From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Paying Attention (was: Reincarnation)
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:08:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.215731.15796@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca> ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.031305.14118@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.035406.4927@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca> ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell) writes:
>>>
>>>That certainly takes the cake for a non sequitur. He wasn't saying that
>>>belief in a rabbit's foot was any of those things, he was saying that it 
>>>did not fit the given definition of superstition.
>>>[...remainder of explanation omitted: see earlier article...]
>>
>>You're right.  I thought he was saying that a belief in a rabbit's foot
>>was indistinguishable from religion.  That is why I was trying to show
>>that it didn't fit into the definition of religion.
>
>In the article you're responding to here, I quoted what he actually wrote,
>namely:
>
>In article <1992Sep27.224930.26733@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>In article <1a4rjkINNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep26.145922.22060@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>=>But how does one differentiate "religious beliefs" from "superstition"?
>>>=Rich, the dictionary defines religious beliefs as those beliefs
>>>=concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe
>>>=especially belief or worship in God or gods.  Superstition, on the
>>>=other hand is defined as an irrational belief in the ominous
>>>=significance of a particular thing or circumstance.
>>>
>>>Hmmm.  That seems a rather odd definition of superstition.  It means, among
>>>other things, that a belief that a rabbit's foot will bring good luck is *NOT*
>>>a superstition.  Please let us know what dictionary you use, so that we can
>>>avoid repeating your mistake in purchasing it.
>
>From this you "thought he was saying that a belief in a rabbit's foot
>was indistinguishable from religion"??????? Are you suggesting that
>anything that "is *NOT* a superstition" is "indistinguishable from
>religion", or did your conclusion come from something more specifically
>related to rabbit's feet? This sort of logical leap is so far-fetched that
>I suspect that in fact it arose from simple failure to pay attention to
>what was written.

Well of course I didn't pay attention to what was written to which I
apologize.  Since I was arguing that religion and superstition were two
separate uniquely defined terms, and someone was arguing that religion and
superstition were synonymous, then I thought that he was arguing that
a rabit's foot was religion (comes from trying to read 50+ postings/day).

>
>>However, doesn't a belief in a rabbit's foot bringing good luck have the
>>implication that if I forget my rabbit's foot or fail to carry it with
>>me today, then *bad* luck will strike me?  That certainly sounds ominous to
>>me!
>
>Not to me, it doesn't. Are you postulating that an object's perceived 
>ability to bring good luck _necessarily_ carries with it a perceived ability 
>to ward off bad luck? (Or does this come from something more specifically 
>related to rabbit's feet?) 

Well, assuming that there's bad luck and good luck, then without good luck
I would say that I had bad luck.

>    A friend of mine buys lottery tickets on a regular basis, in the belief
>that this could lead to good fortune. (In early 1991 he won $250,000 this
>way.) I haven't asked Steve, but I strongly doubt that if he didn't get
>around to buying a ticket one week he'd consider this an ominous
>circumstance.

Sure it is, he might have won the jackpot that week but failed to do it.
I would say losing $250,000 is quite a turn of bad luck, wouln't you?

>    By the way, if a person had the belief that a rabbit's foot had the
>ability to ward off _bad_ luck, then the circumstance of such a person's 
>discovering they'd forgotten it one day might well have ominous significance 
>to them. I can't speak for Carl, of course, but it seems to me that this
>_would_ fit the rather poor definition of superstition quoted above.
>However, the careful reader will note that Carl was not talking
>about such an individual's beliefs; he was talking about (his words,
>emphasis added) "a belief that a rabbit's foot will bring _*good*_ luck." 
>His point still stands: "That seems a rather odd definition of superstition.
>It means, among other things, that a belief that a rabbit's foot will bring 
>good luck is *NOT* a superstition."

Perhaps you have defined something called neutral luck?  If so,
that is a new addition to the English language since luck is
usually defined as the force that seems to operate for good or bad
in a person's life (Yet another dictionary definition!).

>
>Please note: I am disagreeing with you here on certain quite specific
>points. This is not to be construed as disagreeing with other things you
>believe in, nor is it to be construed as espousing any beliefs that you do
>not believe in, except as explicitly stated in the text above.
>    This disclaimer is motivated by, among other factors, your statement
>that Carl's assertion that a certain belief failed to fit the given (poor)
>definition of superstition led you to the conclusion: "I thought he was 
>saying that a belief in a rabbit's foot was indistinguishable from religion."

I did in the context of the conversation.  However, after
re-examination of the actual posting it apears that I was
erroneous.  Again I apologize.

>
>-- 
>ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729