Woowoo density goes to infinity

Fifth dimensional, quantum, Zarathustran, vibrational, third-eye, DNA activation and healing. It's apparently "calming."



  1. “Atlantis’ Agony at June 5th-8498, 13 P.M. Gregorian Earthtime”

    Massive bonus to anyone able to get the reference without using a search engine.

  2. That image of Neptune(?) floating in a sea of dolphins reminds me of the kinky all-fish planet made by the HHGTTG planet-builders.

  3. Any positive, healing energy in that place is going to be sucked out by the crew working on Tron, next door at Digital Domain.

  4. As your recent correspondent Jacques Vallee asserted when his crop circle conspiracy woo was dumped on: “It seems that what was “forbidden science” in academia is also forbidden in cyberspace.” Maybe it’s not really woo but, like Jacques’ article on crop circles, a brilliant experiment: “a social science test of the role of belief systems in the manipulation of memes and factual data.”

    Nope. It’s woo.

    1. As an admirer of Jacques Vallee who isn’t entirely persuaded by his crop circle theory, I gotta ask: how is that theory comparable to this? First off, is Vallee charging you 20 dollars to listen to his theory? Were any equatic deities, or supernatural entities of any kind, utilised in the promotion of Mr. Vallee’s theory? Did the theory propose anything, such as the poster does, which is fundamentally beyond physics are they are currently understood, or in any way offer genetic and emotional transformation based on the acceptance of its speculations?

      1. As newfangled critic of J.V. (i had not heard of him up to the corn-circle post), i might add that one has to pay money (though much less than 20$) to read one of his books, in which there seems to be mention of an etra-dimensional (extra here meaning not ‘beyond’ but ‘additional’) origin for UFOs, so the parallels may go deeper.

    1. Excellent observation, Antinous. But you must realize that magenta allows bad vibrations in process printing.

  5. Yeah, I got my DNA activated with them – previously it was locked to T-mobile network only.

    1. I thought that we now agree that genes are activated by environmental factors. I’m not sure which ones might be activated by this event, but I’m personally hoping for shape-shifting.

  6. Oooh! I was unaware that Neptune was the official deity of the Fifth Dimension. Does he take Blue Shield?

  7. Nothing calms me down like the apparition of an enraged Poseidon boiling in a sea of dolphins.

  8. Third-eye isn’t really woowoo, it’s more of a metaphor for having had a mystical experience. And the idea of the mystical experience is firmly grounded in mainstream academic research; there is even an emperically derived scale.


    What’s more, a Johns Hopkins study from 2006 showed that researchers can generate a full-blown primary religious experience (mystical experience) in something like 70% of people by using a high dose of psilocybin in the right set and setting.

    1. “Third-eye isn’t really woowoo, it’s more of a metaphor for having had a mystical experience. And the idea of the mystical experience is firmly grounded in mainstream academic research; there is even an emperically derived scale.”

      Mystical experiences are woowoo when they leave the realm of the neurobiological and become concepts like “third eye”.

  9. Microbiologically speaking,
    When I start churnin’, burnin’ and turnin’
    I’ll make your atoms move so fast
    Expandin’ your molecules
    Causing a friction fire
    Burnin’ you on your neutron
    Causing you to scream
    “Hit me in the proton, BABY!”

    1. Ha! Perfect reference! You win one internet! This poster demands remixing to show Dr. Funkenstein. It should advertise the benefits of getting up on the down stroke, the power of The One, and why you should get splanked on a regular basis.

  10. That really works well if you’re at a certain level of development…lots of people have great success with it. Nothing wrong with it at all.

    I, however, have found that seventh-dimensional healing is far more effective, and activates my fifth eye, my DNA, and my RNA, bitches!

  11. There’s a Psychic Faire (of course with the extra “e”) near my house every year. Mr. Koerth-Baker keeps threatening to go get a reading, then go to the next booth and be like, “Well, that’s not what that lady over there said.” He wants to start Psychic Fightse.

      1. Does that rhyme with ‘sneetches’? Because I am in favor of that level of awesomeness, whether there’s stars or none on thars.

  12. I just remembered yesterday’s piece about the guy in Saudi Arabia who’s going to be beheaded for being a ‘psychic’.

    This doesn’t seem funny any more.

    1. That is utterly wrong on the part of Saudi Arabia. I had heard about this earlier.

      And yet, if the guy was actually psychic, or even had the good sense to know this would likely happen to him there, why did he do it?

  13. Although it would be nice to know what Poseidon is doing masquerading as Zarathrustra. Did he jump ship for the Persian mythos? Is he still mad about being given short shill in the new Clash of the Titan’s pic? (The Kraken was originally his idea afterall)

  14. For info, call Bhagavat Maharaja…?,I>”

    Formerly Hiram Lipschitz, CPA, of Fort Lee, New Jersey, who discovered there’s a LOT more money fleecing the New Age (rhymes with Sewage) suckers, than preparing tax returns.

  15. As the redoubtable Rev. Sheldon DeWehr put it: “The difference between Heaven and Hell is which end of the pitchfork you’re on.”

  16. Just because I sometimes like getting my third eye activated doesn’t mean I’m gay.

    Does it?

  17. What’s the opposite of “harshing my mellow”? Cause that’s what just happened to my Time Cube quotient after reading that.

  18. It’s “extremely effective”, eh?

    There are two extremes of effectiveness: “totally effective”, and “not effective at all”. It’s one of those. But which?

  19. Tristan Eldrich: it’s true, this is a different brand of nonsense from Vallee’s crop circle posts.

    This is mysticism. It has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

    Vallee’s posts, on the other hand, were pseudoscience. He had a theory and tried to scientifically back it up with evidence, but with flaws that disqualify it from being any sort of scientific explanation.

    FWIW, some flaws I can immediately point out are (a) he’s picking and choosing the evidence to fit the theory, as shown by the counterevidence people gave in the comments; (b) his theory has no explanatory power (why would the government test a secret weapon by making intricate artistic patterns in corn with it?); and (c) it doesn’t make physical sense (there is no known mechanism by which microwave beams from the sky could flatten corn).

    Both of them are an affront to rationality, but it’s at least possible to have a rational argument about Vallee’s crop circles. That’s not so much the case with 5th Dimensional Quantum Healing Zarathustra.

  20. This right here is why you HAVE to love America.

    Where else in the world could someone put something like this up in the honest expectation of not getting the stupid slapped out of them when they turn up.

  21. Appeal to ridicule?

    But then again, these woowoo crackpots never using cohesive logic to support their claims, so one tends to get lazier as time goes on and just make fun of them right away.
    But I don’t see it as much dumber than Mr. Vallee’s rhetoric, just dressed up as mysticism instead of Mr.Vallee’s weak attempts at disguising his woowoo as science, without apparently understanding how science works. (I only mention him because of previous comments)

    5th dimensional quantum healing sounds a bit like the use of buzzwords without any understanding of the real concepts of quantum physics or n-dimensional theories. This is VERY common within the woowoo community, even homeopaths have used their non-understanding of quantum theory to try to explain their particular woowoo, might I add, unsuccessfully.

    As usually, the burden of proof lies with the woowooers. If one of them can prove their 5th dimensional quantum healing to work they’ll be rich and successful, and their healing method will take the world by storm. Proving the theory is, of course, simple. Just use scientific testing methods in rigorously controlled experiments. When the experiment succeeds, go collect your Nobel prize and wads of money.
    Or say “well, this can’t be tested like traditional western medicine because it works differently” (nevermind that scientific testing methods can test pretty much anything that can produce an effect) and wallow in self pity because nobody believes you and “big pharma” is out to discredit you.

    And I like the word woowoo, so I’ll use it again.


  22. Yes difference in perspective can be quite threatning.

    If you regard your truth as absolute.

    Because if they believe differently, they must also believe what you believe is wrong. So they are wrong because you are not wrong.

    There is also a reality somewhere where Jezus hates fags.

    Is it real?

    For those people, absolutely.

    They’re just as convinced of those ‘truths’ as you are convinced of your ‘truths’.

    So reality is relative to perspective. Yours also.

    It’s real. But it’s not absolute.

    There is no objective reality.

    That is my perspective.

    And I’m sure there are a lot among you who disagree. As I’m sure they will feel compelled to convince me of the absoluteness of their ‘truth’.

    1. Nah, I for one don’t really care. You should probably consider the fact, though, that only objectively real things can consistently be commonly experienced. Living in your own subjective reality must be isolating, as well as frustrating.

      1. “You should probably consider the fact, though, that only objectively real things can consistently be commonly experienced. Living in your own subjective reality must be isolating, as well as frustrating.”

        I was pretty much living Idealism for quite a while, although reality has solidified in quite a concrete way since then.

        This question was one that always fascinated me though. If all reality is idea and completely subjective, does that leave me as the sole conscious entity, and all those around me as creations of my imagination, or are we all as real as each other but the nature of our interaction is illusory?

    2. dude, don’t even try that relativistic metaphysical bull…

      Opinions are one thing (the examples that you mention) but other things are testable and repeatable. Quite notably, healing effects can easily be viewed, again and again. If there IS an effect.

      Based on philosophies, you are wrong in pretty much all your statements. Philosophies put forth by smarter and more eloquent people than myself. Check out Locke, Kant, Hume, Plato and a host of others on both sides of the debate. If you don’t have the curiosity to enlighten yourself… well, tough shit.

      All your “deep” philosophizing would not pass muster in philosophy 101 due to all logical parts of your argument having already been refuted. Most of them over 2000 years ago by the likes of Plato and co. (classical greeks, not the dumbest people in history)

      What you gave was an OPINION at most, trying to pass itself off as logic.
      Am I convinced by the scientific method? Yes and no, it’s imperfect but it’s the best we’ve figured out so far. Your shower, food heating apparatus(stove, microwave etc.), your high likelihood of reaching the age of 80 in decent health, your car, cellphone, computer, electrical lights, etc…… are all the result of science. They all follow the principles of science and many were designed using very scientific methods.

      This works for me, you, and all the other readers here, as does gravity.
      If fifth dimensional quantum healing can be shown to do the same thing (work consistently) I will accept it as working and it will change categories from woowoo to fact.

      Scientists are pretty/very open to new things, as long as the new things work. That’s the nature of the job.

      1. I’m not sure that marcel was arguing for the validity of quantuam healing per se (although maybe he was) but rather that people should exercise a certain degree of humility with regard to their beliefs, in so far as they are not not dealing with something which is forcefully imposed on other people. I think his basic point, that there is no absolute objective reality, is basically sound, and fairly difficult to argue against. (As he suggests, reality exists, but an absolute enterpretation of it probably does not.)
        You say “Based on philosophies, you are wrong in pretty much all your statements”. This statement translates as “based on certain philosophies(or reasoned opinions) which have been espoused in the past by certain philosophers, your view is inconsistent (with those philosophers).” This statement could be said about virtually anything. When you invoke Plato, it is worth bearing in mind that his absolutism fed directly into a political philosophy which most of us would regard as a fascist authocracy. I think this is partially the point Marcel is trying to make.

        1. Actually, he says “there is no objective reality” and based on the rest of his comments I wonder whether he understands that sentence himself. Seems like some confusion got in there somewhere.

          A CERTAIN humility is good. But don’t confuse blind acceptance with good humility.

          I am well aware of the problems with (most of) these philosophical tracks, but the comment I was replying to was (apparently) written without any understanding of the thought processes through which people have already gone. “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.

          We (I, you, and he, Marcel) would be fools not to try to use the works of those that have come before us. Spouting opinionated drivel while pretending to be in some way neutral is disingenuous at best, and/or stupid.

          Really, go through Marcel’s post again, just for laughs.
          This Boingboing post is about woowoo which is supposed to heal you, thus providing a real world, objective, measurable effect. Marcel confuses this with abstract human created concepts (god, good, etc) concepts which really ARE subjective. My concept of good and evil probably clashes with yours in multiple ways. Our concept of gravity (drop ball, ball falls) should match pretty well. Abstract/objective(concrete).

          I can easily ridicule those that fall into the same pattern of work as all the woowooers that come before them, and will do so until they prove their ideas, at which time those ideas stop being woowoo and become science fact.

          I may have strong personal opinions on these matters, fueled by learning. Driven by knowledge of scientific work, abstract thought work and understanding of where the burden of proof lays. I’ve also gone through quite a few crackpot loon ideas which even my limited knowledge and understanding have been able show the serious faults in easily, often breaking down others misinformed opinions in the process.
          I do NOT have to disprove every loon that comes along with tales of UFO’s, crop circles, magical/mystical healing methods which can’t/haven’t be shown to work etc.
          Those can’t be disproven. Neither can Russell’s teapot, the flying spaghetti monster, or God.

          1. Fair enough, I appreciate your response. Again in defence of Marcel, I think when he says “So reality is relative to perspective. Yours also.

            It’s real. But it’s not absolute.”
            he saying something slightly more nuanced than you give him credit for. But anyway, you make good, valid points. Personally, I don’t fully subscribe to the logic of Russell’s teapot and the spaghetti monster, in that it pre-supposes completeness in the current state of knowledge. Effectively, if you resolve that something is not now, or ever can be, subject to proof or disproof, there is a slight danger that should evidence of such an entity ever arise, you will be unable
            to accomodate it into your system, so have you perdisposed the scope and terms of your enquiry against it. (ok, I realize I’m arguing for the meatball monster now, but somebody has to, dammit.)

          2. :)

            The burden of disproving is only impossible if we don’t know all the facts. Disproving is easy once we know everything. An omniscient god could, for example, easily disprove stuff…

            But anything that exists can be proven by someone with only a small piece of the puzzle. Someone like us.

            I won’t challenge you to a duel to the death or anything ;)

            But aelfscine #68 says what I meant, but much more concisely (I tend to get somewhat wordy..)

            It’s not that the subjective realities you mention are necessarily false, it’s just that a objective reality also exists.

          3. Hey arikol. What i was trying to say about Teapot-type arguments, but didn’t express very clearly at all, is this: If Russell’s teapot is real, then we may one day have a telescope powerful enough to prove its existence. However, if it’s purely speculative, then it will always be undisprovable. But there’s just no way we can definitely say in advance whether it is a) real and potentially provable in the future, or b) speculative and never disprovable for all time, unless, like Russell, we simply assume that it isn’t real, and hence never disprovable. Which seems kind’ve circular. Take the example of atoms: when Aristotle refuted the existence of atoms he could do so because at that point they were were a purely speculative entity, for largely the same reason as the Celestial Teapot: too small. But they were actually real, and provable in a distant future that couldn’t be imagined at that time. Which doesn’t hold out much hope for the Teapot or whatever it represents, but I think is a reasonable enough argument for agnosticism.

          4. Russell never claimed the teapot definitely wasn’t real.
            He argued that although we can’t be certain in a mathematical sense, the chances of it existing are so small that for all practical purposes we can be sure. Many atheists follow the same: they are “agnostic” in the sense of allowing the theoretic possibility that they are wrong about gods, but do not think it is likely enough to worry about.

          5. Tristan Eldritch, the atoms that Aristotle was talking about, by definition, were not what we now call atoms.

          6. yeah….. agree with that partially.
            And that was quite clear (unless I’m misunderstanding)
            More problems with the old greek atom theory was that they had an idea for a theory but no mechanism for it to work from, and no way of using it for predicting anything. Heck, the basics of motion were understood wrong at the time.

            Aristotle could refute the theory mostly because it had no predictive power. We’re still working from physics theories for which there is only logical proof but no direct proof (if I understand correctly, gravity is one of those, but please don’t whip me bad for that one..). Strong logical proof backed up by predictive power seems like quite important, many medications have somewhat ill understood mechanisms of effect, yet the effect is known, the chemical composition is known, and from this we can design NEW drugs to have targeted effects without fully understanding the mechanism (most antipsychotics and antidepressants fall into this category).

            Personally, I take almost the same path as you, but would say that all this is enough to say that I do not BELIEVE there is a god, and that the likelihood for one existing approaches zero. Atheism for me, but if I’m wrong I get to pay the price. I just don’t see the point in agnosticism, but that’s more a personal thing than anything.

          7. I’m sorry, let me modify that to similar wording that I use in most other places
            “it’just that an objective reality probably also exists”
            You’re right, this is still one of those debated philosophical thingumabobbies.

            It has always seemed to me that the objective view is just more practical, simpler, and solves more problems than it creates. So I take that stance out of pure bloody minded practicality ;)

          8. “It has always seemed to me that the objective view is just more practical, simpler, and solves more problems than it creates.”

            I disagree. Pretending to an ‘objective’ reality is far too often an attempt to divorce oneself from personal responsibility. If we accept and freely admit that our point of view is subjective then we have no choice but to accept ownership of it. We cannot blame it on anyone or anything else.

          9. yes, agreed.

            My reality and your reality are both subjective. And any human made abstract concept (like justice) only exists in the subjective worlds. The question is just about an objective, physical reality which can exist without an observer.

            the observers convey their interpreted meaning onto the reality/events, but that doesn’t mean that an objective reality does not exist without an observer.

            I even agree that all science is subjective as all observations and logic is done through the subjective self of the scientists. Again, that doesn’t mean that the phenomena being observed can’t have exist in an objective reality.

          10. “yes, agreed.”

            Really? Then I have to wonder why you gave Marcel such a hard time for saying the same thing.

            Just curious.

          11. because I found his wording to render the proposition near nonsensical. Mostly his first post that I found somewhat silly, even after re-reading it I find it not to hold well together and still, as I mentioned earlier, confuse abstract “made up” concepts (justice) with those that are more concrete (rock, atom). But that is the risk of commenting, not getting everything you mean across. He may well have meant the same thing as you said.
            Your wording of the matter, on the other hand, was quite clear.

            Also, discussion with people who have thought about the issue can affect one’s interpretation. Some may have better points than I, and many can have very interesting interpretations. Stagnation is death..

          12. It does a good job explaining why subjective realities often agree in part or in whole about particular things. A priori, if everything is subjective, it’s surprising any two viewpoints have anything in common.

      2. I wasn’t out to disprove your perspective of reality. In fact, I believe it is real and valid.
        I also believe every other perspective of reality is real and valid.

        And yes, your perspective implies my perspective is bullshit, and even that is true…..in your world.

        And I accept that. :-)

        We are not at odds.

    3. “There is no objective reality.

      That is my perspective.”

      If there is no objective reality, then it is impossible to state “There is no objective reality”. Believing in the subjectivity of reality is not compatible with the coining of absolute statements. Perhaps you’d like a side order of solipsism with that?

      Enjoy your liberal arts major, lightweight!

  23. I occasionally put-together display ads for a local “new age” paper, as a favor to a friends who prints the thing. This poster reads a lot like the ads I’ve done. It’s like the language of a secret society. But, lordy, those are fun ads to do, thanks to the type of imagery that culture responds to. Just like this poster.

  24. The problem with quantum healing is, I never know if I’m healed or not until I climb out of the box.

  25. “Arrivals begin at 7, Healing begins at 7:30?” You mean I have to wait a whole half hour for spiritual enlightenment? Fuck that.

    (Oh and… #9, #16, #17!, #20, #23, #27, #34! #36, and #51… thank you. Tears rolling down my cheeks.)

  26. This is probably based on yoga and meditation. I practice both, but I do not practice what this poster appears to be based on and that would be Bhakti Yoga (as in Bhagavad Gita).

    In my experience, both yoga and meditation can be “healing” in some ways (to me it is calming), but I do not believe either will provide the healing to the extent that this poster would have you believe (although the mind is a powerful thing and this is only my experience).

    It looks like this is Hare Krishna based.

    1. Damn scientists, always screwing up my healings with their prying eyes. Every time you try and observe quantum healing, Neptune kills the cat in the box!

  27. I think unregulated DNA activation most often basically turns in to cancer. So, yeah, there’s that.

  28. STOP!!!! Everyone PLEASE stop!

    I have a pain in my right side from laughing so hard at these comments.

    Seriously. I think I broke something. It really hurts.

  29. re: Marcel

    There’s stuff in the universe that will go on happening whether anyone has anything to say about it or not. That’s the objective reality.

    But what does that stuff mean? Look like? Smell like? Signify about the socio-economic problems of the 1870’s? That’s the subjective reality.

    Just because one exists doesn’t mean the other doesn’t.

    1. I am not excluding any possibility, or probability.

      I was merely stating a conviction I believe in.

      But, at the same time, realizing it is relative to my perception, and not neccessarily those of others.

  30. Spouting opinionated drivel while pretending to be in some way neutral is disingenuous at best, and/or stupid.

    Personally, I don’t believe that there’s an objective reality either. But I’m willing to make an exception in the following statement: You’re an angry, red-faced, little commenter, impotently shaking his fist at a universe full of concepts that you don’t understand. Apparently you think that philosophy is something that you read in a book. Some of us have other ideas. Please stop puking bile on commenters who disagree with you.

  31. wow, the angriest and most spiteful comment in the whole thread comes from a moderator. Nice going. Even makes it personal instead of on topic. Where’s a moderator when you need one ;)

    Yes, I am opinionated, and yes I get annoyed at people who can’t be bothered to read up on things. And this IS an open (but supposedly moderated) forum.

    The rest of us (I, Marcel and Tristan) were in disagreement, my words were the strongest, but the only one taking (and making) offense seems to be you, moderator Antinous.

    I went through my own posts, and although not perfect (would benefit from some editing for clarity and language, as well as probably some toning down), yet there has been some discussion (which I viewed as rather fun on an otherwise boring day) involving myself and two others who turned out to be quite interesting, IMO.

    And then there’s you, Antinous.
    Talk about angry and red faced. Read your own post again (when you calm down/sober up… whatever it is). Ask yourself, is it befitting a moderator?

    I moderate another forum, and I would not leave that comment up, but then I would not have posted that in my official capacity as the administrator, I may be tactless, but not necessarily stupid.

    And the fact that my eloquence in explaining my point is lacking (as well as misjudging harshness of tone) might be similar to what I expect might be the case with Marcel: non-native english speaker (yet another thing I just learned from books ;).
    You don’t like comments about woowoo on a post about woowoo (it’s in the title, you know) then maybe boingboing should disable comments. If it’s only the funny quips you want, then maybe… visit jokeaday.com or something like that? Probably better for your blood pressure. But look at me, here I am starting to make fun of you.. Probably going to get banned now or something, based on the quality of the last moderator response :)

    Have fun, calm down, chill out.

    1. Sorry. There’s a 72-hour disco party with 5,000 attendees going on at the end of my block and I just really want to hack someone to pieces. The non-stop, condo-shaking beat has stripped me of both comprehension and any pretense of civility.

      1. My sympathies. I’ve got something similar going on on the corner where I live. I thought Sunday was the day of give-it-a-rest here in the bible belt. :-P

        1. Imagine Lady Gaga singing, very loudly, about 500 feet away from the bed on which you would like to get some sleep.

          1. They haven’t shut up yet? Want me to use my 5th dimensional quantum powers to put a curse on them?

          2. The next set runs until 0600 on Monday. There is no down-time at White Party. At least the next set is indoors.

  32. I wonder what Cory is doing around this “Rose Temple”? Spending time in Venice, I guess. Whatever, he seems to be within walking distance of my house.

  33. and antinous, really.. read your comment again. Mentioning bile after that spewing of.. well… bile…. tsk tsk

  34. While you’re busy having an open mind you might at least try to make sure it’s not so open that your brains get blown away by a passing breeze.

    Of course there is an objective reality. It is whatever I say it is. Get used to it.

  35. The little dolphins swimming around the Siva/Neptune character really put it over the top.

    I swear, the last time I walked through a border’s bookstore, in the New Age section there was a book called “Quantum Sex”.


  36. one thing is apparent, and that is no one here has a clue about 5th dimensional quantum healing, and i feel sorry for you for not knowing.

  37. Wow!! 91 comments, a flame war, and I am the first to point out the stylized pot leaf of lightning appearing from Neptune’s head. YES, SCORE!!

  38. I have had the distinct opportunity to experience similar didgeridoo based “sound healing”. I can’t attest to which dimension it was from, (although it was in South America) but it basically felt like a didgeridoo rumbling acoustic bass in my face, abdomen and crotch. As awesome as that sounds, I can’t say I was healed, activated or third-eye empowered. I went back for another vegetarian taco and just sort of let it go.

    That time with the ayahusca, on the other hand, may have done something to my DNA.

  39. i’m sorry, but that seems infinitely more interesting than the internets. especially that sweet free time between 7:00 and 7:30. and yeah, more time cube, please.

  40. Quantum healing! I’m healed! No, wait, I’m not healed! No, wait, I’m both healed and not healed! Asplode!

  41. Ulessesesesesesss, no-one else can do the things you do!
    Uleseseseseseeess, saviour of the galaxy!

    Defeater of the evil forces, bringing truth and justice to aaaallll!

    1. great galaxies! i just watched 6 episodes of this and i think my alarm clock is about to go off.

  42. Condo-beat, is that a new style of modern music? I have keeping up with all the new music styles I hear named. For me it still boils down to 2 categories: Rock and Other Crap :P

  43. Rene Descartes beat the subject to death more than 300 years ago. A belief in “objective reality” is nothing more (or less) than an unreasoning faith in an (currently) unproveable proposition.

    1. Or there are an infinite number of objective realities, rendering the idea meaningless.

      1. Well, yes, but now you’re dragging quantum physics back into it. Probably best not to go there.

        You need soft earplugs and one of those mythical hammocks that doesn’t cripple your back when you sleep in it.

  44. “A belief in “objective reality” is nothing more (or less) than an unreasoning faith in an (currently) unproveable proposition.”

    Contrary to popular belief, it’s quite possible to arrive at faith through reason.

    The operative word, though, is ‘unprovable’. While there is no reason why an objective reality (or several or an infinitude of them) cannot exist, there really isn’t much of a chance that we’ll ever be able to ‘prove’ it one way or the other. The best we can hope for is mutually agreed upon assumptions.

    Which is why we should avoid trying to argue against someone else’s beliefs by citing our ‘facts’. The lines are thin.

  45. Terry, Arikol,

    Aren’t you guys rolling up cultural relativism, moral relativism, scientific revolution and Paul Feyerabend in a big tangled ball?

    It’s like a first year philosophy tute in here, except there’s no one I want to root badly enough to impress with my laser-like insight.

    1. That’s what I felt was happening, and what annoyed me in the first place (though I’ve probably messed up in some other comments myself).
      As for the liberal arts.. personally I’m a cognitive science major, but really a philosophy lightweight. Gotta get deeper in that part.. can’t vouch for the others, though

      @mn_camera #138
      Tonight’s class on prophecy postponed due to unforeseen circumstances :)

      1. Ahhh, Cognitive Science. In the aforementioned first year philosophy tutes, Cognitive Science was generally touted as the only serious long term pursuit for those studying philosophy. There were a few faculty members who were trying to prove that you can’t disprove the existance of God, but the sweet, sweet cash was all rolling into Cognitive Science.

        I dropped out and kept working as a designer…

        1. Meanwhile, I failed phil-101 (philosophy for morons) because I believed the prof when he said he’d respect anyone who could defend their position even if he disagreed with them, and devoted my term paper to explaining why his interpretation of Plato was wrong. Turned out he wasn’t as impartial as he claimed.

          The phil prof became a Hare Krishna shortly thereafter, and was hanging around airports panning small change last I saw him. I kid you not!

          Me, I flunked out of college, became a ditch digger, and 20 years later was ordained in the apostolic succession by the Universal Life Church. Still not kidding.

          But on the other hand, in between those events I became a rocket scientist… still not kidding. It’s a weird world.

  46. Off-topic: As I age I begin to perceive the wisdom in Plato’s admonition for Society to forbid the past-time of philosophy to all people under the age of forty.

    Taking the increase in human longevity and knowledge into account since Plato’s time, perhaps now that should read “fifty”, rather than “forty”.

Comments are closed.