Discussing Woo

[XLDS03]

You know what really sucks? Wanting to discuss personal beliefs and discovering indifference. No controversy.

For example:

Take my moniker. When I was a (Utah) Mormon, I was raised believing the rest of the world persecuted us. The worst I've heard? That we're lame and nutty. Nobody gives a damn save fanatical evangelicals who persecute everybody.

I've been wanting to discuss reincarnation for some time. What do I discuss? Anecdotes? New Age theories? A smackdown between schools of channeled dogma? How about a poll? Do you think I could have been Julius Ceaser? Yes or no?

It's worse coming out of the fringe of the fringe. The only company is a handful of whackjobs who rely on extreme isolation and profound ignorance of reality. Psychosis is the drug of choice.

I take controversy as the litmus test. If the skeptics aren't paying attention, it's a good bet the idea is moot. Taking Mormonism, deity itself is debatable. Mormonism is small potatoes. Reincarnation? If a centrifuge produces NDE's, life after death is the controversy. Not who gets to be Marylin Monroe.

Incarnate angels, incarnate ET's, Indigo children, channeled messages, Atlantis, empathic abilities, etc. become irrelevant. Why bother if I have no direct evidence for the category in general?

It's difficult to allow the facts to speak for themselves and leave my emotion out of it. But it must be done. If a belief cannot survive my departure from it, solution evident. It's no good. I may not gain the attention of the masses, but I at least leave the table with my dignity.

[XLDS03]

Before anyone answers my poll...

Yes. I could have been Julius Ceaser. It's always possible. Ha! Ha! Tricky semantics. Ha!

[Soapy Sam]

It's still possible. Costs $35 to change your name someone said.

Caesar was interested in the Gauls' belief in reincarnation, by the way.

Not quite sure what your main point is though.
You expect more people to be interested in daft stuff, but not to be daft?
Is this realistic?

Also, would you clarify for me your usage of the word "moot"?

To me , a moot is a meeting or discussuion; a moot point is a point undecided and fit for or requiring debate. I note recently American posters using "moot" in a sense that seems to imply "irrelevant, unimportant- perhaps even "!already settled by argument" - ie the opposite of its original meaning.
How say you?

[tesscaline]

It's still possible. Costs $35 to change your name someone said.

Caesar was interested in the Gauls' belief in reincarnation, by the way.

Not quite sure what your main point is though.
You expect more people to be interested in daft stuff, but not to be daft?
Is this realistic?

Also, would you clarify for me your usage of the word "moot"?

To me , a moot is a meeting or discussuion; a moot point is a point undecided and fit for or requiring debate. I note recently American posters using "moot" in a sense that seems to imply "irrelevant, unimportant- perhaps even "!already settled by argument" - ie the opposite of its original meaning.
How say you?
My dictionary gives two definitions for "moot."

1. subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision.
2. having no practical significance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision

So, a moot point is one that would be pointless to debate because there's no way to come to a final decision on the subject.

[ExMinister]

Not sure I understand. Are you saying you want to discuss personal woo beliefs and are disappointed at the lack of controversy, or the lack of intelligent people to discuss them with?

There is a lot of truth to that last part.

I disagree with the first part, unless I misunderstand your point.

It seems to me in woo circles, it's all about controversy. Everybody is battling it out over whose woo is the true woo. Since there's no way to prove whose woo is true, no one ever really wins. In that sense, there's no end to controversy.

Again, I might be mis-reading what you mean by controversy, though.

[Soapy Sam]

My dictionary gives two definitions for "moot."

1. subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision.
2. having no practical significance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision

So, a moot point is one that would be pointless to debate because there's no way to come to a final decision on the subject.

Mind if I ask which dictionary is that?

[tesscaline]

Mind if I ask which dictionary is that?Well, I cited those definitions from the dictionary standard on my computer. However, Dictionary.com has a big long list of definitions, the majority of which (other than ones that refer to a totally different context -- like measuring tree rings) agree with it. Especially if you go look at the usage history of the word.

[godless dave]

My dictionary gives two definitions for "moot."

1. subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision.
2. having no practical significance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision

So, a moot point is one that would be pointless to debate because there's no way to come to a final decision on the subject.

It means something else in British English. In British English, to "moot" a topic is to bring it up for discussion. It's almost, but not quite, the exact opposite of the American English meaning. Actually in American English we don't use it as a verb at all, just an adjective.

[tesscaline]

It means something else in British English. In British English, to "moot" a topic is to bring it up for discussion. It's almost, but not quite, the exact opposite of the American English meaning. Actually in American English we don't use it as a verb at all, just an adjective.The verb (i.e. not the adjective, which is being discussed) does mean to bring a topic up for discussion. The adjective has a different meaning. Have you looked at the usage history?

[ejk]

It means something else in British English. In British English, to "moot" a topic is to bring it up for discussion. It's almost, but not quite, the exact opposite of the American English meaning. Actually in American English we don't use it as a verb at all, just an adjective.

Not quite correct. Normal people in America may not use it as a verb, but lawyers do. To "moot" an argument is to try it out in front of a pretend court for practice, before an actual court appearance. A "moot court" is also a tool used in law schools to provide practice in oral argument. "Moot" in this context is used in the sense of "an abstract question which does not rest upon existing facts or rights."

[JcR]

Get out the Popcorn.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2839649b99f9bc0ea5.jpg
The End...

[ExMinister]

My dictionary gives two definitions for "moot."

1. subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision.
2. having no practical significance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision

So, a moot point is one that would be pointless to debate because there's no way to come to a final decision on the subject.

So, moot = woo

[tesscaline]

So, moot = wooNo. Some woo is quite easy to come to a decision about.

[XLDS03]

ExMinister, you got me right. I am disappointed in the lack of controversy in skeptical circles. Woo circles, in contrast, are havens of grandiosity. When I'm in, I'm a somebody. When I'm out, I'm an ordinary schmuck.

My point is two-fold. I should have distinguished them more clearly. First, it's hard to discover I, to put it bluntly, wasted my time when I was so sure my secluded area of belief was of monumental importance. In other words, controversial.

Second, if I take issue with this, I couldn't make a sound argument if I wanted to. Years ago I started reading science-heavy books to prove to myself that woo was real. I went on a woo retreat and got burned bad. But I discovered that my beliefs diverged from reality. Who's wrong? Trained scientists? Or me? There's always the possibility, but without actual evidence I don't have any ground to argue from. I might as well put up a popularity poll.

I've observed a mountain of emotional reasons for adhering to woo. It's often a cover for mental illness, a bad childhood, delusional disorder, loneliness, scientific incompetence, etc., etc. I have gone through my emotional issues that kept me in woo. In the end I can find little reason.

I was born and raised in woo, but I don't have to die in woo. I find more satisfaction in being a realist. Even if that means I'm an ordinary schmuck.

As to moot, yes, I mean irrelevant.

[XLDS03]

JcR, show some *snicker* respect, man! Yer talkin 'bout my woo! Get that hook out of its mouth while your at it.

[ExMinister]

No. Some woo is quite easy to come to a decision about.

Never mind. I was kidding, playing with the idea that most woo that I know of is based on uncertainty (except in the mind of the believer, of course) and subject to debate and dispute. Obviously, moot has several usages. I should have added a smiley.

ExMinister, you got me right. I am disappointed in the lack of controversy in skeptical circles. Woo circles, in contrast, are havens of grandiosity. When I'm in, I'm a somebody. When I'm out, I'm an ordinary schmuck.

My point is two-fold. I should have distinguished them more clearly. First, it's hard to discover I, to put it bluntly, wasted my time when I was so sure my secluded area of belief was of monumental importance. In other words, controversial.

Second, if I take issue with this, I couldn't make a sound argument if I wanted to. Years ago I started reading science-heavy books to prove to myself that woo was real. I went on a woo retreat and got burned bad. But I discovered that my beliefs diverged from reality. Who's wrong? Trained scientists? Or me? There's always the possibility, but without actual evidence I don't have any ground to argue from. I might as well put up a popularity poll.

I've observed a mountain of emotional reasons for adhering to woo. It's often a cover for mental illness, a bad childhood, delusional disorder, loneliness, scientific incompetence, etc., etc. I have gone through my emotional issues that kept me in woo. In the end I can find little reason.

I was born and raised in woo, but I don't have to die in woo. I find more satisfaction in being a realist. Even if that means I'm an ordinary schmuck.

As to moot, yes, I mean irrelevant.

Well said. I especially like that second to last paragraph.

I see what you are saying - no controversy in skeptical circles meaning there is probably nothing to the woo.

When you're out, you're an ordinary schmuck - yes, I've experienced that, too (if girls can be schmucks). Going from a lifetime of woo beliefs and the accompanying feeling of meaning and purpose and then being disillusioned/learning otherwise takes a lot of getting used to. In some ways, it has created a personal crisis for me, though I know, realistically, that I am so much the better off for it.

I agree about the popularity poll, too. There are an unbelievable number of differing woo beliefs, and yet people fight so passionately in support of their favorite woo against someone else's. Everyone disagrees on some important point, everyone thinks they've got the truth, and no one has any real evidence, though there is no end to the personal, subjective validation stories. So it's just a shouting match, or as you say, you might as well rely on a popularity poll.

Well said.

[dudalb]

If you are planning to discuss the Next Big Thing in Woo, bone up on the Mayan 2012 Prediction nonsense. That is going to be big, really big....

[XLDS03]

When you're out, you're an ordinary schmuck - yes, I've experienced that, too (if girls can be schmucks). Going from a lifetime of woo beliefs and the accompanying feeling of meaning and purpose and then being disillusioned/learning otherwise takes a lot of getting used to. In some ways, it has created a personal crisis for me, though I know, realistically, that I am so much the better off for it.


I feel better remembering how worse off I could be. I could still be trapped in woo. Doubting one's beliefs don't inexorably lead to the same conclusion. Questioning religion doesn't always lead to atheism, for example. I became an atheist. My parents pursue a different church. Friends of mine had their testimonies strengthened. All by similar questions.

I tend to put my beliefs to the test. That's just the way I am. Others I've known can't get away from their spiritual experiences. They heard a voice and just knew. More often, it seems people allow a wide girth in terms of evidence. Such as allowing a good feeling as witness to somethings truth, rather than physical evidence. It may be a means of surviving disappointment, thus depression and loss of meaning. I view it as a primary way we fool ourselves.

I was in a lonely place on my woo retreat. My host talked me into believing I was the reincarnation of an ancient deity. I found no evidence in my research. I had a lot to lose in ego, but I feel proud I faced up. After all, I was merely fooled. I'm not recruiting people to folly.

Being in woo grants the ego great stature. You have great knowledge and responsibility. You can no longer be a normal person. It's better to be an ordinary schmuck than an incarnated god. You have a lot more company being human.

[borealys]

My dictionary gives two definitions for "moot."

1. subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision.
2. having no practical significance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision

So, a moot point is one that would be pointless to debate because there's no way to come to a final decision on the subject.

Not to be confused with a moo point (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLwYpSCrlHU).

It's like a cow's opinion. It doesn't matter. It's moo. :D

[XLDS03]

If you are planning to discuss the Next Big Thing in Woo, bone up on the Mayan 2012 Prediction nonsense. That is going to be big, really big....

And have nothing whatsoever to do with Mayan beliefs. It'll be brought to us by Ramtha. I mean J.Z. Knight in a weird accent.

[TSR]

Not to be confused with a moo point.

It's like a cow's opinion. It doesn't matter. It's moo. :D

In league with the lemurs, are you?

frink frink p'tang....

[quarky]

I feel better remembering how worse off I could be. I could still be trapped in woo. Doubting one's beliefs don't inexorably lead to the same conclusion. Questioning religion doesn't always lead to atheism, for example. I became an atheist. My parents pursue a different church. Friends of mine had their testimonies strengthened. All by similar questions.

I tend to put my beliefs to the test. That's just the way I am. Others I've known can't get away from their spiritual experiences. They heard a voice and just knew. More often, it seems people allow a wide girth in terms of evidence. Such as allowing a good feeling as witness to somethings truth, rather than physical evidence. It may be a means of surviving disappointment, thus depression and loss of meaning. I view it as a primary way we fool ourselves.

I was in a lonely place on my woo retreat. My host talked me into believing I was the reincarnation of an ancient deity. I found no evidence in my research. I had a lot to lose in ego, but I feel proud I faced up. After all, I was merely fooled. I'm not recruiting people to folly.

Being in woo grants the ego great stature. You have great knowledge and responsibility. You can no longer be a normal person. It's better to be an ordinary schmuck than an incarnated god. You have a lot more company being human.


Your humility is proof that you were a big deal in your prior life.
Even if you weren't, you could become the next big deal.
Trying to not be an egotist is a sure fire way to become great.

(I see through your ploy.)

[XLDS03]

Your humility is proof that you were a big deal in your prior life.
Even if you weren't, you could become the next big deal.
Trying to not be an egotist is a sure fire way to become great.

(I see through your ploy.)

All right. You caught me. I was Ramtha's second cousin twice removed in Atlantis. Then in my next life, I was Julius Caesar's royal umbrella holder. I've never been great, but I've been close enough to smell the sweat of greatness. But one day, goodness willing, I shall triumph in fame and glory!

Joking aside, I'm leaving out a lot of detail. It's really not a matter of public humility. It's that people whom I thought were good friends were really recruiting. Past the ruse, with them face-to-face, their aim was to gather an imagined soul-group of ancient deities. It was all about ego. When in their midst I started to believe them. I realized, after cutting it off, that my knowledge was so limited as to make me an easy target.

It's not really about humility. It started with ego. Then it went to self-defense, armed with science. Now it's about the relief and adventure of being a normal person without all the supernatural garble. Humility is a by-product.

[XLDS03]

Not to be confused with a moo point (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLwYpSCrlHU).

It's like a cow's opinion. It doesn't matter. It's moo. :D

Now that's just hilarious!:D

[quarky]

All right. You caught me. I was Ramtha's second cousin twice removed in Atlantis. Then in my next life, I was Julius Caesar's royal umbrella holder. I've never been great, but I've been close enough to smell the sweat of greatness. But one day, goodness willing, I shall triumph in fame and glory!

Joking aside, I'm leaving out a lot of detail. It's really not a matter of public humility. It's that people whom I thought were good friends were really recruiting. Past the ruse, with them face-to-face, their aim was to gather an imagined soul-group of ancient deities. It was all about ego. When in their midst I started to believe them. I realized, after cutting it off, that my knowledge was so limited as to make me an easy target.

It's not really about humility. It started with ego. Then it went to self-defense, armed with science. Now it's about the relief and adventure of being a normal person without all the supernatural garble. Humility is a by-product.

I like that.

But keep in mind,
Everyone is selling something. Everyone has a hidden agenda.
Being scientific is protection from some of it.
They say the ego has lots of layers.