From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon May 17 09:20:30 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA03727 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 09:20:29 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id JAA23305 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 09:17:42 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:17:42 -0500 Message-Id: <199905171417.JAA23305@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1227 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Monday, May 17 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1227 In this digest: Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality Re: IN> Hey, Elizabeth: About that IN Survey Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) IN> Atheism in In Nomine Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality Re: IN> Wordbounds and Redemption/Falling Re: IN> Angelic Player's Guide ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 01:45:49 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality >From: David Edelstein > >>>Ha ha ha, touche. :) However, when a large group of people feel moved >by >something which they all call the Holy Spirit, that gives that thing which >they call the Holy Spirit more validity.<<< > >It gives validity to the phenomenon that people with very strong religious >convictions can experience a mental state variously described as ecstatic, >transcendental, moving, etc. Whether this is something that occurs only in >their brains (self-induced), or is induced by an external power (the Holy >Spirit, loas, take your pick of any number of other religious explanations) >remains extremely subjective. Of course! As with everything within the realm of human experience. > >>>If American culture were to reject a major scientific theory, it would >less >believed and therefore by given less validity. It's all what the culture, >or sub-culture, believes to be true. Truth is relative, AFAIK.<<< > >Man, I hate White Wolf philosophizing. Nani? What's that? Are you referring to the idea that everything is relative to the point of view of the individual? What's that got to do with White Wolf? No, if American culture were to >reject a major scientific theory, the theory would have less credence among >the public; it would NOT be less valid scientifically. If, for example, >Biblical creationists were to convince school boards across the country to >teach only creationism and exclude evolution, that would not make evolution >more valid (and, to be fair, the mere fact that evolution is taught as >science rather than creationism does not *in itself* make creationism less >valid). Valid means correct/right in the eyes of authority, logically sound, or well-grounded in evidence; applied to that which cannot be objected to law, logic, the facts, etc . . . As law, logic and the facts are all subjective because they are labels granted by the human mind, none necessarily conform to the Truth and are therefore objective, rather all are subjective. This is why the Elohim get the shaft. They aren't plugged into the Truth the way Seraphim are, therefore they can never be purely objective and are instead locked into a tortured subjective viewpoint. Of course, they can *think* that they're being objective, but that's a subjective point of view. >The laws of physics are not subjective, however. Either creationism or >evolution (or some other explanation) is true, and since they're mutually >contradictory, they can't all be true*. Which means that whichever >explanation is true won't become more or less true based on what the >general public *believes* to be true. But the laws of physics have been rewritten over and over again as each has been outdated by new evidence which has required it. If the last theory didn't explain all the evidence then it must not have been objectively correct. Is light made up of waves or particles or waves of particles? We can't be sure - physics *is* subjective! [Physics is the study of the way the physical world interacts, not the way the physical world interacts. Physics is the collection of various theories of how it works.] >To give a real-world example, and a reason why White Wolf's "consensual >reality" theory just doesn't cut it, ever see those Road Runner/Wile E. >Coyote cartoons, where the Coyote runs off a cliff, sails on in a straight >line for a while before realizing there's no ground underfoot, and then >begins descending in an arc (or else drops straight down)? Well, several >surveys have shown that the MAJORITY of the American public believes that >this is more or less the trajectory that an object propelled off a cliff >would actually take! Of course, if you remember your high school physics, >you know that's NOT how it works....but if reality were consensual, then it >would. Oh, "Mage" reality. Gotcha. I thought you were talking about the World of Darkness as a whole. Stupid me. A majority of people DO believe in lots of things that simply aren't >true. Unlike those of us who know the Truth. [Trust no one.] >In Nomine tie in: I have never been that fond of the "ethereal spirits are >created by human belief" premise, because there really should be a big >honkin' Jesus-ethereal with as much power as an Archangel...actually, >probably several, reflecting various interpretations of the dude from >Galilee. We could of course say that the Big Honkin' Jesuses keep getting >in Outer Marches no-holds barred death matches with the Big Honkin' >Mohammeds and various Hindu deities, and that's why they don't show up to >stomp the Superiors. Unless there IS a Jesus in Heaven, he WAS the Son of God, etc. then J.C. would be an AA in 'is own right, as in the original French game. But consensual reality is one of the worst things you >can do to a game world if you really want any kind of consistency, IMO. And >I personally think In Nomine is a lot more fun if you take a stand and say >yes, God IS the One True Monotheist Deity, Be-All and End-All of the >Universe, Creator, Alpha and Omega, Amen, and the Buddhists, pagans, >atheists, and other non-believers are just plain wrong, so deal with it. Especially if you don't believe in any of that crap anyway. >Silly adventure seed most likely to bring Taliban and Christian Identity >bombers to SJG's Austin Offices: > >"Live in the Outer Marches Arena tonight: Jesus and Mary Tag Teams Mohammed >(Peace Be Upon Him) and Shiva, Destroyer of the Universe! That's right, for >one night only, setting apart a thousand years of internecine religous >strife, the Muslim Mangler from Mecca will step into the ring with a >well-armed Hindu and have it out with those upstart neo-Jewish icons once >and for all....the winners take the Essence of over 1 BILLION fanatical >devotees and square off on Judgment Day with the current world champions >from the Seraphim Council Archangel Federation, before the final bout with >Old Scratch himself!" > >"Showing exclusively on the Nybbas Pay-per-View Cable Channel, thanks to a >special licensing deal with Beleth! Contact any NCC office in Shal-Mari, >Perdition, or Hollywood to sign up." > >-David (yes, I'm probably going to Hell) > >* I'm speaking of strict Biblical creationism -- I know many liberal >theists reconcile the two theories by stating that evolution is a process >instigated by God Woah, I wonder if disregarding instincts and gut feelings and instead relying on "rational thought" falls under the sin of Pride? Neat. Oh, here's one: Hell discovers a Tether to the Marches, to where? To Buddhist Hell! The PCs are sent over by suspicious Demon Princes to invesigate it and come back with information. What happens? The PCs are demons, right? They find some shiny's and start fighting amongst themselves! Then some bad-ass buddhist demon martial artists kick their collective ass. (Well, that and then they realize a bit too late the Buddhist Hell is actually just a part of Buddhist Heaven . . . oh, dear!) The group gets kicked out by the local demons and find themselves in Buddhist Heaven and have to contend with the natives or flee to the Corporeal World or Hell with nothing to show for themselves (except the one who got the shiny, of course). - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com "I will not carve gods" - Bart Simpson _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:50:53 +0100 From: hjalkar@redbrick.dcu.ie (Kevin Walsh) Subject: Re: IN> Hey, Elizabeth: About that IN Survey On Fri, May 14, 1999 at 05:04:17PM -0400, Neel Krishnaswami wrote: > >Well, if people _want_ the full results -- I don't see why not. They're > >anon. [...] And yes, I was startled too. > > This list is *weird*; I always thought that historicals sold poorly. > Don't blame it on me. I didn't know about the poll beforehand. (And if I were to vote for a historical setting, I'd have gone for the Thirty Years War.) Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "It is an impressive thing to hear a helpless woman damned in every item of her life, every corner of her soul. For good reason, no one accused by the Temple has ever been found innocent." Ser Visal's Tale, by Stephen Donaldson. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 05:01:55 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) >>>I find the subject to pertain directly to game play, or at least IMC. The relationship between person, perception, and reality is (could be/sounds good as) the basis of belief and to have a game about the war between good and evil, light and dark, selflessness and selfishness, Heaven and Hell without belief seems rather silly to me.<<< I love discussions about belief as it pertains to game play. I'm just not keen on presentations of personal belief as Truth. Keep it to the former, and there will be no problems. >>>I would ask that you refrain from attacking me publicly on this list, despite the safety your position of power within In Nomine's organization grants you.<<< BWAHAHAHAHA! "Safety"? "Position of power"? "In Nomine's organization"? Dude, I'm just a freelancer, I don't have a "position of power," and I have to follow the same rules as everyone else on the list. I did not attack you, I attacked your statements. >>>I also apologize to all others who are offended by my point of view for making it known and speaking it as if it had some validity.<<< This is disingeneous. I was not offended by your stating your point of view as if it had some validity, I was offended by your stating your point of view as if other points of view were inherently inferior. I have never (and never will) flamed someone just for saying they believe in God or angels or whatever. I will flame people for saying that those who *don't* believe in God or angels are "spiritually null." - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 02:34:42 PDT From: "Perry Lloyd" Subject: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) >From: Anders Gabrielsson >I think this will be my last post in this thread since I think we've >pretty much emptied the subject and aren't making much progress. I'll try >to make my position clear. I believe it may be very near to my own considering our similar education. :) > > >Now you misunderstand again. The Truth is of course impossible to >describe > > >in words, but something actually happened. The thing that happened, >which > > >I will label "Henry got shot with a gun" is the Truth. What people >think > > >happened belong to their personal, little-t truths. They may or may not > > >believe that their truths are the Truth. > > > > But people can only speak about the label in their head, not about what > > actually happened, because we don't have access to that knowledge >(except > > the lucky seraph), so all we can do is compare labels and by doing so > > attempts to find a composite label which many people can agree upon. > >You claimed that what acutally happened, the Truth, changed, unless I >misunderstood. I say that it doesn't. What people think the Truth is >changed, but not the actual Truth. But since no one can know the actual Truth, I am willing to say that the closest thing we have to the Truth does change. But, yes, how people make sense of something doesn't change what actually happened. > > > > In the *canonical* version of the game there is objective Truth. :) > > > > > >Personally, I can't imagine a reality without Truth, because that would > > >mean communication was impossible, and even existance, I think. If you > > >exist, then your existance is part of the Truth, what you think is part >of > > >the Truth - if there is no Truth, nothing can exist. Or at least my >mind > > >can't grasp such a concept. > > > > > >If you can describe it, please do. :) > > > > > > > take away the idea that there is only one Truth, rather multiple. Within > > each Truth reality is constant, between them not. IMC Yahweh's > > Truth/Symphony happens to the one which envelops everything. >Essentially > > he's a Big Bad Balseraph who's Truth has been made real enough for >others to > > fit inside. > > > > Only problem is, another Balseraph named Lucifer figured it out and is > > trying to take over by making his Truth/Symphony the biggest and >baddest. > > Or, at least take out Yahweh's. > >IMO, this isn't a world with multiple Truths. What you just described is >the Truth, if you exchange the word Truth with "laws of nature" or >something similar in your statements. The Truth encompasses the whole >world, everything, it's how things Actually Are - that Yahweh and Lucifer >can change how things work is part of the Truth, but that doesn't change >the Truth. Well, I guess I just made Truth = Symphony and then stated that Yahweh just has a really big Symphony, The Symphony in fact. But, yeah, I agree with your last statement. There's still what happens outside of Yahweh's Symphony, the Big Big T Truth. :} > > > > Delusion? Science is also delusion, mon ami. The beautiful thing >about > > > > science is that it cannot ever prove anything, merely fail to >disprove! > > > > > >Which is not delusion. Science admits that it can't prove anything, >while > > >most religions very much deny that they could be anything but the pure > > >Truth. > > > > But countless of followers of science claim that things have been >"proven > > scientifically", and there's always "scientific fact". Science is taken >as > > truth by many, many people. > >That people are confused on the subject doesn't make science a delusion, >it makes those people deluded. Ha ha ha . . . but Science is a pair of rose colored glasses, a lens through which to see and understand the world. If that is what a delusion is as well . . . or is a delusion merely a belief about reality which just doesn't jive with reality? Social reality, physical reality, visible to the naked eye reality? Oh, that's right, I was going to point out that people believe in X-rays even though they can't see them or touch them or taste them. Why? Because we can see their effects on reality. Try and convince someone in the 14 century that X-rays exist and they'll laugh at you, maybe burn you for heresy. > > > > "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world >he > > > > didn't exist." > > > > - The Usual Suspects > > > > > > >Actually, that quote is older than the movie. ;) > > > > I'd love to know the original source. :) > >I think someone here on the list gave at least an earlier source not too >long ago. Crap, missed it. > > > >Yes, people need companionship. But exactly how do you define "cause or > > >belief" here? Would atheism qualify, for example? > >I'll just note here that you didn't answer my question. Cause or belief? Belief, an emotional acceptance of some position, statement or doctrine. Cause, any objective or movement that a person or group is interested in and supports. Atheism would qualify for both. > > I believe firmly that Atheism, as a belief system, requires a tremendous > > amount of faith. In what? In the belief that there is nothing out >there. > > That we are alone, without soul, nothing after death, nothing there. > > > > Granted Atheism merely means the absence of God, but without belief that > > there is direction to all this, that it is all chaotic, without method >or > > order . . . what's the point? > >Why does there have to be a point? Good. >Seriously, what gives my existance meaning, if that's what you mean, is >that I can enjoy life and make it more enjoyable for others. That's enough >for me. Sounds good to me. "Do unto others . . . > > I would crumble into an existential mess . . . > >If I was feeling elitist I'd say inability to live without a higher >meaning was a sign of weakness, but since I'm a nice, kind person I won't. >;) Ha ha ha, I view higher meaning as part of the package, nothing I can do about it. > > > > I find it quite objectively possible that there are things out there > > >which > > > > not everyone is able to perceive. > > > > > >So do I, but that doesn't mean I believe each and every story about >such > > >experiences, or any specific one of them - or that what people describe >is > > >what actually happened, even if something Real did happen. > > > > To believe every story would be careless, but I would say the same about > > disbelieving every story as well. > >Not if you disbeliev after thinking about it. Should I believe some >unprobably, stupid story just because it would be careless not to? I don't >think so. I mean *every* story about [item A]. If Sally doesn't believe in [item A] and she never believes any story about [item A] then she may get the psycholigical shaft if [item A] suddenly appears in her life. >I should mention that disbelieving the stories doesn't mean I say there's >no chance of them being true, or containing a grain of truth. Agreed. However, when people disbelieve or make definitive statements attacking your beliefs (which I did not intend to do earlier) by disbelieving a story, it can be quite painful. Such as informing a person you greatly trust that you've been raped and then be told that "that kind of thing doesn't happen to boys" can be quite devestating, so I'm told . . . (sp?) > > I also take what people described as being what happened as being merely > > their interpretation of what happened. > >Good for you. :) It's only logical. :) > > > And, yes, it is divided into those that > > > > agree with me and those that don't. Simple boolean expression. > > > > So there. Of course I believe myself to know the truth, if I didn't > > >what > > > > kind of spineless toad-eating bastard would I be? > > > > > >An honest one? I don't think I know the Truth. Of course I know my own > > >(little-t) truth - in fact, that's -all- I know. But to claim to know > > >anything for sure about objective reality is a very strong, and totally > > >unverifiable, statement, IMO. > > > > Note I used little t in my truth up above. :P > >So your magnificent claim was that you know what you know? Rather >pointless, IMO. Ah, but I hope that by sounding like my point of view is correct, others will follow and thus my view of reality will be reinforced and I will feel justified and validated. Doesn't everyone do that? >And if no one claimed to > > know anything for sure about objective reality, where would we be? > > > > "It is an apple." > > "I agree, but can we be sure?" > > "It's a banana!" > > "No it isn't." > >Replace "apple" and "banana" with, for example, "democracy" and >"authoritarianism" and you'll have a pretty good summary of a political >debate. What do we not talk about at the dinner table with company or relatives? Politics and Religion, TYVM. >You can't know for sure (in the strictest sense of the word) that what you >see and feel is true, since your sensory organs are part of the outer >world. Outer world? Okay, I can see that. And since your mind is busy processing all that data anyway the inner world can come up and do all sorts of funky stuff. Hallucinate me! Those are the worst. Of course, I'm told tactile are creepy, feeling like they're bugs crawling beneath your skin, icky! > > >Of course. But claiming one's own set of delusions (mine, yours, Vasco >da > > >Gama's) to be the Truth is dangerous, IMO. > > > > Very well. I have felt all the blood in my body stop because my heart >has. > > It's scary, but your skin becomes warm. Do you believe me, or do you >need > > more evidence? > >I have no idea what this little anecdote is supposed to illustrate. That though I speak truth as I know it, you may not believe it because it sounds outlandish. >Without some degree of certainity about the world one cannot > > function except in fear. We do the dangerous every day by assuming that >our > > understanding of reality is how objective reality works. The claim is > > necessary. > >Not at all. We only need to assume that our understanding of reality is a >good enough approximation, or even that "when I do this, that usually >happens", which isn't nearly the same thing. Only those of us who realize that our perception of the outside world is merely that, a perception. Also, don't forget about positive illsions, such as "things will work out", "I won't lose my hair", "I'll find work", "My children will not be born deformed" etc. May not be Truth, but it makes us feel good enough to function. > > Everyone's a Balseraph, baby. > >Bingo! You're finally beginning to reach enlightenment. ;) I was already there, man, I was waiting for you to catch up (rather, appear to me to have caught up). > > >I guess I was a little imprecise above - i should have said "implies" >or > > >"contains" rather than "equals". Many Christians seem to think that >there > > >is no such thing as a moral atheist. *shrugs* > > > > Stupid of them. Morals, I've found, while affected by religious >beliefs, > > are not defined by them except in the few. > >You did the same thing, except you used "spiritual" and "spiritually null" >instead. *shrugs* bah, whatever, poor language usage on my part, I guess I'd never make it as Elohite of Grammar or something. > > > > >If I did IN the way I see the real world there wouldn't be much >point > > >in > > > > >using the game, since I don't believe in God, Heaven, Hell, Angels, > > > > >Demons, Destiny, Fate, or an afterlife, which pretty much kills off >all > > >of > > > > >the interesting subjects. :) > > > > > > > > Nonsense! You can have programs of mass hypnosis, drug treatments, >or > > > > something like "The Matrix" to explain everything in In Nomine in >terms > > >of > > > > "that which has no soul" Who knows? Maybe everyone's been locked > > >inside a > > > > computer and while we have no souls, we are on backup somewhere . . >. > > > > Demons and Angels are programs written by the "Mainframe", ethereal > > >spirits > > > > are programs written by the unconscious processes of the human minds > > >stored > > > > in the Mainframe . . . woah. > > > > > > > > What a neat thought. > > > > > >Sounds more like Paranoia to me. *shrugs* > > > > Only if you have the PCs killing each other to win favor in the >Computer's > > eyes, IMO. > >Sounds like a typical Diabolical campaign to me. Give each of 'em six >vessels, make them serve opposing Superiors but don't tell them who serves >whom, give them some powerful artifacts and send them to Earth for the >first time. :) Ha ha ha, kick ass. :) >"Stay Alert! Trust No One! Keep Your Artifact Handy!" >"Trust Lucifer! Lucifer Is Your Friend!" That's awesome! - -Perry perrylloyd@hotmail.com "Good. Bad. I'm the one with the gun." - Ash Army of Darkness _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 06:14:18 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Atheism in In Nomine >>>I believe firmly that Atheism, as a belief system, requires a tremendous amount of faith. In what? In the belief that there is nothing out there. That we are alone, without soul, nothing after death, nothing there.<<< Depends on what you mean by atheism. "Strong atheists" believe that there is *nothing* we can't sense, period. "Weak atheists" (a term I dislike, as I've mentioned before, but it is the "official" term) believe there is no evidence for souls, afterlives, God, etc., and therefore no reason to believe in them. It doesn't take "faith" to not believe in something I see no reason to believe in, any more than it takes faith to not believe in the Easter Bunny or pink space aliens living in my coffee. The distinction can be a fine one, but strong atheists are more likely to be the Madelyne Murray O'Haire types who rail against religion and insist that any religious beliefs whatsoever are simply, objectively wrong, and stupid. Weak atheists, like me, can accept that you can't disprove God or Heaven, and are willing to be shown evidence for same (making the distinction between a weak atheist and an agnostic blurry at times), but basically don't think it makes sense to believe in things without evidence. In Nomine relevance: In In Nomine, obviously, atheists are wrong. Can they still go to Heaven? I wanted to say they're the ones most likely to "unravel" at death, neither reincarnating nor going on to Heaven or Hell, in the CPG....but it was decided to leave such things CDaU. Then there was my writeup of the Demon of Atheism, who failed to make it into the Liber Servitorum. (Elizabeth had me write up about a dozen of the Word-bounds from the APG and IPG, and then decided no Word-bound at all would go in the LS. Hmmph!) - -David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 04:22:33 PDT From: "Hydrax 59" Subject: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) Okay, I'm not going to go through and answer all the points you raised, (because I'm too lazy, and don't want to take up the space) but it seems that everyone here is making the assumption that what we believe to be true is. Do you know how much of history has been rewritten? I had a teacher who reckoned that 5% of our history is True (intentional). I'm sorry, I forgot who said this, but someone pointed out that it is society which decides the relative sanity of it's inhabitants. But has anyone else ever noticed that few if any of society's "great leaders" have the full pack of cards, by societies standards. What is to say that a person who believes that (for example) Bugs Bunny is invading the Netherlands with the help of his friends, the Swiss cheese people, has any less of a valid viewpoint than someone who works 9am-5pm five days a week for a small amount of green (or whatever) paper then goes home to have dinner with his wife, 2.4 kids, and his dog called rover. For all I know, the Bugs person may actually be right in his claims. Or not. Another point was made about George(?) getting shot by a gun and nobody believing him. I have one word for you:Psychosomatic People who suffer hideous wounds within their own minds have been known to physically exhibit these wounds upon themselves. Cases have been documented. I mean it sounds True, and he's got the wounds to prove it, so what separates his experiences, his Truth, from the universal Truth? hydrax, who's probably got the wrong end of the stick (again) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 13:35:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Anders Gabrielsson Subject: Re: IN> Holy presences (going OT) On Mon, 17 May 1999, Perry Lloyd wrote: > > >From: Anders Gabrielsson > >I think this will be my last post in this thread since I think we've > >pretty much emptied the subject and aren't making much progress. I'll try > >to make my position clear. I was wrong - a few more minor points. :) > I believe it may be very near to my own considering our similar education. > :) Actually, I've only taken a short course on social psychology - I've learned almost as much from the Principia Discordia. :) I've mostly studied maths, programming and computational linguistics, but I've taken the odd course in a variety of subjects. > But since no one can know the actual Truth, I am willing to say that the > closest thing we have to the Truth does change. But, yes, how people make > sense of something doesn't change what actually happened. Then we agree. > Well, I guess I just made Truth = Symphony and then stated that Yahweh just > has a really big Symphony, The Symphony in fact. > > But, yeah, I agree with your last statement. > > There's still what happens outside of Yahweh's Symphony, the Big Big T > Truth. :} More agreement. :) > >That people are confused on the subject doesn't make science a delusion, > >it makes those people deluded. > > Ha ha ha . . . but Science is a pair of rose colored glasses, a lens through > which to see and understand the world. If that is what a delusion is as > well . . . or is a delusion merely a belief about reality which just doesn't > jive with reality? Social reality, physical reality, visible to the naked > eye reality? But people who understand what science claims know that they are wearing those glasses, which makes all the difference. Being able to change the glasses one sees the world through (changing reality tunnels by a different terminology) is what makes you able to take other peoples' points of view and understand what they mean, how they see the world. (The main difference between this and what a Balseraph does when he convinces himself of something is that he locks the glasses on and makes himself forget that they're there.) > Oh, that's right, I was going to point out that people believe in X-rays > even though they can't see them or touch them or taste them. Why? Because > we can see their effects on reality. Try and convince someone in the 14 > century that X-rays exist and they'll laugh at you, maybe burn you for > heresy. You don't see physical objects either, you just try to make sense of the neural impulses your eyes send to your brain after reacting to the photons they have sent out (which incidentally includes turning the "image" upside down). *shrugs* > > > To believe every story would be careless, but I would say the same about > > > disbelieving every story as well. > > > >Not if you disbeliev after thinking about it. Should I believe some > >unprobably, stupid story just because it would be careless not to? I don't > >think so. > > I mean *every* story about [item A]. If Sally doesn't believe in [item A] > and she never believes any story about [item A] then she may get the > psycholigical shaft if [item A] suddenly appears in her life. She'll definitely be shook up, yes. Then she might review her life ("Oh my God, I've been wrong all this time!"), rationalize away her experience ("Someone must have drugged my coffee!"), interpret it as something different ("That wasn't the Holy Spirit! I was abducted by aliens who induced this hallucination in me!"), or maybe something different. She will have to find some way to get rid of the conflict, though - people are really good at that. In a way, that might be what we do all the time - adjust our view of reality and our experiences to make everything Make Sense. > >So your magnificent claim was that you know what you know? Rather > >pointless, IMO. > > Ah, but I hope that by sounding like my point of view is correct, others > will follow and thus my view of reality will be reinforced and I will feel > justified and validated. > > Doesn't everyone do that? You try to fool people into believing that you know what you're talking about when you're not sure yourself? I try not to do that. > >Not at all. We only need to assume that our understanding of reality is a > >good enough approximation, or even that "when I do this, that usually > >happens", which isn't nearly the same thing. > > Only those of us who realize that our perception of the outside world is > merely that, a perception. Also, don't forget about positive illsions, such > as "things will work out", "I won't lose my hair", > "I'll find work", "My children will not be born deformed" etc. May not be > Truth, but it makes us feel good enough to function. I think you're mixing up different things here, but I don't think it's important enough to continue discussing it. > > > Everyone's a Balseraph, baby. > > > >Bingo! You're finally beginning to reach enlightenment. ;) > > I was already there, man, I was waiting for you to catch up (rather, appear > to me to have caught up). Heh. You certainly haven't expressed yourself in a manner that suggests it. :) > bah, whatever, poor language usage on my part, I guess I'd never make it as > Elohite of Grammar or something. Which is part of what I'm aspiring to be, so I should get essence for bitching about it. :) Anders Gabrielsson anders@stp.ling.uu.se The contents of this message belong to me and nobody else. So there! We don't get extra credit for how much suffering we endure. The only score worth keeping is how little suffering we inflict and how much we relieve. - Ghost ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:28:32 -0400 From: John Karakash - Lucent ASCC Subject: Re: IN> Subjectivity & Consensual Reality Perry Lloyd wrote: > >It gives validity to the phenomenon that people with very strong religious > >convictions can experience a mental state variously described as ecstatic, > >transcendental, moving, etc. Whether this is something that occurs only in > >their brains (self-induced), or is induced by an external power (the Holy > >Spirit, loas, take your pick of any number of other religious explanations) > >remains extremely subjective. > > Of course! As with everything within the realm of human experience. Errrrr... no, this is incorrect. If someone pushes you off of a tall cliff, you will be very OBJECTIVELY dead. If you claim (as some psychologists and theologians do) that we are all living in our own personal fantasy world that only barely touches on reality and that there is no 'objective' reality, then there's no use having a conversation, yes? > >The laws of physics are not subjective, however. Either creationism or > >evolution (or some other explanation) is true, and since they're mutually > >contradictory, they can't all be true*. Which means that whichever > >explanation is true won't become more or less true based on what the > >general public *believes* to be true. > > But the laws of physics have been rewritten over and over again as each has > been outdated by new evidence which has required it. If the last theory > didn't explain all the evidence then it must not have been objectively > correct. Is light made up of waves or particles or waves of particles? We > can't be sure - physics *is* subjective! Semantics. The original point remains that belief does not create reality. Belief is the bastard child of reality. Sometimes they agree and sometimes they disagree! Scientific theories are called laws as a kind of shorthand, it is true. But they aren't rewritten as much as refined. Newtonian physics is a very good OBJECTIVE model of how things work at moderate speeds. Einstein happened to come up an even better model, also objective. Rules of thumb, they may be, but they are firmly grounded in what IS, not just what IS BELIEVED! ;) - -- ___________________________________________________ / \ | John Karakash - Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs | | (919)388-2665(COOL) MIB2300 | | | | The power to tax involves the power to destroy. | | -Chief Justice Marshall | \___________________________________________________/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:46:23 -0400 From: EDG Subject: Re: IN> Wordbounds and Redemption/Falling At 01:08 AM 5/17/99 -0400, you wrote: >All right, we know that Words become innate to the Wordbound. A part of >their nature. To my knowledge Words can't be stripped of a Wordbound >Celestial without tearing them apart. And we know that an Angelic Word >cannot be held by a Demon and vice versa. What do you mean by "Angelic Word"? Keep in mind that Gabriel and Belial both have the same Word, it's just that they embody different aspects of it. I think that there are certain Words that an angel simply wouldn't petition for... the same goes for demons, except that I can see Lucifer giving a demon a typically "angelic" Word just because it amuses him (I believe there's even an example of this, but I don't remember where or what Word...). >So... when a Wordbound falls/redeems, does he retain an aspect of his Word >until he's given a new one? And if he isn't given a new one, can his >Forces survive the loss of Word? This is a purely opinionated and non-canon answer. The Word-Binding goes the same way as the Resonance; the celestial's Forces simply no longer support it. They twist in such a way that the Word can't exist in its current form. As the Angelic Resonance is part and parcel of being a full angel, it warps _with_ the Forces; since the Word is not, it's simply stripped off. Another possible explanation would be this, although it may only hold for Superior-type celestials: beings who hold Words are said to have Word-Forces; that is, Forces which are dedicated to the Word itself and not to that particular angel. These Forces are the last to be destroyed in any celestial conflict, and if the celestial in question changes sides, the Word-Forces don't; they simply separate from the Falling angel or Redeeming demon and sent back to the relevant Superior. I kinda like the second one, actually; I think I'm going to make it a house rule. Give me a day or so to write it up, and I'll post it if you like. - -EDG - -- EDG, Mercurian of Lightning ist Archives, Angel of Information Dissemination anthoch@earlham.edu www.gamingoutpost.com www.insanitymag.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 10:14:47 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Angelic Player's Guide In a message dated 5/16/99 6:13:47 PM, Pkitty@cris.com writes: >On Sat, 15 May 1999, Amo Nympham wrote: > >> I just recently bought my APG, have only read it once, even only owned it >> about 3 weeks. now the binding is completely trashed, the cover is falling >> off and pages are slipping. has anyone else had this problem with the >>book? is this a somewhat common thing (like it is with Tor novels) or did I >>just get a bum copy? > >Actually, I'm the opposite ... my APG went through a FLOOD, and is still >in >survivable condition! The pages are water-warped a bit, but the glue still >holds perfectly. > As an adhesives chemist, I have to address this one. Most bookbinding adhesives are not water soluble. They're hot melt adhesives, and impervious to water. However, some of them are fairly brittle, and if you abuse your spines (the worst culprit is laying the book flat on its open pages to hold your place, especially with the 'coffee table' styling that most all gaming books have...) you'll end up with bond failure. In my case, many of the SJGames books I own are showing evidence of edge glue failure, especially my copy of GURPS Traveler and the In Nomine original rulebook. I'm not sure, but I'd be concerned if the publisher doesn't do a lot of large book binding, because 'normal' bookbinding (novel-sized for instance...) is a different critter from 'coffee table' bookbinding. Mark ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1227 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.