The occult.
Contrary to the last-gen belief that the occult is pseudo science, the occult is now the only place left where true science is occurring. And this includes non-ritual stuff that is just high level government black ops projects. Real, secret science.
If you think you are a true scientist without learning about it you will forever be behind, and inept.
Welcome to 2013.
Duly noted
Very mod like, showing obvious bias.
You’re doing a good job here.
The occcult…as opposed to science…
Case closed.
But of course feel free to make threads about the scientific occult stuff you know about. I’m just not putting it in the Knowledge Base thread, and I don’t imagine too many people would disagree with that one. I can’t please everyone, and I think you know I’d there’d be more people put off than pleased by me accepting your suggestion, so…Do I choose to please Gobbo, or Everyone Else? Hrm…
You’re a good guy, Gobbo, but you don’t take priority.
Holy shit that was stupid.
You’re a mod and you’re arguing with wiki articles?
Hahaha wow. Talk about demonstrating your worth.
Gobbo, Everybody! Round of applause!
One more time, let’s hear it for Gobbo!
Now, back to the topic: serious suggestions.
OK.
Seriously. The Occult.
I mean don’t you guys want this place to go anywhere? Don’t you want to discuss something cool? The occult is cool. It takes you places.
The stuff that government scientists are doing is cool.
Coo Coo
I don’t think Flannel Jesus was posting as a Moderator here, he was posting as Flannel Jesus. He hasn’t made a track record of making shitheaded bans yet, and we need to give him time to prove his worth, just hitting him for being a mod posting in a thread is silly. He was a member of this site BEFORE he was a mod, and when not moderating he should be respected as a poster just posting. Yes, the green is intimidating, but merely disagreeing with your statements isn’t a sign of moderation unless it’s moderator related in terms of threats and coercive actions- he was challenging you as anyone who isn’t a moderator is expected to do. It’s fine, it’s healthy in fact, for us to scrutinize and challenge the moderators when they do bad stuff, but we get taken overboard when they aren’t doing anything and we’re just posting like they are. His name is Flannel Jesus here, and not ‘Moderator’. He’s only ‘Moderator’ when he becomes a fuck up… or graduates to a titled slur that he’s earned (which half the mods on this site have warranted, but not FJ yet from the lack of complaints I’ve seen).
I don’t mind people having beliefs different from mine… I was reading the book ‘The Secret Teachings of All Times’ amazon.com/Secret-Teachings- … 1461013135 last night…
but I don’t see much that is inherently science in it. That’s hardly my only book, but it is representative of the uncritical attitude, and his only methodology seems to be Fuck Christianity.
So NOTE, even though I do in general promote a generically philosophical catholic christian outlook in my persona, I’m in no way attacking your outlook- I respect you having your own beliefs, and avoided it thinking it was a Occult Religious Thread by the pagans on this site, but since it isn’t, at least not yet, I merely seek clarification in your statements… and by statements I mean all of them.
I see no reason why someone interested in the Occult couldn’t pull off a classical science experiment… but am lost on your dichotomy. How do you justify and explain this, most respectfully, human to human here.
You’re (all) fundamentally missing why I wanted this included in the knowledge base thing.
It’s OK. It’s over. Let’s move on.
Look at Contra, riding around on his high horse, high and mighty, on the high road. Adda boy.
FJ is not unknown to stop reading or thinking once he had found what he was looking for to confirm his position. So he just missed the above part from what he himself quoted. I supposed his modship made him just tha tlittle bit more eager to assert his perspective as rational without arguing for it. It’s known to happen.
What Gobbo may mean is science (of the measurable) that is kept hidden. But we will never find out, as nobody gives a fuck for anything except his own pre established opinion.
Clearly there are many scientific areas, such as parts of nuclear physics, that are occult by the quoted definition from wikipedia.
FC, I realize that some stuff under the ‘occult’ label also fits under the ‘science’ label. I also realize that what I said in that thread was dismissive of that, unfairly and incorrectly.
Here it is, in writing and for all times: some stuff called ‘occult’ qualifies as science, and I was wrong to dismiss it as I did.
Now, let me explain a little bit more about why, regardless, I don’t think ‘occult science’ belongs in the ‘suggested knowledge base’ thread. It’s NOT that I don’t think it’s not science, it’s that the kind of stuff that I do want in that thread is the sort of stuff to give you a solid enough background in scientific thinking so that, when you do come across more unusual claims, such as Occult Science, you can distinguish between good and bad science.
The knowledge base is a beginning. Imagine science as a tree. What I’m trying to do is, for people who are trying to build up their own view of the tree of science, I’m trying to help them build a solid trunk and roots. I view various things, like Occult Science, Quantum Physics, String Theory, etc, as not part of the roots or trunk, but rather one of the smaller branches at the top of the tree. If you have a solid trunk, you can have the stability to safely work your way up to the top of any branch you wish to explore. Occult Science may indeed be one of those branches, just as Quantum Physics is another one (probably Quantum Physics and Occult Science have some overlap, idk), and String Theory another, and Relativity another.
I’m trying not to focus too much on the smaller branches, I’m focusing more on the trunk, if that analogy makes sense. Hence the term ‘base’.
That’s not your job, as a moderator.
Lemme just add, that apparently even if it was your job, you’re not qualified to do it.
I am a river to my people.
Thanks.
What is this “that’s not your job” stuff? He’s set a project for himself and in my opinion he’s one of the most able thinkers here. I can understand arguing against his method or his results, but you have no place (nor does anyone) to say he should not make any attempt at it. What garbage. There is of course no more noble response for FJ but to ignore your last post.
What are you doing here, Monooq?
Appreciated. Those are perfectly clear motivations, and they add to a general understanding of what you mean to accomplish. If I can make a recommendation for your modship: you’re clearly a lucid and leveheaded guy, please for all our sakes try not let this mod job get to your head so that you appear stupid and infuriate people. A mod should be 10% more humble instead of 10% more arrogant.
I didn’t like seeing what happened to Faust when he was mod. He’s possibly the sanest guy around here and still his judgment got clouded somewhat.
Thanks for the advice. Clearly some people are interpreting the ‘knowledge base’ idea as a lack of intellectual humility from me. Perhaps you as well? Which is why I hope to set up a system by which I don’t have sole control of it, but it’s quality is also maintained. I don’t want it to only represent my own views – I’m not interested in it representing my views at all, really – but I think some people could find value from it. Perhaps the quality of conversation on the forum itself could benefit from it. It will not be a dogma, nothing is beyond questioning.
Flannel Jesus isn’t here in a moderator capacity… he’s just posting. Leave the guy alone as far as moderation goes here in this thread, he hasn’t done squat yet in regards to his moderation capacity, he’s just posting as he always has done.
And yes Mo, if I know the high horse is the best way to talk to some one, I’ll mount it. A horse can be mounted or dismounted, but doesn’t make the man.
That’s not science though… it deals with a method… there is by default no Occult Science… that would itch upon my philosophical ideal of a ‘Eclipse of a Monolith’… a Monolith being the system we’ve systematically organized and built up over time until it’s the largest thing in our awareness, and then suddenly, without expectation, it’s eclipsed by something unexpected and perhaps even indescribable except by how it effects the monolith.
Our current science, especially experimental physics, is aimed at detecting these Eclipse moments… everyone wants to smash the monolith and have their name stamped on the discovery, if not on the replacement theory.
However, we hit the essential issue… though in many sciences we put alot of emphasis on detecting unaccountable variables, that in and of itself still rests on methodologies, and a methodology rests on measurements, and the measurements are expected to be known. I’ve pointed out a dozen or so times, the best scientist of our era don’t really practice science, they are just really good philosophers… they do the experiments, and interpret is as they must by linking up their hunches into a viable product more by intiution and less by old fashion R&D, in other words, not as they scientifically should.
You need none the less a measured methodology… doesn’t need to be absolute, just needs to be useful for others to follow. What’s the point of making a flying car if your the only one who can ever figure out how to make them? The very aspect of thought that caused you to leap onto the solution might elude the engineers trying to reverse engineer the car long after you passed, turning it into a mysterious paperweight.
Imagine if we dumped a nuclear powered battleship into say, the English fleet in the early 1800s. Some stuff, like the bridge and the decks, the guns, buoyancy and propellers they will grasp. Other stuff, like the radios they’ll pick up on with trial and error. But you think the physicists of that era are going to grasp in the least how the boat energizes itself? Not much beyond saying ‘warp drive here’ like we would in making a design for a spaceship. They won’t grasp the tech.
Science rests on known metrics… if you lack this, then it’s not science, you need something to predictably measure unknowns. Not everything has to be science, things can be legitimately known outside of science… but something outside of science is by default not science.