What is 'NewAge', and why is it bad?

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Snow Goose

I like Michael's psychology stuff.

Could never get into Jordan's stuff tried a few times.

Someone I have been following for a while is Thomas Sheridan, he is the one person I get a lot out of listening too and have learned a lot from. I also like a bit of Alan Watt and Anthony Peak :-)

Sheridan & Peak are new to me - I'll take a looksie.

Lloyd Pye will really knock your socks off but he's more scientific.

Alan Watt - "hi folks, I'm Alan Watt" or Alan Watts? Both equally great for different reasons.

.

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by Kioma

Thank you Guthrio. There certainly is something to what you've said, and I for one very much appreciate your references.


.

Kioma,

Thank you. "Gardens 'r us all"....

Originally Posted by guthrio

"Gardens 'r us all"....

Well said.

[Snow Goose]

Originally Posted by knightoflenity

Sheridan & Peak are new to me - I'll take a looksie.

Lloyd Pye will really knock your socks off but he's more scientific.

Alan Watt - "hi folks, I'm Alan Watt" or Alan Watts? Both equally great for different reasons.

.

I was talking about Alan Watt, though I like Watts too!

Here is a link to a interview with Alan and Thomas https://youtu.be/ZN2Zq9hkqGs you might like.

Not heard of Lloyde Pye will have a wee look :-)

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Kioma

From Wikipedia:

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

So much other stuff to answer, but I really like the current turn of the discussion.

So much modernism does turn on Marketing. Marketing is about power. Your quote above is also about power, as you try to 'market' your reply as authentic and mine as fallacious.

Funny how New Age is so universally reviled, and how you yourself claim it is completely false - yet now everybody believes it???

Necro, believe me, you don't have to resort to such talk to be heard by me. It doesn't work on me anyway. No matter how you try to 'market' your point, I am always going to see through to the fundamental argument.

Why don't we get back to the important discussion? I LOVE your point about 'channeling God', and can't wait to discuss that further.

...and yet, you only addressed the very first sentence of that long reply and didn't say anything about the rest of it and the very reason why I actually hold the views I do....you poo-poo'd the whole reply in favour of what you only chose to read.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...5&postcount=68

So much for 'seeing through to the fundamental argument' eh? =/

You only go on to reply to Knight saying that I am just making this all about me and imposing my views over others - when that 'imposition' is totally in the eyes of the other and what they only believe or assume I am doing whether that is my intention or not. Get it?

So yes, this is who I am and this is what I do and I am totally 'being myself' by doing it.

Or would you prefer for me not to 'be myself' and put on a mask and be totally untrue to myself just for the sake of argument? Your call.

...and as for 'many people believing it so it must be true'...I'm just going to agree with Starman and go that it's totally symptomatic of Kali Yuga and the rare few of us are immune from the effects of it, but most are not.

I am one of those rare few...and I can see right through all of those clever marketing tricks like cellophane, whereas the naive cannot and will only go on to defend it because they believe it works for them which leads me to say "hang on, you are saying that I am making it all about me, but aren't you making it all about you by saying that?"

Then they act is if everybody else has given them permission to speak on their behalf..."oh no, I speak for everybody, everybody believes what I do, so it must be true!" which only goes to confirm the whole 'Borg/sheep mentality' OF it.

However, I have totally had it with this forum for a while anyway. EVERY TIME it gives me just enough time to log on, read a thread, type up a reply TO that thread, then when I go to post it I get "busy server"...every...damn...time! and now I'm fully over it.

I'm only getting 5 minutes on every half an hour now and it's frustrating the hell out of me. I just cannot compete with others who also want to use the limited spaces available.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Kioma

I LOVE your point about 'channeling God', and can't wait to discuss that further.

Kindly allow me the opportunity of indulging your request.

What both you and Necro are discussing, goes to the very heart of Religion vs Spirituality.

Religion says that an ultimate truth exists irrespective of who believes it.

Spirituality says that each person must find their own unique truth.

New Age says that the more people who believe in a truth, the truer it will be.

The Necromancer is religious.

I'm also getting in before anybody can say that I'm only Necro's irresponsibility personified.

[markings]

Originally Posted by Kioma

Don't abandon us halfway through making a point Markings. Just what is your counter-argument?

It is trotted out against any systemic structure which is not liked, forgetting that the structure one finds oneself in is doing exactly the same. The difference is only in the degree of how open the manipulation is.

Let's take the bad Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party. What do you think how many places they could find in the city of Berlin to hold one of their campaign meetings? 1, that is one. All the others refused because they could not get insurance for such an event. All manipulated through government channels and the mass media. They are a lawful party. They have not advocated any violence against anyone. They simply insist that as Germans they have certain rights.
And now after being re-elecetd, Ms Merkel says she will consider and address the concerns and worries of the people who voted for the AfD, when before they were hindered as much as possible to express them.

But it also brings us back to action by New Age people, or rather the lack of it.
It reminds me of a cabaret artist, Volker Pispers, who points out that real political opposition now only happens in a cabaret setting. Then he says that when in 20 or 30 years time the children ask "what did you do when this stuff (the real word would get censored) went down?" you will pull out a box, find the tickets to the cabaret show and say "I was part of the resistance"
That is the New Age, no results but entertainment by playing the resistance game.

[Snow Goose]

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

Kindly allow me the opportunity of indulging your request.

What both you and Necro are discussing, goes to the very heart of Religion vs Spirituality.

Religion says that an ultimate truth exists irrespective of who believes it.

Spirituality says that each person must find their own unique truth.

New Age says that the more people who believe in a truth, the truer it will be.

The Necromancer is religious.

I'm also getting in before anybody can say that I'm only Necro's irresponsibility personified.

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

New Age says that the more people who believe in a truth, the truer it will be.

I like that one. As long as a truth is a truth. Hitler and Goebbels held that view and as an aim or propaganda it carries it does work.

The collapse of the logic is that if it's a truth (that has at least one believer) how can it become more truer?) I suppose it means can be spread more widely.

Well, I went to the dentist last week over a tooth-ache, this thread is giving me a bad trooth-ache. who the heck can I turn to?

Truth is a construct beyond human reach except its use in logical truth tables. That's what makes philosophy so interesting


Damned SERVER again. ALWAY busy. Could someone PLEASE shovel a bit of coal in it to get steam up again! Thank you!

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

The collapse of the logic is that if it's a truth (that has at least one believer) how can it become more truer?) I suppose it means can be spread more widely.

Truth also becomes 'truer' as to who says it.

For example, I may say something and have the 'bee ess brigade' called, but as soon as I refer what I said to a statement made by Tolle or the Dalai Lama, it becomes...it's only true because they said it, not you. lol