Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

Well, it depends on your approach to the world.

There are multiple kinds of knowledge. The knowledge right now that is valued the most in the Western world is empirical - that is shared and evidence based - knowledge. That's the sort of knowledge sought through science and the nature of this knowledge explains some of the peculiarities of the scientific method, like the inability to ever prove something.

Religious knowledge is sometimes called gnosis, and is a knowledge that arises from within, not without. In this case, knowledge could also be called "conviction" or "faith", though all of these words have different connotations.

For someone who is normally very empirical, accepting something on "faith" - something which makes no empirical sense, can in fact be a sacrifice and act of worship in and of itself because it demands of the worshiper to do something which is a struggle.

For other individuals, being asked to do so causes a break in faith; their conviction is gone and their choice of whether or not to continue as a member of that religion is put into question.

It's an intensely personal thing.

Another way to think about it might be to think of your relationships with the people you love most. One of them might ask you to do something which is a struggle for you - which demands you to step outside of your comfort zone and do something which feels (or is) against your nature. Is this something you will rise to, out of love, or will this break your love?

What does 'separated and unique" mean when taken out of the abstract and put into actual practice? What does it mean in terms of how femininity is associated with girls and women and masculinity is associated with boys and men? Have you thought through the practical damage it can do to individuals in a dualistic system? how does this damage refract back through the practical into the abstract?

Broken down:

The yin yang is an abstract symbol, meaning that it is not directly tied to any physical object or item or being. The latter is also known as "actual practice" or part of the "practical" sphere; when I use the term practical, it's nearly always referring to a specific event or object and the issues around that. The terms "separate" and "unique" are likewise abstract. What I am asking in the first sentence is for you to take those abstract concepts - your internalization of those things - and bring them to a practical, nuts and bolds, object level.

For example - if you are working from a yin/yang theory of the world, then you can claim cold is one and hot is the other, yes? Two separate yet connected things. However, at the practical, observable level, the concepts of "hot" and "cold" are both relative (meaning that as your standard of hot changes so does your standard of cold) and they simply describe how quickly molecules are moving within a given substance - and their oppositionality abruptly disappears.

One of the weaknesses of having a paradigm is that you often impost the abstract concept onto things and ignore evidence that your concept may be missing part of the story, if not all of the story.

Working from a basis, then, where we accept that conceptual opposites are often not oppositional at all, lets focus on a specific duality - that of masculine and feminine.

First of all, you need to establish what are the characteristics of masculine and feminine and why they are opposite. For example, aggression is historically (in a fairly broad cultural spectrum) associated with "masculine" and nurturing is historically (ibid) associated with "feminine". We'll focus on these two characteristics since they are fairly consistent and wide spread, but this can be done with any characteristics given to either term.

If aggressive == masculine == male, what does that hold for men? What does that determine about the spectrum of emotions and actions they feel they can participate in and still remain male and masculine?

If nurturing == feminine == female, what does that hold for women? What does that determine about the spectrum of emotions and actions they feel they can participate in and still remain female and feminine?

If aggression is set up oppositionally to nurturing, what does that say about our conception of these two ideas? How does it frame how we view, say, a woman killing someone in defense of her children? How does it frame how we view a man gently and lovingly teaching his son competitive kickboxing?

And lastly, if being nurturing is feminine/female and aggressive is masculine/male, then how does this effect relationships between the two?

If male and female are opposites, and nurturing is feminine, how will this effect how an individual who wishes to be masculine (as most men do) behaves toward other people? If male and female are opposites, and aggression is mascuine, how will this effect how an individual who wishes to be feminine (as most women do) behaves toward other people?

You will probably find that the aforementioned assumptions and dualities does a lot of damage, for example by obscuring communication between men and women and by leading to physical violence (I happen to think male on female domestic violence - the act of a man showing his masculinity + love by being possessive and abusive, is well informed by the association of masculine with aggression and non-masculine with nurturing). If you don't... um, I dunno. But I think you will.

This practical experience of the duality in action will effect how this duality is conceptualized - for example, some men will associate "evil" with "female" in order to settle "good" with "male" and thus also raise violence and war up as something good. Since love and sex are both nurturing, this demands that both love and sex have an aggressive component in order to remain "masculine" and thus something "men" can participate in.

So in that way, the abstract alters the practical which then alters the abstract further.

Now comes the tough part.

Start answering the questions. Then, when you see things on the news about men and women, think about these questions. When you read studies, or books that say men and women can't clearly communicate, think about these questions.

(For bonus points, substitute "male" and 'female" for "white" and "black", then consider how setting up a duality like that makes anyone in neither of those categories invisible.)

Eternitian asked for a bit of journalism about the recent Re-con, which wouldn't have occured without Gaia. I'll be putting this up on Lj, too, since I know no one actually reads this. wink

Re-con was a week long and a chance to finally meet face to face some people I'd been debating with (with each of us on a variety of sides) for quite some time; in many cases over a year. We met together at TeaDidikai's home, where she and her husband graciously hosted us. In addition to meeting Nuri and Davit over the weekend, FaeFae, Regun, and Fiddler's Green came into town and catofsilence was over almost every day. Quite a Gaia review!

I was there for a week, leaving my area on Friday and returning the following Saturday, late in the evening. Aside from missing a number of humerous "Deoridhe, Odin is looking for you at the informaiton desk" pages due to my flight being an hour late, and the rather humerous realization that I knew everyone's Gaia name but almost no ones' offline name, pickup went smoothly. Also, spiral ramps make Deo happy. I crashed on the couch that night; the next day was going to be long and shiny. It also ended with all parties arrived and accounted for - which was truly an impressive number of people for a one bedroom apartment! Somewhat surprisingly, we were all rather good at not getting on each others nerves, and craming numerous peope into a small space resulted in Deo getting the cuddles and physical contact she adores! ^^

I have rarely gone so quickly from "meeting" to "being comfortable" with a group of people. It was really amazing.

Highlights of the week:

Meeting a really nice tree. ^^ It was one of the leany ones which reaches out over a hill - my favorite! I haven't met such a nice tree since college, when there was one by the river I made fast friends with.

Having a large group of people to goof off with. Within the first weekend I was able to get some one on one time with all of my close Gaia friends there, which was really wonderful. Plus the jokes, wordplay, joking around, and general nuttiness was really fun and enjoyable.

Long car rides with TeaTea. ^^ Yay talking! Poor boys, stuck in a car without us. emo

Going through my first ever (and likely only) haunted house. I now refuse to go through a haunted house without a Tea vanguard, a catofsilence wall, and a snarling Reagun. 3nodding All absolute requirements for haunted house having.

Shiny pretty things, including a treasure hunt! I received lovely peacock earrings from the treasure chest. They match my peacock hairthings! I wore them yesterday for Thanksgiving!

Meeting some wolves. They were fenced wolves, but seemed happy enough for their circumstances. Really breathtaking.

Sushi on BOATS! OMG!!

Seeing Nightmare before Christmas for the first time. Very cool movie, and I had built in Reagun surround sound. whee

Getting to hear Fiddler's wonderful southern accent. *swoon* Made me wish I had my hoopskirts and fan!

Tea feeding us strawberry fluff and the general hilarity about Nuri and I being held captive. All the food that week was wonderful! Yum, tasty goodness!!!

Finding a group of people I felt okay to sing in front of. I tend to be a bit shy about that, so it was really nice. Nuri and I had a sing-off, even; we TIED!

Lovely, lovely, teasing. You know you're friends when you can make fun of each other.

Seeing a Lovecraftian play! And getting lost! On thin and twisty roads! I love getting lost on thin and twisty roads.

Walking aorund in the woods in the dark. I used to live near woods, but it's been a long while since I've been out in anything wild in the dark; I'd forgotten how much I enjoyed it.

Reagun's tasty, tasty whiskey.

And lots of other things I'm sure I'm forgetting because I suck! But it was a wonderful week, I had a wonderful time, and even now some three weeks later I keep looking over my shoulder now and then and wondering where everyone is. It's a little lonely. emo

I WANT A TARDIS!!!! dramallama wahmbulance emo cheese_whine burning_eyes

I am not a logical person by nature, nor have I ever claimed to be. so most of what I know of logic I have learned through research and education.

The basics, of course, came from math class. Poor arguments, weak rhetoric, and logical fallacies I picked up later, as an adult. It is, perhaps, for this reason that I find the "naturally logical people" frequently ******** irritating.

But only when they use logical fallacies.

Yup, you heard me.

"Logical people", frequently "completely logical people" whose reason for stating religious people are wrong/delusional is an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, ladies and gentleman. If you think logical, and your own evidence for a belief is a logical fallacy, than I'm afraid your belief is illogical.

Meaning that claiming your manipulaiton of the bible is superior to someone else's interpreting the Bible as a whole without taking a text out of biblical context and it's doctrine is clearly logically and morally faulty.

So glad to see you agree with me on that.

Her final post in that string: http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?page=8&t=16834789#885123420

How predictable. Three pages or so after I posted htis last and you've already "forgotten" it.


In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge.

It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins.


...Congress' power is to pass laws. That's it. That's all Congress can do - pass laws. If Congress acted within their power, they passed a Law.

In this case, it was a law which violated the Constitution of the United States of America.

This is High School government class; c'mon.

Let me take you through the ABCs of the Constitution - there are three governmental bodies at both the Federal and State level, the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative Branches.

Judicial = the Courts; their job is to interpret laws.

Executive = President and his Agencies (from the FBI to the FDA); their job is to enforce laws.

Legislative = Congress; their job is to write laws.

Now, a Law begins as a Bill which is written by a Member of Congress. This Bill is sent to a Committee within both the Senate and the House - the Senate and the House are the two halves of Congress, by the way - and it either languishes there or it is altered, added too, and just generally ******** with until the Committee likes it. This happens separately in the Senate and the House, so now there are two Bills which have been ******** with by two committees.

Then the ******** Bill goes before either the House or the Senate and is voted on. The majority of the House and the Majority of the Senate have to both vote on the Bill in order for it to pass.

At that point, you have two different Bills passed by the two halves of Congress. Another Committee forces the Bills to be the same, and then the Bill goes to the President, who is the head of the Executive Branch of the Government. The President either signs the Bill into Law or vetoes it, at which point it returns to Congress where if they can vote on it with 2/3rds of Congress can pass it into Law without involving the President.

The Pledge of Allegence was altered to add "under God" when a member of Congress wrote a Bill suggesting it. The Bill passed through the Senate and the House, was made to match, and then went on to the President who signed it into Law. This means that what changed the Pledge of Allegence was a Law.

And this concludes your merry ******** Freshman High School rendition of the US Government's structure.

First Amendment to the Constitution - included when the Constitution was sighed:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the authors of the Constitution, discussing the First Amendment:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." [Emphasis Added] [Source]

Wicca is a mystery tradition begun by Gerald Gardner in the 1950s. He based it on some ancient folklore, took the holidays of the Celts and the Norse and combined them, and created a magical system in the style of Kabalism. Wicca assumes a magical system based on five elements (earth, air, fire, water, spirit) and four directions. It is ditheistic and strictly divides gods and goddesses, as well as men and women, by characteristics associated with each. The Wiccan God is a diune figure, the Oak and Holly King who dies in the fall and is reborn in the spring. The Wiccan Goddess is a triune figure associated with the moon; she is the mother/maiden/crone figure. The Wiccan Rede, believed by some to be written by Doreen Valiente, includes many of the assumptions and indicates the worldview of this religion. When Valiente left the initial coven created by Gardner, he wrote the 161 Laws of the Wicca to expand on the earlier created Wiccan Rede.

More recent authors have bought into the provably false claims of Margaret Murry that Wicca is an ancient religion practiced by Northern Europeans. Although Wicca has a superficial relationship with several of the religions found in Northern Europe, it is very distinctive in a wide variety of ways and combines different traditions in a way that was never historically done. Wicca's modern creation is well established, but it does not mean the religion is without merit. However, as a mystery tradition, the only way to truly become a Wiccan is to find someone within the tradition to teach you, usually via a coven, and advance to the higher mysteries. Any published books will only cover the basics of Wicca enough to get people curious; these published books also frequently do not disclose they are only giving part of the story, leading to many people becoming confused as to the real nature of Wicca.

The Pledge of Allegiance

I feel bad for poor Francis Bellamy, who would have hated to see his pledge perverted in the manner it was against his wishes. A short history of the pledge of allegiance.

I prefer the pledge he wanted to have be the official one to the current one, so I've memorized it to say at the appropriate time. "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty, justice, and equality for all."