|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:33 am
Same thing I posted else where
Lets say... if a fluffy listened and learned rather then "spreading the fluff" then that would be a good fluffy
I think the difference here is between ignorance and delusion
Delusion has a tendency to spread... people who are fluff which in my terms means someone who's beliefs are airy insubstantial not real
This is my veiw of fluff and then well... i don't think they are a possitive influence
While many times they aren't fully delusional aspects of delusion can creep into peoples beliefs. This makes things worse because they have a slight air of credibility but for the most part are full of s**t. False logic and fallacies can create more fluffies.. who don't know they are preaching fluff because they have esteem for their teachers.
This is really quite sad because if you've read certain books and then realize they have a large following... That makes me... Depressed beyond belief. My hopes for practitioners in the future Dies because they have no ******** clue how reality is
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:42 am
Mitsh Greg Stolze & John Tynes Every earnest young punk has a theory about how magick works and why it takes the form it has, but there's no professor to grade the papers. No one knows nothing dead sure. If magick were an academic, scholarly subject, there would be significantly less fluffies -- I'd say 'no fluffies', but I'm sure there's at least one person you can think of who thinks he can point out flaws in science. Fluffies exist purely because magick cannot be defined, tested, analysed, measured, e.t.c. This makes any person's theory about magick just as valid as anyone else's. I'll say that in more explicit and offensive terms: Wings of Aegis, Lobo_23, Joshua_Ritter, [BlkCat], Sinesthera, PsycheLapis, BleedingSun, Atomisk Prime, Sengem Barom and I all have theories about magick and psionics that are equally valid as one another.So what the hoc-est-corpus sets us apart from one another? How do we decide who's fluffy and who's not? Personally, I go by two measurements -- how much the person knows about magick and psionics in general (how much research they've done about pre-existing systems), and how intelligent they seem to be. If they seem to know their s**t in some respects, and have a coherent system going, I'll give them respect. If they can string sentences together, and have a firm grip on reasoning and/or logic, then I'll respect them that much more. If they haven't done any research whatsoever, and they don't seem capable of coherent thinking, then I doubt very much they can create or utilise a magickal system. It's my belief that that's where fluffies come from - folk who don't research s**t, and don't really try to make proper sense of what's going on. As for wether they're necessary... I think they are, but only in the (rather elitist) sense that without them, we'd be a less coherent guild. But by that reasoning, you could say 9/11 was necessary. So no, they're not. Phew. EDIT: I'd factor in what Kizzy said regarding a fluffy's tendancy to a) not listen, and b) side with "good" or "evil" in a very Neo-Manichaeist fashion. I'd consider them typical symptoms of fluffidom rather than something that causes them, though. That's just my theory, though. XD I would think that if people just used the scientific method concerning beliefs it would severely cut down on fluffishness Also if people knew something was true (as far as if reasonably possible) instead of I dunno blind belief or guess work. I mean testing beliefs or something. I've met people who listened to what someone said... without testing what they said without a second thought
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:16 am
Sin, there are edit buttons (on your own posts) for a reason, please use them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:57 am
Sinesthera Mitsh Greg Stolze & John Tynes Every earnest young punk has a theory about how magick works and why it takes the form it has, but there's no professor to grade the papers. No one knows nothing dead sure. If magick were an academic, scholarly subject, there would be significantly less fluffies -- I'd say 'no fluffies', but I'm sure there's at least one person you can think of who thinks he can point out flaws in science. Fluffies exist purely because magick cannot be defined, tested, analysed, measured, e.t.c. This makes any person's theory about magick just as valid as anyone else's. I'll say that in more explicit and offensive terms: Wings of Aegis, Lobo_23, Joshua_Ritter, [BlkCat], Sinesthera, PsycheLapis, BleedingSun, Atomisk Prime, Sengem Barom and I all have theories about magick and psionics that are equally valid as one another.So what the hoc-est-corpus sets us apart from one another? How do we decide who's fluffy and who's not? Personally, I go by two measurements -- how much the person knows about magick and psionics in general (how much research they've done about pre-existing systems), and how intelligent they seem to be. If they seem to know their s**t in some respects, and have a coherent system going, I'll give them respect. If they can string sentences together, and have a firm grip on reasoning and/or logic, then I'll respect them that much more. If they haven't done any research whatsoever, and they don't seem capable of coherent thinking, then I doubt very much they can create or utilise a magickal system. It's my belief that that's where fluffies come from - folk who don't research s**t, and don't really try to make proper sense of what's going on. As for wether they're necessary... I think they are, but only in the (rather elitist) sense that without them, we'd be a less coherent guild. But by that reasoning, you could say 9/11 was necessary. So no, they're not. Phew. EDIT: I'd factor in what Kizzy said regarding a fluffy's tendancy to a) not listen, and b) side with "good" or "evil" in a very Neo-Manichaeist fashion. I'd consider them typical symptoms of fluffidom rather than something that causes them, though. That's just my theory, though. XD I would think that if people just used the scientific method concerning beliefs it would severely cut down on fluffishness Also if people knew something was true (as far as if reasonably possible) instead of I dunno blind belief or guess work. I mean testing beliefs or something. I've met people who listened to what someone said... without testing what they said without a second thought If you were gunna use the scientific method to assess "paranormal" experiences, I think it'd severely cut down on a large portion of magick and psionics in general. Some things can't be measured. I agree with the testing-for-yourself thing, though. If it doesn't work for you, it isn't true for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:50 pm
Mitsh Sinesthera Mitsh Greg Stolze & John Tynes Every earnest young punk has a theory about how magick works and why it takes the form it has, but there's no professor to grade the papers. No one knows nothing dead sure. If magick were an academic, scholarly subject, there would be significantly less fluffies -- I'd say 'no fluffies', but I'm sure there's at least one person you can think of who thinks he can point out flaws in science. Fluffies exist purely because magick cannot be defined, tested, analysed, measured, e.t.c. This makes any person's theory about magick just as valid as anyone else's. I'll say that in more explicit and offensive terms: Wings of Aegis, Lobo_23, Joshua_Ritter, [BlkCat], Sinesthera, PsycheLapis, BleedingSun, Atomisk Prime, Sengem Barom and I all have theories about magick and psionics that are equally valid as one another.So what the hoc-est-corpus sets us apart from one another? How do we decide who's fluffy and who's not? Personally, I go by two measurements -- how much the person knows about magick and psionics in general (how much research they've done about pre-existing systems), and how intelligent they seem to be. If they seem to know their s**t in some respects, and have a coherent system going, I'll give them respect. If they can string sentences together, and have a firm grip on reasoning and/or logic, then I'll respect them that much more. If they haven't done any research whatsoever, and they don't seem capable of coherent thinking, then I doubt very much they can create or utilise a magickal system. It's my belief that that's where fluffies come from - folk who don't research s**t, and don't really try to make proper sense of what's going on. As for wether they're necessary... I think they are, but only in the (rather elitist) sense that without them, we'd be a less coherent guild. But by that reasoning, you could say 9/11 was necessary. So no, they're not. Phew. EDIT: I'd factor in what Kizzy said regarding a fluffy's tendancy to a) not listen, and b) side with "good" or "evil" in a very Neo-Manichaeist fashion. I'd consider them typical symptoms of fluffidom rather than something that causes them, though. That's just my theory, though. XD I would think that if people just used the scientific method concerning beliefs it would severely cut down on fluffishness Also if people knew something was true (as far as if reasonably possible) instead of I dunno blind belief or guess work. I mean testing beliefs or something. I've met people who listened to what someone said... without testing what they said without a second thought If you were gunna use the scientific method to assess "paranormal" experiences, I think it'd severely cut down on a large portion of magick and psionics in general. Some things can't be measured. I agree with the testing-for-yourself thing, though. If it doesn't work for you, it isn't true for you. I think it would more likely cut down on what people would say is definite. It might add credence I think there are several different ways of testing things. Its mostly just a method of verifying information. I mean people seem to think that measuring and other things are the only way to verify information. The big problem is replicating the same results. I think if people talked to spirits and just verified what spirits said then that would be a start in the right direction. Verifying and developing senses I think would be a useful mode of study. I think its the one that would give the most amount of benefit over all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
![[BlkCat]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/e9/b0/68ff25f32b0e9_flip.png?t=1249230010_6.00_01)
