Religion

tama

(9,137 posts)

30. OK, so 'normality'

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 05:37 PM

Dec 2012

is defined by social conformism and ability adapt to and cope with consensus reality of "group-thinking". "If you believe in democracy majority cannot be wrong" and so on...

But the game of "normal" vs "insane" is not just purely a numbers game of "They say I'm crazy, I say they are crazy, they voted me down", if we accept also qualitative factors in addition to quantitative?

So let's suppose we start from some ethical axioms and define "faithfulness" to Golden/Silver rule as normal and sane, and deduce from that axiom e.g. that all believers in power hierarchies (religious, statist etc.) are suffering from collective insanity, regardless how the majority of authorities and authoritarian followers regard those they consider different, dissenting and unnormal?

And further, let's suppose someone has shamanistic visions and in those visions a flying unicorn called Bruce as her/his spirit teacher, teaching the wisdom of Golden/Silver rule... ? Would you like to be considered "psychotic" for having such experience and shut in mental asylum if you open your mouth and tell publicly about your experiences and the wisdom of Golden/Silver rule by a normative power hierarchy obviously not acting according to that ethical axiom?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

134 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"Other ways of knowing," aka Different Cognitive Styles [View all] okasha Dec 2012 OP

I think I disagree with your last statement notadmblnd Dec 2012 #1

I agree that there are situations to which the theory does not apply, cbayer Dec 2012 #27

OK, so 'normality' tama Dec 2012 #30

While I respect your POV on this and can see the validity of your arguments, cbayer Dec 2012 #32

That's why tama Dec 2012 #35

tama, you are talking over my head. cbayer Dec 2012 #36

Sorry, I'll try, and thanks for asking tama Dec 2012 #38

Thanks, that makes more sense. cbayer Dec 2012 #39

Well, the "quantum looney" etc. tama Dec 2012 #40

This is where we will part ways pretty dramatically. cbayer Dec 2012 #41

Hmm tama Dec 2012 #42

Thank you. okasha Dec 2012 #50

If you recognize the condition, how can you continue to suffer from it without being equally insane? NoOneMan Dec 2012 #56

And then... what the heck do we know? tama Dec 2012 #65

"using this species to develop an antidote against..." NoOneMan Dec 2012 #69

No tama Dec 2012 #70

From what you said Laochtine Dec 2012 #43

I did not say that. cbayer Dec 2012 #44

In silent agreement. Well put. humblebum Dec 2012 #45

The possibility that something is true has no relation to the number of people who believe it. trotsky Dec 2012 #46

So then, if one juror thinks a defendant is guilty, he's guilty, but if all 12 say he's not guilty, humblebum Dec 2012 #47

If one juror 'thinks' he's guilty EvilAL Dec 2012 #74

Never said it did. But I did say that there was a higher probability of guilt humblebum Dec 2012 #83

I don't see it like that, EvilAL Jan 2013 #113

Justin Beiber is the best singer? Laochtine Jan 2013 #88

I think I should probably have added okasha Dec 2012 #49

I have been struggling with putting a similar idea into the right words and cbayer Dec 2012 #60

I recently saw an article about a local group of matachines, okasha Dec 2012 #62

I see no reason to presume otherwise tama Dec 2012 #71

If this is the case, NoOneMan Dec 2012 #76

In terms of their adaptational advantage, for humans, being part of a tribe could be critical. cbayer Dec 2012 #77

Why of course people find religion important NoOneMan Dec 2012 #78

It is interesting that those most discriminated against or who suffer the most have cbayer Dec 2012 #79

Where else are they to turn? NoOneMan Dec 2012 #81

Also tama Dec 2012 #84

I see what you mean. okasha Dec 2012 #48

There were three stages tama Dec 2012 #82

As usual, this discussion is not of much use skepticscott Dec 2012 #2

The two examples you chose actually illustrate two disjoint sets of "knowing". Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #3

The distinction may or may not be valid skepticscott Dec 2012 #4

You may think so tama Dec 2012 #23

It's not my OP skepticscott Dec 2012 #25

Oh, words can mean things tama Dec 2012 #29

Should've been posted in GD. DCKit Dec 2012 #5

Discussions in 'religion' have always dealt with ways of knowing, Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #6

False, as usual from you skepticscott Dec 2012 #8

"fails to respond to challenges to describe in detail these 'other ways of knowing'" - still humblebum Dec 2012 #10

Yes, fail skepticscott Dec 2012 #11

Yep. Same old tired excuse - 'It never happened' - but we know it did, humblebum Dec 2012 #14

Thanks for proving my point skepticscott Dec 2012 #19

Yep, same old tired excuses, er um uh - LIES. As per humblebum Dec 2012 #20

Yep, same old tired excuses AlbertCat Jan 2013 #90

Don't make me laugh. The subject has been covered and examples given ad nauseam as humblebum Jan 2013 #91

The subject has been covered and examples given ad nauseam AlbertCat Jan 2013 #94

This is one of those areas where a suggestion in the scientific literature ... Igel Dec 2012 #7

Very interesting. Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #13

Do you have anything substantive to say, Charles? skepticscott Dec 2012 #17

Scottie tama Dec 2012 #22

Is there a remotely relevant point here? skepticscott Dec 2012 #24

Yup tama Dec 2012 #31

Actually, TMO was condescending and patronising to a poster, mr blur Dec 2012 #34

That's your interpretation, then tama Dec 2012 #37

There really is argument about this- digonswine Dec 2012 #9

The claim by utterly failed claimants skepticscott Dec 2012 #12

You have been so thoroughly debunked in the past from telling this same lie humblebum Dec 2012 #18

I seem to remember a big discussion about this- digonswine Dec 2012 #33

You're correct okasha Dec 2012 #51

just stopped when i hit 'scientism' Phillip McCleod Dec 2012 #15

Doesn't surprise me that okasha skepticscott Dec 2012 #16

That's ok. In that case, you only skipped the last two sentences. cbayer Dec 2012 #28

Yeah, let's chuck out the one thing that we know works. nt Deep13 Dec 2012 #54

Curtis' description here is pretty misleading LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #21

One of my favorite movies is Rashomon by Kurosawa. cbayer Dec 2012 #26

"Is one recollection more valid than the other?" Deep13 Dec 2012 #53

But who is to say which is more true? And does it really matter? cbayer Dec 2012 #61

It matters, and often, as I said, we just don't know. Deep13 Dec 2012 #66

When you talk about the most objective method, you describe science. cbayer Dec 2012 #72

Thanks, cbayer. okasha Dec 2012 #55

When you turn fiction jamtoday Jan 2013 #134

This has nothing to do with the veracity of religious claims. Deep13 Dec 2012 #52

No, you're only assuming that okasha Dec 2012 #57

No, theologies--whether folk or official--are the religion... Deep13 Dec 2012 #58

Wrong. okasha Dec 2012 #59

As further evidence in your presentation... sanatanadharma Dec 2012 #63

How po-mo can you get? Deep13 Dec 2012 #68

Wrong. Deep13 Dec 2012 #64

Mythology and literalism tama Dec 2012 #75

Well that may be true... Deep13 Jan 2013 #111

Thanks for your response tama Jan 2013 #119

Mythology is not theology. okasha Jan 2013 #103

So what's the difference? Deep13 Jan 2013 #108

That's all theology. okasha Jan 2013 #116

A quick and dirty distinction, Deep 13. okasha Jan 2013 #132

Where do you get the idea that there is no theology associated with Native American humblebum Jan 2013 #97

humblebum, tama Jan 2013 #98

The particular subject being addressed was that humblebum Jan 2013 #99

Native rituals are experiental tama Jan 2013 #100

Agreed, though all of us came from tribal cultures similar in many ways to those humblebum Jan 2013 #101

Yes, tama Jan 2013 #102

I get that idea okasha Jan 2013 #104

There does seem to be some equivocation regarding what constitutes theology. humblebum Jan 2013 #109

Please see my post #103, above. okasha Jan 2013 #115

Again, there does seem to be an ambiguity here. I hardly see theology as related solely humblebum Jan 2013 #117

Would you like to tell more about your background and practice? tama Jan 2013 #110

I'm Tsalagi (Cherokee). okasha Jan 2013 #114

Thanks tama Jan 2013 #120

Should have added: okasha Jan 2013 #121

Yup, Road Man :) nt and thanks again tama Jan 2013 #122

Could you define "medicine man" ? Leontius Jan 2013 #127

What I really dislike about the term okasha Jan 2013 #131

Are you trying to claim there's a thing called "the religious experience"... Silent3 Dec 2012 #67

Maybe these "experiences"... NoOneMan Dec 2012 #73

Can you give an example of "self-evident knowledge"? Silent3 Jan 2013 #87

This came first to mind: tama Jan 2013 #93

You're making some assumptions for which I see no basis. okasha Jan 2013 #105

I find Curtis' explanations, to be simplistic and demeaning to human variety, but your last.... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #80

basically you are claiming that reality is determined by popular vote, which is the most idiotic... cleanhippie Jan 2013 #85

But isn't that tama Jan 2013 #86

Aka, "consensus reality." okasha Jan 2013 #106

Learn about things before spouting off about them otherwise you come off... Humanist_Activist Jan 2013 #124

He seems to know exactly what he talking about and what he is talking about IS taught humblebum Jan 2013 #125

I just can't imagine why you complain that people don't listen to you. cbayer Jan 2013 #133

No, because that isn't accepted as evidence alone... Humanist_Activist Jan 2013 #123

No, but tama Jan 2013 #128

A problem with your example, the word "pretty" is itself subjective... Humanist_Activist Jan 2013 #129

The example was bit tongue in cheek tama Jan 2013 #130

He argues that the art student must rely on intuitive rather than rational information processing .. AlbertCat Jan 2013 #89

Are you an artist? tama Jan 2013 #92

Are you an artist? AlbertCat Jan 2013 #95

You have your theory of inspiration tama Jan 2013 #96

You're arguing with a number of things that neither Curtis nor I said. okasha Jan 2013 #107

rely on parts of your brain that do not depend on such "rational" divisions. AlbertCat Jan 2013 #112

May I suggest that you try to draw a rounded object using 1- or 2-point perspective? okasha Jan 2013 #118

Then tell us how one determines whether a drawing is good or not? humblebum Jan 2013 #126