Hi, this may be a really strange question, but does anyone else have a hang-up about letting remnants of ritual candles mingle with their hair that's fallen out or with their nail clippings? I don't let used candles anywhere near mine, but I don't have the same reservations with incense. I consider myself a Germanic pagan and I'm not into Voodoo so I don't know where this comes from. Does anyone else experience this?
I even do this with candles that are burned purely for atmosphere like black and orange candles around Halloween. They're not part of a ritual, so I unceremoniously toss them in the trash, but I can't bear to have them touch any hair and nail clippings that may be in the bag. If they go in the same bag, I wrap up what's left of the candle in a paper towel or tin foil before tossing it.
I understand that is how you justify them...
But that is not how mainstream science defines things...
I have stated I am not a fan of , nor do I agree , with many
of the methodologies , or conclusions , or fixed standpoints
of the modern scientific community...
Yet that is the standard considered most acceptable...
When any of us say something has been *proven* in science
we *are* most definitely subject to those standards...
Philosophy is not an *exact* science...
Stating something which relates to physical manifestations ,
and physical laws has been *proven* , falls under the domain
of the exacting nature of empirical science...
I am not trying , nor do I have the intent , to insult or demean
you , your knowledge , or your conclusions...( though I may ,
and sometimes will , disagree with them )
However , this is not something which can be disputed...
If we are speaking of proof as far as physical laws , we are
dealing with empirical science , and where knowledge is the
truth bearer rather than belief...
One can not invalidate the demands of empirical science as
the standard for proof , by using an epistemological argument...;)
And congratulations on completing your thesis !
A poem for you I wrote many years ago...;)
In The Name Of All Science , In The Name Of Religion ,
Deliver The Evidence For The Count Of All Angels
Who Do Quantum Dance On The Head Of A Pigeon ;
The Burden Of Proof Is Yours For A Claim ,
Though Your And My Evidence Is Never The Same ,
Some Demand Fact , Some Faith , Some Free Violition ,
Some Know The Speed Of Their Brain ,
Should I Then Doubt It's Position ,
Some Get Particular While I Stand There And Wave ,
Some Find God's Proof In The Depths Of A Cave ,
Some Say I Just Sense It , Some Say Empirical ,
Then Those Who Find Mathematics To Be Quite Lyrical ,
I Do Not Need Proof , For I Just Believe ,
And That Just Shows A Mind Like A Sieve ,
The Gods Do Exist ! In Who's Universe ?
Religion And Science , I Think We Are Cursed !
I completly dissagree! I have already cited Popper and could cite other recognised authorities in the philosophy of science and philosophers such as Quine to suportmy position. Let me cite as an example Rudolf Stiner's Phd(in Philosophy) dissertation as a case in point! If Stiner was only a philosopher turned occultist his opinions might be dismissed out of hand, but his methodolodogy has produced many results in the material world! Biodynmic Agriculture being a case in point.
There is evidence that some clairvoyants such as Leadbeater were able to View Quarks and superstrings and that Amazonian and other shamanswere able to clairvoyantly see DNA and other biological processes al with out empirical science to suport their methodologies. In fact in several cases the clairvoyant observers published physicaly verifyable data such as the existence of Isotopes some years in advance of their "discovery"by modern science! See in this respect Clarvoyant observation of Quarks" by Dr Stephen M Philips (a Qualified Quantum Physicist with papers in refereed journals) and several other books by the same author on this subject. In reguard to clairvoyant observation of DNA See the Book "The Cosmic Serpent" By Dr Jarques Narby an anthropoligistin the European Tradition also with papers in refereed journals!
Well , you have proven one thing...
It is impossible to convince someone of the truth who is so
deluded by their own philosophical beliefs that they can't
see the forest for the trees...
It is why I have always called philosophy an exercise in
mental masturbation...;)...like golfers who carry around
clubs to hit their balls with...we shall have to agree to disagree...;)
Oh snap! That was an interesting read. Thank you both for posting.
I think rather than getinginvolved in a complex philosophical debate the following analogy will ilustrate my point:
There is a famous experiment with sand on a resonating plate in which different resonances give different patternsNowsay for the sake of argument I know nothing about resonance and I have a plate tuned to A and a lot of similar plates all unconected one of which also is tuned to A.
As a scientific experiment I make my A plate resonate and generate its resonant pattern and at the same time (because of resonance) the same pattern apearson an aparently unconected plate six feet away
I do not think an Impiricist would quarel with me saying that I have conclusively proven that the patterns on both plates are identical and therefore (providing the experiment is theoreticaly repeatable) that I would be justified in saying that the scientific evidence conclusively proves action at a distance in this case!
This experiment is isomorphic with the one in Secrets of the soil except that in this case it was the Dyamolis pattern and not a sand pattern that was transmitted! If I wanted to set up an experiment to prove the existence of a radionic effect (note that I am only observing the effect not sugestinga mecanism) I canot think of a better one!
I suggest that the Impiricistwill alow me to use the words scientificly proven in the first case and not in the second is ideological predudice!
Of course it is possible that the experimental data in secrets of the soil is fradulent, but the onus of proof is on any one making such a claim and if such evidence in respect of this specific experiment exists then I am unaware of it. So until I see evidence to the contary I feel secure in my True claim of conclusive scientific proff of the radionic effect!
Actually , the onus is on the one making
the claim in the first place , *not* the one
doubting the experiment's integrity...
There are rigid parameters that must be followed...
Now , your statements above have *some* elements
of truth within them , yet where is all the data ?
Where are the verified , repeatable test results , that
back up the claims of both the plants tests in "Secrets
Of The Soil" , and the Radionics tests ?
I have never seen such data , nor have I seen it published
and recognized by a reliable and accepted scientific journal...
That is where your claims fail...you talk about repeated scientific experiments ( which means certain very specific standards must
be followed ) yet there is no evidence of such impartial tests...
Therefore , until such data is presented and accepted by the scientific community ( Empiricist ) , one cannot , and should not ,
make the claim it has been ***proven***
It is simple...present peer reviewed published empirically accepted data , of repeated experiments...*claim is valid*
Refuse to present such , or incapable...*claim is not valid*
Well, essentially..the nail IS the hair so not missing a thing there...keeping warm with my mini bonfires & meditations...brrrrr!
It depends on what I am doing. I use my hair in rituals a lot, because hair is connected to spirit. But not for everything.
I always wanted to command fire but as a Pisces, candles are the farthest I'll get! Sometimes I become enchanted with it and will stare at a flame for hours...it means so many things that I become transfixed by it all....other times..rituals are really meaningful...Blessed Be...lovely conversation with many points of view Blackfire is hungry!
You mistake the Scientific statement and its veracity for the experimental data. In reguard to the onus of proof is concerned if the initial claim is scientific in so far as being potentialy repeatable Then the onus is definately on the doubter. This is clear from magor Journals such as Nature which ocasionly publishes work that is found to be not repeatable. The difficulty is that as Thomas Khun and others have pointed out there is a "Scientific Recepton system wherein what is scientific varies subjectively not objectively.
I have used Popers Critera precicely because it has been accepted by many Scientsts (not just Philosophers :) as being definitive. Thus I am using a paradigm that is accepted within some portions of the Scientific comunity and from the point of view of that accepted paradigm my claim is justified!
Ah , you have finally admitted *some* of the scientific
community accept it...yet the bulk of the members of
the scientific community do not , as to them , scientific
statement and experimental data are intricately intertwined...
As far as regards the onus of proof , unless an experiment
can be proven by the one making the original claim to be
repeatable , or have others whose work is accepted by the
bulk of the scientific community , by their strict standards ,
proven to be repeatable , then they have not fulfilled the
necessary requirements which would deem the claim valid...
You have to accept we shall , at the best , agree to disagree...
I have been on this site , and others , for many , many years ,
and been on your side of the coin many times...you should have
been here , on Paganspace , in 2008 - 2010 , and some of the
members would have shredded your arguments long ago , with
absolutely no mercy...lol !
Try dealing with twenty of them coming at you , and by the time
you answered one , twenty more would be at your throat...
( it really was that way )
I thought we reached the point of agreeing to disagree , then
you started up again , when Noah made a comment...sheesh !
Do you really think you are going to convince me , or others here ,
you are right by making statements in bold , with underlining , and
finishing with an exclamation point , continually ?
I don't think so...
As I said long before there are ways of saying and posting things ,
such as "In my belief" , "In my tradition" , "By some people" , or
even "By some standards of science" , that are less likely to invite
challenges to one's information or position...
*Not* it has been *proven*... that immediately will draw a challenge
to produce evidence and empirical data , and create an argument...
This conversation is a perfect example for members of Paganspace of
what *not to do* , in order to have a easygoing , agreeable discussion...
I like you , Cluthin , I do have respect for your intelligence , yet your ways
of expressing statements , as *proven claims* does not make it easy to
just watch from the sidelines...
So , can we agree to disagree , or do you want to keep attempting to
convince me and others , even if they are not saying anything , ( so far )
and having me counter your claims ?
Shall we conduct this as an experiment to see the value of an ad infinitum
debate in a thread which had a totally different intent by the opening poster ?
I would hope not...;)...lol !
( but *if* you insist on it...so be it ! )