Unslaved Podcast -- Alex Tsakiris, host of Skeptiko, on the fraud of Materialism

#21
Hi Alex, thanks for reply! I must figure out this trick to use limited quotes and write in between. So glad to hear we have more of you 3 to look forward to
There are several useful tricks that people use.

If you just press the "Reply" button on any post, you will see the entire text of that post surrounded by [Word ......] text [/Word], where the word is QUOTE!

You can modify this structure by breaking it manually using [/Word] your comment [Word]

That is rather messy for me to discuss because don't want the system to obey the very things I am talking about!

An alternative is to highlight part of message and press the little 'Reply' button that appears beneath it. You can do that several times, and accumulate several quotes - even from more than one person - in your reply. You can than insert your own comments as needed.

You may even want to experiment, deleting any message you don't ultimately want to send out - or indeed keep editing the same message until you get it right.

David
 
#22
two interesting articles that I think relate quite well that might be of interest to some here are:
from 2011: The Emergence of Conspirituality in the Journal of Contemporary Religion by Charlotte Ward & Prof. David Voas
.

Hi Mishelle, do you happen to have a PDF of the Emergence of Conspirituality article that you could share? I tried to get it but it is behind a paywall for the journals. Sounds very interesting.

Oh and I nearly forgot the cincher for me in this interview! When Alex talks about he and his wife: I have to know before I feel; She has to feel before she knows. This is so exactly the case with Hubby and I. I find this fascinating b/c it seems quite fundamental to masculine/feminine information processing. I was hooked right then and vowed to hear more of Alex!
Ditto on this!
 
#23
I must figure out this trick to use limited quotes and write in between.
it's really simple... click reply... highlight text... click the "insert" icon (above)... choose "Quote"

The 'conspiracy in your own mind' to me is referring to psychoanalysis and 'parts work', like in IFS therapy.
nice I remember do some of this self-work after reading a book on the topic a long time ago. good stuff. I vacillate between recognizing the value of positive/personal psychology and a more non-dual perspective the sees it all as more stuff to be transcended.
 
#24
This introduction to a four volume series exploring the intersections and connections between "religion, the occult, and the paranormal" also touches on the interconnection between spirituality/occult and interests in certain so-called conspiracy theories.

http://www.academia.edu/9794097/Religion_the_Occult_and_the_Paranormal_An_Introduction

In the Introduction:

"There is an ardent search for an underlying Reality that encompasses accepted scientific knowledge while retaining philosophical elegance, religious profundity, and internal consistency" (Hanegraaff 1998: 63-64).

If that is true -- and you are a "seeker" (as defined in the article), then don't you want to follow the scientific and religious/occult/spiritual data wherever it leads you in your search for a greater understanding of the Underlying Reality?
 
#25
"There is an ardent search for an underlying Reality that encompasses accepted scientific knowledge while retaining philosophical elegance, religious profundity, and internal consistency" (Hanegraaff 1998: 63-64).

Love that! Thanks for link.

If that is true -- and you are a "seeker" (as defined in the article), then don't you want to follow the scientific and religious/occult/spiritual data wherever it leads you in your search for a greater understanding of the Underlying Reality?
YES! :)

I have a hard copy of that article Conspirituality and a new scanner. I will figure out how to use it in the few days and send you a PDF.
 
#28
When David said that science and religion now sound the same I could completely relate.
Esotercists very often reference "Quantum Theory" to lend scientific credulity to their thesis.

Ironically, "Quantum Theory" is esoteric B.S., and not Science.

Most people don't know that, because their understanding of the theory is primarily based pop-TV pseudo-intellectual nonsense by the likes of Morgan Freeman, the Science Channel, and New Age clowns like Nassim Haraman.

Sounds great at a cocktail party to anyone who doesn't know better.
 
#29
Esotercists very often reference "Quantum Theory" to lend scientific credulity to their thesis.

Ironically, "Quantum Theory" is esoteric B.S., and not Science.

Most people don't know that, because their understanding of the theory is primarily based pop-TV pseudo-intellectual nonsense by the likes of Morgan Freeman, the Science Channel, and New Age clowns like Nassim Haraman.

Sounds great at a cocktail party to anyone who doesn't know better.
That's mostly people from Western culture, in fact its the vast majority. True occultists laugh at New Agers and shun them.

They do talk about Quantum Theory, but everything modern science has talked about in relation to that theory and other materialist theories have been talked about for thousands of years before their "discoveries"

Example Dark Matter and many more theories.....Western Science is playing catchup
 
#30
I was surprised to hear that article I mentioned above is still behind a paywall since it is now so old. Thanks for the heads-up on potential copyright issues though, wouldn't want that!

I thought I'd just share a bit about it here, what most strikes me in it, if that's of any interest, b/c it's probably not worth paying for!

The authors compare the 3 principles they see as being part of both conspiracy theory and New Age or 'alternative' spirituality. "a) nothing happens by accident, b) nothing is as it seems, c) everything is connected. They conclude that conspiracy theory is male-dominated, conservative and pessimistic and concerned with current affairs while the 'holistic milieu' (New Age) is female-dominated, optimistic and focused on the self and personal growth and relationships. They say this is a web movement primarily with only a modest presence in 'real life' and has diffuse leadership and constantly shifting areas of interest.

"Conspirituality appears to be a means by which political cynicism is tempered with spiritual optimism. It curbs the belligerence of conspiracy theory and the self-absorption of the New Age."

The authors spend a bit of time looking at the "history" and the "first generation" and "second generation" and talks about such forerunners as David Icke, Alex Jones and Steven Greer, also Ron Paul and how there was a great uptake of the movement after 9/11. Ground Zero, Project Camelot and Red Ice are also considered to be in this first generation. They also state that most folks come to conspiracy theory through the mainstream media. They go on to discuss the key themes of a 'paradigm shift', unification and Oneness. They state that "Conspiracist beliefs are now commonplace."

What struck me when I first read this article was simply to see these topics covered in this journal. I also thought the term was clever and catchy. I do respect these authors for putting it together and expect they most likely got some pushback from their peers.

What also struck me is a repeat of what I see so much of with academics covering these topics: they provide very little context, if any and they make some sweeping assumptions I see as wrong or at least short-sighted. While there are many pages of notes and references the focus on this as a purely modern phenomenon and holding solely in the realm of the web is misinformed. It is written as an academic work by scholars yet there is no academic work cited, it's primarily, maybe even exclusively, current pop-culture, with no serious work discussed and focusing on the last decade or so, with only one mention of any history pre-JFK. I find this to be oddly deceptive. When they speak of NWO conspiracies they mention Pat Roberts but not Carroll Quigley, an actual scholar whom directly influenced Bill Clinton according to Clinton's own words. There is no mention of secret societies, only a pop-reference to the Illuminati. How on earth can you cover conspiracies or spirituality without looking at Masonry and the many others. The study of secret societies of course has a very long history with many serious scholars having contributed to that field. No mention of one of the greatest conspiracies with a long history, whether fake or real, which is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which has been covered extensively by such prolific authors as Umberto Eco. So they leave out all the historical context as well as the literary history. What about Goethe, what about Hoffman, brothers Grimm, what about the surrealist movement, what about Hesse and the whole 'lodge movement'?! The 'lure of the arcane' defines conspiracy theory at its very core and this has been of interest to folks since the beginning of civilization. I just don't understand how there can be a good interpretation of a modern movement that ignores completely this fact.

The authors of this article act as if this 'conspirituality' sprung up like mysterious stalagmites in the deep caverns of the internet. For that, they should be raked over the coals, metaphorically-speaking, of course. :)

The Emergence of Conspirituality by Charlotte Ward & David Voas
Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 26, No 1, January 2011, 103-121
 
Top