From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: Oh so worried.
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 05:35:35 GMT

 radinsky@spot.Colorado.EDU (Wayne Radinsky) writes:

>> What is a "demonic" spirit and how is it differentiated from a regular
>> spirit?
>
>I don't know.  Malicious, maybe.  Or, if we assume "regular" spirits are
>dead people, a "demonic" spirit would have to be an evil, non-human
>spirit.

Hmm.  More words I'm unsure of.  Forgive me; I believe that concepts
such as these are best discussed with all terms clearly defined.  Can
you explain what "evil" is, and perhaps a small clarification on what
"malicious" means?

>No, the newsgroup doesn't operate on the Christian paradigm.

Well that's a relief. <g>

>I personally was using some "Christian" concepts, for example, life
>after death, demonic possession caused by real demons vs. psychological
>effects, etc.  I wouldn't consider my postings representative of the
>newsgroup, however.

Well that's a relief. <G>  (jest kiddin')

>> So the things that you have experienced are real, the things you have
>> not aren't?  Rather myopic, it seems.  Magic is a branch of psychology,
>> not physics.  "There are more things in heaven and earth..."
>
>Actually the underlying assumption I've been making all this time, and one
>which everyone seems to have missed, is that there =is= an objective reality
>(of which "demonic spirits" either are, or are not a part of).

I noted the assumption, but was not questioning it at this point.  What
I was pointing out was a semantical assumption that you seem to be
making: that demonic spirits (whatever they are, you haven't defined them
too well yet) either "exist" or "do not exist," and do so in the same
sense that a tree or a car can either "exist" or "not exist."

I suggest that the existence of such entities is not a binary function.
In any case, the "objective existence" of such is not something which
particularly worries me.  It has proven *useful* to believe that in some
circumstances, and that is all that is of concern to my self.

>It's worth pointing out, however, that, even though you misinterpret what
>you see, you're still seeing something "real" -- that is, the ascii figures
>are "real".  The conclusion, perhaps, is that while "the things that you
>have experienced are real" they may also be misunderstood.

The effect was present.  The statement "the things that you have experienced
are real" lead to many problems, however.  Hallucinations, mirages and
prestidigitation, for example, are subjects of question.  Although mis-
interpretation can account for a few of them, it is certainly not
applicable to all.

Perhaps you mean to suggest that repeatability is a component of "realness."
In other words, if I claim that X is real because I have experienced it,
you must be able to experience X before you accept its existence.  In that
sense, then, I can accept it.  Note, however, that just because you are 
unable to experience X does not disprove its existence.

>> To continue your example, yes, I think it's possible for Sagan to "get
>> hexed," as you phrase it.  Probable?  No.
>
>Why do you think it's possible?

He is human, and possesses a subconscious; thus, it would be possible
even without the aid of nonhuman entities.  I happen to accept the
existence of such "spiritual" beings, also, and am inclined to think
that they might affect him.


-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
From: Adam@f88.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Adam)
Sender: tghost@urchin.fidonet.org