you break it apart, it is really “compassionate atheist” and “moderate conservative”. In addition, we might add “atheist conservative”. You see, when someone announces they are a conservative, the stereotype associated with it is a radical religious “right-winger” … so it need to be quailified.. I am neither radical nor religious. But THAT needs qualifying, because the stereotype associated with atheist is huuuuuuge.

I can’t avoid acknowledging that they exist. At one point in my life, I tried. I wouldn’t even respond to certain words or phrases. But, that is simply ridiculous. Someone (or perhaps many people) once argued that it is human nature to categorize things. I spent a lot of energy arguing against that viewpoint… but I have perhaps a better answer to it now: who cares?

I mean really, so what if it is natural to categorize things, even humans based off of traits? What I care about is how an individual judges another individual. I don’t care if you think that all poor people are just lazy leeches… if you genuinely interact with poor people, you will find one (and more than one!) that is not. And if you think that all right people are insensitive, money-grubbers.. again, if you genuinely interact with rich people, you will find one (and more than one!) that is not.

So what it comes down to for me is not wether or not it is human nature to categorize things. What is comes down to is that it is a learned behavior to pre-judge an individual because of some lame categorization.

And a bad one at that.

I was reading some ethics work by Stanley Hauerwas, and I came across an interesting topic: Do doctor’s have more power than ministers? To start, let me relate the passages that stood out to me.

My way of explaining this is that when someone goes to seminary today, he can say, “I’m not into Christology this year. I’m just into relating. After all, relating is what the ministry is all about, isn’t it? Ministry is about helping people relate to one another, isn’t it? So I want to take some more Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) courses.” And the seminary says, “Go ahead and do it. Right, get our head straight, and so on.” A kid can go to medical school and say, “I’m not into anatomy this year. I’m into relating. So I’d like to take a few more courses in psychology, because I need to know how to relate better to people.” The medical school then says, “Who in the hell do you think you are, kid? We’re not interested in your interests. You’re going to take anatomy. If you don’t like it, that’s though.”

Now what that shows you is that people believe incompetent physicians can hurt them. Therefore, people expect medical schools to hold their students responsible for the kind of training that’s necessary to be competent physicians. On the other hand, few people believe an incompetent minister can damage their salvation. [Emphasis added]. This helps you see why that what people want today is not salvation, but health. And that helps you see why the medical profession has, as a matter of fact, so much power over the church and her ministry. The medical establishment is the counter-salvation-promising group in our society today.

The Hauerwas Reader, 2001. Pg 611.

He makes some very interesting claims in these short paragraphs. As a person who does not believe in an after-life, this is nothing short of simple sense to me; that is, personally I place no stock in the salvation principles of a minister and, in fact, anything that a minister can do to better their personal and psychology skills to help people better deal with this life, the more I support it.

What about people of faith, however? Coming from a point of pure logic, it makes sense that a person would seek salvation as a means of prolonging one’s life. That is, mortality is a horrible and scary idea and anyone who truly faces the idea is scared witless. Which is one of the reasons that idea of salvation is important–to know and understand that “the end of life” is not the end. However, in this modern age, do people of faith see life, in today, as more important than salvation? Is the idea of salvation as believable, or worth working for?

One argument possible idea circumvents the above questions, but it deals with Christian Protestantism, or the influence therein. That is, when salvation became a personal issue, the priest/pastor/minister diminished in power. To clarify what some might argue, salvation may have always been important to the individual, but one of the changes made in the Protestant reformation is that salvation became something possible through an individual’s relationship with God, not because of a priest or the church.

My conversation obviously focuses on Christianity and leaves a glaring hole where other religions fit in, yet I am curious as to thoughts on this issue.

What do you think; do doctor’s have more (earthly, secular) power than ministers?

I say, proudly, no to “Under God.”

To properly cover the issue, the history of the Pledge of Allegiance must first be examined. Then, a discussion of the history of the Establishment Clause (the clause in the Bill of Rights which prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting an individual’s free exercise of religion) and the court’s interpretation thereof. Lastly, the relationship of the Pledge of Allegiance and the Establishment Clause will provide a clear picture of whether this phrase “under God” is constitutional or not.

Perhaps a surprise to many, the original Pledge of Allegiance did not include an affirmation to God. It was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister and Christian Socialist named Francis Bellamy. It read, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” It was modified in part in 1924 to read “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

In this, one can see that there is no mention of “God” or any sort of non-secular affirmation. The Pledge of Allegiance, at least in 1924, is a political affirmation of the secular state–I believe and support in my country. As can be imagined, this change in 1924 was not the last change. The last change came in 1954, when the phrase “under God” was added. When the “1954 Act” was signed by President Eisenhower he said “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.” This sentiment does not appear to be a secular political sentiment. Rather, it appears–no, it openly proclaims–to be a religious affirmation.

The Supreme Court has much to say on state sponsored religious affirmation. According to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling on Newdow V. U.S. Congress, the Supreme Court has established three different tests to the Establishment Clause. The first the is “Lemon” test, created in Lemon v. Kurtzman; the “endorsement” test, found in Lynch v. Donnelly; and the “coercion” test, first used in ISKCON v. Lee. Any of these tests may be used to determine the constitutionality of something in regards to the Establishment Clause.

The “Lemon” test checks for three things: (1) does the government conduct in question have a “secular purpose”, (2) does the government conduct in question have “a principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion”, and (3) does the government conduct in question refrain from “[fostering] an excessive government entanglement with religion”.

The “endorsement” test is as follows:

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person’s standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition in two principal ways. One is excessive entanglement with religious institutions . . . . The second and more direct infringement is government endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

Lastly, the “coercion” test tells us that it is unconstitutional to include invocations and benedictions in the form of “nonsectarian” prayers at public graduation ceremonies. It relies on the principle that “at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or it exercise, or otherwise to act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so” (emphasis added).

Now that the background of the Pledge of Allegiance has been examined and a solid definition of what tests the Courts use to examine issues relating to the Establishment Clause, a review of the “under God” statement in the Pledge of Allegiance can be done.

As has already been explained, the phrase “under God” was not originally in the pledge and it was later added with an explicit understanding that is affirmed a belief in the “almighty God”. It appears straight forward that, at the least, the statement is not a secular statement and is clearly a religious one. In addition, the phrase lends itself to a monotheistic bent. While many have argued that it is merely a “place holder” for other religions to place their professed belief, those who profess this “place holder” belief have a hard argument to make. Not only does the history of the phrase show it is monotheistic, but to those of a non-Christian or a non-monotheistic background, this is simply not possible.

In his dissent on the Nordow v. U.S. Congress opinion, Justice O’Scannlain argues that by removing the phrase “under God”, it is favoring an atheistic platform. However, this is also not true. To favor an atheistic platform, one would need to affirm a belief that this is a nation �under no god�. Removing this affirmation does not support an atheistic platform�even if the movement is brought up, as it is in this case, by an atheist.

Speaking of affirmation, affirmation is exactly what is at the heart of this issue. Justice O’Scannlian and Justice Fernandez both argue in separate dissents to Nordow v. U.S. Congress rulings that by making the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, we must also refrain from reading historical documents and speeches, such as the Declaration of Independence, or the Gettysburg address, or even the Constitution. If the Pledge of Allegiance were just another document or speech, this argument is solid and true. However, this argument is a classic logical fallacy. The comparison is a bad comparison and riddled with an emotional appeal. To read from a document is different than to make a public affirmation to something, in this case the principles found in the Pledge of Allegiance. As Justice Goodwin says, “to recite the Pledge is not to describe the United State; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and since 1954 monotheism”.

There has been a great uproar because of the issue of “under God” and the Pledge. This is mainly due to a high level of emotional attachment to the issue. For those who ascribe to “the Almighty” as the sovereign power of this nation, by removing “under God”, something seems to be taken away. And in some sense, this is true. But, what is a greater crime, to remove “under God” for some people, or to push “under God” onto the rest?

The Court answered this best in their ruling on Barnette, when they said “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein”.

13:14:34) *CENSORED*: http://www.torquecentral.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11571

/**********************************************************

EXCERPT

The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like “stupid” , “morons”, and “idiots”. Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American.

So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let’s look at the biographies of these “stupid”, “ignorant” , “moronic” leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:

[Education background of everyone]

While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders.

These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our country. They only have a deep seated hatred for all things Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not a peep was heard from Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed, by freedom-hating terrorists, while going about their routine lives, they want to hold rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest, God-fearing Republican sits in the White House.

************************************************************/

(14:11:34) UncouthRanting: Pro/Anti war arguments aside, I have to state from a logic point that is a flawed argument. But it’s interesting, nonetheless.

(14:23:16) *CENSORED*: how so do you believe flawed

(14:26:53) UncouthRanting: It’s a classical Ad Hominem fallacy. The argument is not valid or invalid based on the person. While study at a University, etc., make for a possible better perspective, it does not necessitate it. For example, I have known people who have graduated and really have no idea what they are doing (just a brief example, not intended to make or break my point :} ). Simply put, while the education back ground of the government leaders vs the education background of the celebrity war protestors is both interesting and a facet that you can look at the people making the arguments, it does not mean that the argument is any better or worse. (Again, this has NOTHING to do with war/anti-war sentiment, just looking at it from the logic of the argument)

(14:29:54) *CENSORED*: true, i only did one year of college and i think i turned out just fine ;) just helps put the ramblings of thesbians in perspective

(14:31:49) UncouthRanting: I don’t know if I agree with that; what is important is that we focus on the issue. Many people seem to disagree with me, but we DO have the right to have individual beliefs and voice them. While, again, the information is interesting, I think it can serve only to degrade to personal attacks and mud slinging, rather than focusing on the ethical, political, and social issues surrounding the war.

(14:32:28) *CENSORED*: they’ve been making personal attacks on the president

(14:32:33) UncouthRanting: And just as I disagree with the arguments against the celebreties, I disagree with the arguments against Bush.

(14:33:46) UncouthRanting: So? Does that mean you sling back? That seems kind of ridiculous. If it is so bad that they are making personal attacks, then makeing personal attacks back seems wrong :}

(14:33:59) *CENSORED*: i just find it silly how some people run their mouth on the issue thinking they know more than the president about the situation, …. that’s why i enjoyed the article because they mentioned how the pres. gets briefed all the time whereas the actors get cnn like we do

(14:34:30) UncouthRanting: And that is a much more valid point that the validity of their statements because of their education or the celebrities “shambled” lives… but it is important to never forget that the issue here IS the issue.

—————–

Thoughts?

I really believe that when people become stagnant and rigid in their thoughts and beliefs, one of the best ways to open an eye is to be controversal and/or strong in your approach.

Ayn Rand comes to mind when I think about this. Her writing has changed a LOT of people, myself included, and her approach is very strong and, in a sense, very militaristic. Whether or not she really was that extreme in her beliefs I, personally, will never know. However, I do know that it had some impact and effect.

Yet, I also do not believe that you have to tackle “important” topics and always be extreme. I do not think you -always- have to make a “statement.” Because, when it comes down to it, these “important” issues are made up of other issues and values. The ones we do not always talk about.

One of the responses I got to a recent rant I posted was “Well, yeah. One problem, though. No one will argue will really argue with that.” … As if, this is a bad thing. Moreover, that I would not get comments on it (which, for the most part, I really did not). To that, I really want to say:

So what. It is not about comments, or popularity, or making a fuss for me. When I started doing this, I was writing for myself. When it stops being about writing for myself, I will stop writing. Done. However, I want to share. And while I want to make people think.. and while I will and do write about controversal issues, it is also not about that. I’m not going to go out of my way to find something controversal.

I write about what bothers me. Whether or not it is a “big issue” …. or something people will jump up and down about. I do enough of that in my daily life that I don’t always needs to write about it.

Plus, sometimes it is nice to read something and just go “Yeah.”

And maybe, just maybe, that will make all the difference.

(14:13:28) *CENSORED*: and I know, I’m messed up *smiles slightly*
(14:15:10) *CENSORED*: maybe
(14:15:13) *CENSORED*: maybe I’ll become a nun
(14:15:32) *CENSORED*: *sighs* just say to hell with this, I’m gonna be on my own, no nothing.
(14:16:36) UncouthRanting: Why do you need to be a nun to do that?
(14:17:27) *CENSORED*: *shrugs* more of a reason to stay away from guys for anything but friendship?
(14:17:36) *CENSORED*: eh, non physical friendship
(14:18:02) UncouthRanting: How about– more of a reason to just have human relations, and not break it into categories, and titles, and genders.
(14:18:46) *CENSORED*: I’m trying to have human relations and I’m messing it up badly. I can’t just be me. *shrugs* Me isn’t good.
(14:19:32) *CENSORED*: eh
(14:19:33) *CENSORED*: *shrugs*
(14:19:42) UncouthRanting: I really have nothing to say that,.
(14:19:45) UncouthRanting: to say that.
(14:20:12) *CENSORED*: Erg, Isaac!
(14:23:22) *CENSORED*: eh
(14:23:24) *CENSORED*: it’ll come to me
(14:23:26) *CENSORED*: always does
(14:23:30) *CENSORED*: *shrugs*
(14:24:03) UncouthRanting: I agree–but not because you are not good.
(14:24:13) *CENSORED*: eh
(14:24:23) *CENSORED*: I was being overly melodramatic there
(14:24:30) UncouthRanting: It was still said.
(14:24:34) UncouthRanting: And it still means something.
(14:24:39) *CENSORED*: :-\
(14:24:47) *CENSORED*: it means I’m tired of messing things up
(14:24:58) UncouthRanting: Then say that.
(14:25:12) UncouthRanting: Do not belittle or repress yourself–that is the cheap and easy way out.
(14:25:29) *CENSORED*: sorry. I usually try not to.
(14:25:36) *CENSORED*: lol, I also try not to spout
(14:25:40) UncouthRanting: I mean, I understand what you are trying tos ay.. but I can’t sympathize with it if it’s not true.
(14:25:49) *CENSORED*: *nods*
(14:26:09) UncouthRanting: *CENSORED*, we need to vent. As people, we NEED it. We get in these cyclic patterns in our head and we can’t sort it out until we TALK about it.
(14:26:30) *CENSORED*: I don’t need sympathy *shrugs* I don’t need understanding either, though that’s nice. I need someone who just listens and can put me in my place at times
(14:26:32) *CENSORED*: heh
(14:26:44) UncouthRanting: I know I’m a bit harsh sometimes, but that is because I think you’ve got the ability to be one of the greatest people I’ve ever known.. And I want to push for that.
(14:27:26) *CENSORED*: hush, I need harsh! Too many people aren’t… leaves you empty sometimes
(14:27:42) *CENSORED*: well
(14:27:43) *CENSORED*: not need
(14:27:46) *CENSORED*: *thinks*
(14:27:56) UncouthRanting: :}
(14:27:59) *CENSORED*: strongly desire
(14:28:02) *CENSORED*: %)
(14:28:18) UncouthRanting: No, you need real.
(14:28:31) UncouthRanting: Harsh is just hurtful and pointless. I used the wrong terminology, I think.
(14:29:15) *CENSORED*: is it? Harsh can kick you back into realistic *smiles slightly* like a slap on the face when you’re panicing
(14:29:17) *CENSORED*: real…
(14:29:27) *CENSORED*: that’s what I’m trying to figure out
(14:29:28) *CENSORED*: what is
(14:29:35) *CENSORED*: or isn’t
(14:29:36) *CENSORED*: either or
(14:29:39) *CENSORED*: I’m not picky
(14:29:44) *CENSORED*: *smiles slightly*
(14:29:47) UncouthRanting: :}
(14:29:58) UncouthRanting: Then start by being as honest as you can, even with yourself.
(14:30:07) UncouthRanting: And that includes not saying things like “I’m no good.”
(14:30:26) *CENSORED*: *nods*
(14:30:56) *CENSORED*: honesty is hard though- especially when you’re used to lies or only partial honesty.
(14:31:18) UncouthRanting: No, honesty is NOT hard.
(14:31:22) *CENSORED*: eh, I kinda know that
(14:31:27) *CENSORED*: no, the after effects can be
(14:31:29) UncouthRanting: You’re right, it may seem rough in comparison, but it is not hard.
(14:31:43) UncouthRanting: No, again, it may only seem rough. But it is how you let it affect you.
(14:32:10) *CENSORED*: other people affect me
(14:32:46) UncouthRanting: That’s an untrue statement:
(14:32:53) UncouthRanting: You let other people affect you in a negative manner.
(14:32:57) *CENSORED*: *blinks*
(14:32:59) *CENSORED*: or positive
(14:33:04) *CENSORED*: just usually negative
(14:33:44) UncouthRanting: You make that choice :}
(14:33:54) UncouthRanting: Which is why I worded it as I did.
(14:34:25) *CENSORED*: heh
(14:34:38) *CENSORED*: I don’t see how I can change that
(14:34:57) UncouthRanting: This may sound a bit Zennish.. or maybe Taoist of me..
(14:35:03) UncouthRanting: But, it’s because you’re trying to see.
(14:35:10) UncouthRanting: You’re trying.
(14:35:13) *CENSORED*: :-\
(14:35:15) UncouthRanting: Instead of doing.
(14:35:28) *CENSORED*: AhHa!
(14:35:33) UncouthRanting: Let me ask you this:
(14:35:33) *CENSORED*: *smirks*
(14:35:40) *CENSORED*: I knew I’d catch you sometime
(14:35:41) *CENSORED*: k…
(14:35:44) UncouthRanting: Tell me your reaction to this statement.
(14:35:46) UncouthRanting: Catch me what?
(14:36:25) *CENSORED*: lol, you said a while back that it was the trying that counts… when you said I should watch One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest
(14:36:29) *CENSORED*: statement?
(14:37:16) UncouthRanting: That was a different definition (I hate english sometimes).. that trying was in actually making an attempt.
(14:37:18) UncouthRanting: Anyways.
(14:37:35) UncouthRanting: *CENSORED*, you are being a silly and stupid little girl.
(14:38:28) *CENSORED*: heh
(14:39:16) UncouthRanting: Well?
(14:40:23) *CENSORED*: mixture. First, a sarcastic thanks. Then, rather hurt. Then, yeah I am. Then, aw what the hell, I’m learning.
(14:40:54) UncouthRanting: Okay.
(14:40:57) UncouthRanting: Let’s look at that.
(14:41:08) UncouthRanting: You first reaction is sarcasm– why
(14:41:09) UncouthRanting: ?
(14:41:35) *CENSORED*: well, and behind it all, I’m glad that was just a statement.. hopefully not too meant.
(14:41:36) *CENSORED*: um
(14:41:52) *CENSORED*: because I don’t take stuff like that seriously at first, defense mechanism not to break down.
(14:42:07) UncouthRanting: Okay–so you don’t WANT to take it serious. But..
(14:42:10) UncouthRanting: Then you do.
(14:42:15) UncouthRanting: Because you go to hurt–why?
(14:43:00) *CENSORED*: because there must be a reason you said that, and I’m scared I might have really missed something
(14:43:27) UncouthRanting: What might you have missed?
(14:43:45) *CENSORED*: eh, something in our friendship. worry that I did something to offend you.
(14:43:59) UncouthRanting: Why would it matter if you offended me?
(14:44:47) *CENSORED*: *blinks* because I care about you and I care for how you feel about me
(14:45:07) UncouthRanting: Why do you care for how I feel about you?
(14:45:49) *CENSORED*: because I respect your opinion, it’s usually quite good.
(14:46:41) *CENSORED*: erm, fair
(14:47:01) UncouthRanting: Okay. So, you respect my opinion, which you think is generally pretty good or fair. And if I say something like “You are a silly and stupid little girl”, I might be right?
(14:47:46) *CENSORED*: yeah
(14:47:52) *CENSORED*: pretty much
(14:48:06) UncouthRanting: So what if I said to you: *CENSORED*, you are male.
(14:48:44) *CENSORED*: *blinks* sarcasm, laugh, then blink and ask why you say that and I don’t think I am…
(14:49:45) UncouthRanting: Why the different reaction? Isn’t my opinion generally good or fair? Something that might affect how you feel and if you are hut or not?
(14:49:48) UncouthRanting: hurt
(14:50:28) *CENSORED*: eh, because it’s so off the wall and doesn’t compute with anything I’ve thought of myself
(14:50:36) UncouthRanting: Ah, we’re getting close to something
(14:50:42) *CENSORED*: yeah
(14:50:43) UncouthRanting: Because you don’t believe it is true
(14:51:21) *CENSORED*: …
(14:52:10) UncouthRanting: Now, if we go back to our original example: If you didn’t believe that was true, would it not stand to reason the you would probably just laugh off my attempt to say something like that.
(14:52:32) *CENSORED*: yeah *sighs*
(14:53:34) UncouthRanting: However, since you are not firm in that belief.. and because you haven chosen to believe my opinion, you are genuinely hurt by it (moreover, you would probably choose to believe it) .. even in a scenario like this, where I am not stating it as my opinion (I will never be able to convince you I do not believe that until you do!), you are still anxious and perhaps upset about it.
(14:54:27) *CENSORED*: *blinks* I believe you, because I know it’s to prove this to me
(14:55:49) UncouthRanting: And if I can’t convince you of it, even though I believe with all my self it is not true, because you are not convinced of it, should we not focus on what I think, but on what you think: Moreover, should you not focus on having these relationships that do not seem to work for the very same reasons and instead focus on figuring out yourself and what you believe and let your human relations be what they can be, instead of trying to make them something they are not?
(14:57:15) *CENSORED*: :-\ gotta be on my own for that
(14:57:23) UncouthRanting: Hmm?
(14:58:34) *CENSORED*: to figure myself out
(14:58:42) *CENSORED*: I’ve got to be by myself
(14:58:46) *CENSORED*: other people can help
(14:58:52) UncouthRanting: Absolutely. That is why I said “you”
(14:58:56) *CENSORED*: but I have to make the actual trip alone.
(14:58:57) *CENSORED*: heh
(14:59:03) *CENSORED*: I’m scared of being alone
(14:59:11) UncouthRanting: Yes. It’s a hard thing to accept sometimes, but it is how we do it.
(14:59:14) UncouthRanting: But.. see.
(14:59:15) UncouthRanting: No..
(14:59:17) UncouthRanting: It’s not alone.
(14:59:24) UncouthRanting: It is within yourself.
(14:59:29) UncouthRanting: That’s a big difference.
(14:59:49) UncouthRanting: And it’s not like a long, desolate journey.
(14:59:51) UncouthRanting: LIFE is that journey.
(14:59:56) UncouthRanting: And we learn it a bit at a time.
(15:00:03) *CENSORED*: I almost died last time.
(15:00:08) UncouthRanting: As long as we are striving last time?
(15:00:11) UncouthRanting: er -?
(15:00:14) UncouthRanting: How is that?
(15:00:54) *CENSORED*: Last time I was alone I hated myself and decided to end that hatred *shrugs* But because it was me I ended up killing myself.
(15:00:58) *CENSORED*: and even though I’m changed
(15:01:06) *CENSORED*: I’m still scared to death that it’s in me somewhere
(15:01:19) UncouthRanting: But.. see..
(15:01:23) UncouthRanting: You’re missing that.
(15:01:25) UncouthRanting: Important.
(15:01:28) UncouthRanting: Detail.
(15:01:42) UncouthRanting: You’re NOT alone. The trip IS by yourself. But you are NOT alone.
(15:01:48) *CENSORED*: *sighs deeply*
(15:01:55) UncouthRanting: For example”:
(15:02:00) UncouthRanting: It’s 3 am.
(15:02:07) UncouthRanting: You’re sitting and thinking.
(15:02:09) UncouthRanting: And despairing.
(15:02:12) UncouthRanting: It all seems crazy.
(15:02:15) UncouthRanting: You don’t know what to do.
(15:02:20) UncouthRanting: You pick up the phone.
(15:02:25) UncouthRanting: And you call me.
(15:02:28) UncouthRanting: And you vent it all out.
(15:02:33) UncouthRanting: And we talk.
(15:02:39) *CENSORED*: heh
(15:02:39) UncouthRanting: And then… you hang up.
(15:02:58) UncouthRanting: And it’s different. You feel better. You may not continue that night. But, you made progress.
(15:03:08) UncouthRanting: To be alone–you have to choose to be alone.
(15:03:18) UncouthRanting: I know, I’m really bad about it.
(15:03:21) *CENSORED*: aw, shucks Isaac, I’m not gonna call you at night. I wouldn’t want to bug anyone
(15:03:24) *CENSORED*: *pokes* yes you are
(15:03:25) *CENSORED*: %)
(15:03:32) UncouthRanting: *CENSORED*.
(15:03:40) UncouthRanting: What did I just say about choosing to be alone?
(15:03:50) UncouthRanting: How well do you think you know me?
(15:04:48) UncouthRanting: ?
(15:04:56) *CENSORED*: Um, I know you as well as you let me, I hope. And I choose to be alone at that time because it’s late at night!
(15:05:16) UncouthRanting: Do you think I make frivolous offers?
(15:05:30) *CENSORED*: no
(15:06:00) UncouthRanting: Do you think I am the type of person who, would, if you called late at night and I didn’t want to talk.. would talk anyone and feel bad and stupid the entire time>
(15:06:18) *CENSORED*: no
(15:06:45) UncouthRanting: Then you’ve chosen to be alone and you have to understand and accept the accountability for that decision.
(15:07:21) UncouthRanting: (And, to understand that probably, you need to understand that you REALLY have an option that you are choosing not to use. And to understand THAT you need to understand WHY.)
(15:07:26) UncouthRanting: Okay :}
(15:08:47) UncouthRanting: er properly
(15:08:51) UncouthRanting: not probably
(15:13:15) *CENSORED*: back
(15:13:30) *CENSORED*: *hugs* I guessed
(15:14:01) UncouthRanting: Hmm?
(15:14:36) *CENSORED*: on the word
(15:14:38) *CENSORED*: %)
(15:14:43) *CENSORED*: why…
(15:14:49) UncouthRanting: YEs.
(15:14:51) UncouthRanting: er, yes.
(15:14:53) UncouthRanting: Why.
(15:14:55) *CENSORED*: I feel cheap if I get help?
(15:15:06) UncouthRanting: How is it help?
(15:15:17) *CENSORED*: *shrugs* talking
(15:15:20) *CENSORED*: I’m not making sense
(15:15:27) UncouthRanting: Keep going with it.
(15:16:12) *CENSORED*: talking out problems helps… but even I as fear being alone I feel like I have to, prove to myself that I’m just being paranoid
(15:17:47) UncouthRanting: Hmm.
(15:18:12) UncouthRanting: So, one of your beliefs is you are not strong unless you do it yourself?
(15:18:38) *CENSORED*: I guess. I know it doesn’t mean much, but still.
(15:18:43) UncouthRanting: Nono.
(15:18:49) UncouthRanting: If it is your belief, it means a lot.
(15:19:04) *CENSORED*: *nods*
(15:19:08) UncouthRanting: Because it is a belief that goes against how we, as people, attain self worth and communicate.
(15:19:56) UncouthRanting: You have a need to prove yourself:
(15:20:06) UncouthRanting: Except that calling someone to vent does not constitute a break in that,.
(15:20:16) UncouthRanting: Because YOU are still the one who does it, as you, yourself, have already said.
(15:20:31) *CENSORED*: *frowns* something does seem right
(15:20:36) *CENSORED*: but I can’t find a loose end
(15:21:12) UncouthRanting: It doesn’t seem right because your belief is it is you or you–nothing else :}
(15:21:51) *CENSORED*: *laughs softly* doesn’t sound too healthy
(15:22:26) UncouthRanting: Why not?
(15:22:53) *CENSORED*: ’cause other people are nice to have around… and call at three in the morning
(15:24:10) UncouthRanting: :}~
(15:24:14) UncouthRanting: So, what do you want?
(15:24:35) UncouthRanting: Do you want to prove you can do it all yourself? Or do you want to actually DO it all yourself, and have people around to be friends?
(15:25:08) *CENSORED*: both
(15:25:27) UncouthRanting: Let me try a dfiferent perspective.
(15:26:02) *CENSORED*: k
(15:26:06) UncouthRanting: Do you want to prove you can do it all yourself (in essence failing and being miserable)? Or do you want to actually do it all yourself (in essence using the resources and people in your life to aid you and vice versa)?
(15:27:10) *CENSORED*: no more Mr. Nice Guy, hmm? *smiles a tiny bit*
(15:27:14) *CENSORED*: I don’t want to be miserable
(15:27:17) *CENSORED*: so the second
(15:27:37) UncouthRanting: Don’t just say it–in fact, don’t give me answer until you really believe one or the other.
(15:28:04) *CENSORED*: that could be a while
(15:28:10) *CENSORED*: I’m still figuring out what I believe
(15:28:31) UncouthRanting: I’ve got time :}
(15:28:36) UncouthRanting: And so should you.
(15:29:03) *CENSORED*: time? Time is weird
(15:29:26) UncouthRanting: Time is what you make of it.
(15:29:50) *CENSORED*: blah, time is slow and fast and rarely runs right
(15:30:06) *CENSORED*: which makes scheduling a toughie!
(15:30:32) UncouthRanting: Time is what you make of it.
(15:30:41) UncouthRanting: If you let the world control you, of course it’s hard.
(15:30:53) UncouthRanting: But if you let YOU control you.. you can make what you want out of anyithing.
(15:31:27) *CENSORED*: I am my own master.
(15:31:38) UncouthRanting: What master?
(15:31:43) UncouthRanting: “I am me.”
(15:31:50) UncouthRanting: Or, perhaps even “I am.”
(15:32:13) *CENSORED*: geez Isaac, I always liked that quote! *thumps you*
(15:32:23) *CENSORED*: you control yourself… or lack of it
(15:33:34) UncouthRanting: Wha?
(15:34:36) *CENSORED*: *smiles slightly* Master is misleading… to me it means teacher, leasher, etc.er all in one
(15:34:43) UncouthRanting: No.
(15:34:44) UncouthRanting: See.
(15:34:58) UncouthRanting: I say “I am.” because everything is implied in the rest of my beliefs.
(15:35:22) UncouthRanting: I don’t NEED to say the rest, because it is inherint in my beliefs that all of that is part of exisitng.
(15:35:58) *CENSORED*: *tilts head* that no one else can be your master?
(15:36:11) UncouthRanting: Everything :}

I do two readings for her. I suppose I look back again in humor on the fact that I, Mr. I’m-not-spiritual-so-back-off, loves… loves to read tarot cards.

I dunno, maybe it’s to watch to the expression on the face of the people who I do the reading for. It would be a lie that to see her face twist in thought is not pleasureable even above and beyond the normal twist I get.. but that’s aside from the point.

We talk a little more about the meanings of the readings. How odd it is that they can sometimes be so right on. I tend to think back, though, to the horoscope type studies that show a whole class agreeing their horoscope is right on… and it turns out to be the same exact one.

Then… we start talking about ghosts…

See, many people believe my apartment is haunted. I’d be so inclined to agree if I didn’t simply not believe in it. I have torturous dreams. I lay awake for hours sometimes. There are, occasionally, odd things that happen.

My good friend Kristin spent the night once, and she had the same thing happened to her. Apparently it freaked her out. She lent me some White Sage to “cleanse” it, but I do not even know the first thing about that… so it’s just been sitting on my desk.

And, in fact, it is part of what tripped the ghost talk. She does believe in the possibilities of ghosts. In fact, she relates a story to me that was very trippy. It is simply one of those things that make you wonder…

Do you wonder?