Core Axioms of Wicca?

[Gentoo]

I'm not sure what could possibly be vague about the things that i have said unless people decide to take it for granted that I'm lying or bragging instead
of telling the truth.

I'm a feral satyr. says so on my profile, has since i signed up.

i'm interfaith eclectic. said so since i started.

Please note, I'm not everywhere... I can't read every post.. You say you are, then I have to accept that, and I do.

wasn't that my point?

Was it?

I'm not sure why, to me it just seems like more cloak and dagger and drama when all i really wanted was the adult conversation we are now assuming i'm the one incapable of having.

maybe thats the problem. The point is I'm trying to increase signal to noise ratio for my own purposes, i guess this makes perfect sense to me but looks like a "rack your ducks up in a row so i can shoot them down" sort of game.

I can only say that again this would defeat the purpose, I'm interested in putting together an interfaith dialog to replace the noisy bickering in my part of the woods.

In short, i have done all the work myself but thats not the point, now i have to walk thousands of other people through that kind of research and waking up.

I apologize for any protocol failure. Any full answer to the question is at least
30 or 50 axioms long and lists 20 growth stages and briefly describes how
the religion originated and evolved and grew and came to be in its modern form.

I have only the answer i would give to compare with, and my answer would be
detailed more and thus i feel the urge to prompt people towards the other stuff i am thinking of.

This is not fake on my part it is socratic method and then demonstration of
answers.

Perhaps i was impatient and if so i apologize.

All good

maybe we should imagine that i have been here for years, chit chatting about religions.

You can picture me as DR paradox. I make everything fit together. I sell a living god to the atheists and quantum mechanics to the religious.

It all works out that I;m just showing people how other paradigms relate to their paradigm.

I have internally resolved the apparent conflicts and paradoxes and arguments between the paradigms and n longer see a conflict but instead a single whole puzzle.

You may not agree as many don't that it all fits together like i see it.

But its silly to question my sincerity when i tell you that I am in fact
a "this -ism" participant on all of these isms....

And when i can provide the heuristics by which i can integrate the whole thing..

I understand i think how people might end up suspicious but on the other hand its still back in their laps which is to say that once again i'm the aspie
and these are your social conventions and norms and expectations and
i'm not inside of that circus.

I'm actually the Last person who would tell you that mixing and matching is a bad thing. I often say "I'm so eclectic, it hurts ()"

And, I was unaware that you're an aspie. Once again, I don't read every post, and I certainly don't follow people around.

 

[Herr Heinrich]

I hold a third degree in eclectic Gardnerian, and have spent considerable time inside of a famtrad.

I have been the sacrificed oak and holly king both; on several occasions.

I have facilitated dozens of Pagan/ Wiccan festivals as one of ten or so such facilitators with hundreds of participants.

If these do not qualify me to participate here, then I don't know what would.

Its funny that this is the only area in which such an objection was raised.

I'm not playing anyone as stupid, I'm asking simple questions to carry a conversation forward in the direction of my interest and to determine i think very meaningfully for myself what the forums participants do know.

I'm sorry if you feel somehow put off by this but it seems to me that any conflict you feel we may have is entirely in your own mind.



This is called socratic method.

The reason for it is simple.

Its a means to focus a conversation and learn about other people.

Also, I can't know ALL of the answers, I'm human like anyone else.

Oh snap. Of course the Socratic Method is also used to lead a person into a circular argument and then show them that they really have no idea what they are talking about. In logical terms it is trying to catch a person in a Fallacy of Presumption or more specifically Begging the Question. Upon showing the person their error it is supposed to make the person more humble and then have a thirst for the truth.

 

[Herr Heinrich]

Eclectic and Gardnerian are two separate things.

Actually, you have to currently identify as that DIR. I don't see that on your profile, nor are any of us aware of that. Plus, you post a bunch of these threads in every DIR, and then tell us that you know it all. If that doesn't raise a red flag, I don't know what does.

We pagans are more than aware of the posers that come in pretending to be pagan and knowing everything, both online and in real life. Our BS meter is therefore on high alert.

Uh-huh...

Don't take yourself out of it. Newton's 3rd law of motion can apply here.

I'm well aware of the socratic method, I use it with my students. However, there is a time and a place for it. This is not it. The DIR's are NOT for others to dictate the beliefs of those in that DIR. In other words:

And to quote Jay from another one your threads:

Oh snap again!

 

[prometheuspan]

Oh snap. Of course the Socratic Method is also used to lead a person into a circular argument and then show them that they really have no idea what they are talking about.

And since everyone is at best partially ignorant and partially informed given sufficient
depth with the esoteric, that can be a very useful tool for some kinds of ego maniacs.

Of which, i am not one.

al terms it is trying to catch a person in a Fallacy of Presumption or more specifically Begging the Question.

or making arguments from ignorance, or pretending knowledge.

etc.

Upon showing the person their error it is supposed to make the person more humble and then have a thirst for the truth.

or scratch the itch of the egotist game player.

again, while I understand that you all have plenty of reason to be suspicious, why do we have to run around in circles?

Sure, i could be An evil mad plotting game player troll...

OR...

I could just be some guy who wants to have a positive and facts based discussion about religion, with a special eye on developing an interfaith dialog.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I could just be some guy who wants to have a positive and facts based discussion about religion, with a special eye on developing an interfaith dialog.

Of which the Socratic method may not be the best method. Interfaith dialogue works best when all parties feel secure of their own wisdom and perspective.

Nailing down the essence of an abstract problem like justice: Socratic method! Developing positive communication between differing viewpoints: maybe not the Socratic method right away. (Especially since esoteric knowledge is not the only knowledge folks can offer.)

 

[prometheuspan]

Of which the Socratic method may not be the best method.

it would work fine if people weren't so suspicious.

hmmm.

Interfaith dialogue works best when all parties feel secure of their own wisdom and perspective.

yes, maybe i needed to start back at the positive affirmations and then work my way
on up to socratic method and axiomatic analysis.

Nailing down the essence of an abstract problem like justice: Socratic method! Developing positive communication between differing viewpoints: maybe not the Socratic method right away. (Especially since esoteric knowledge is not the only knowledge folks can offer.)

it would work perfectly if the world was a holomorphic projection of my cognicentric thinking style. sigh.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

it would work fine if people weren't so suspicious.

hmmm.

Well, maybe not suspicious, but proud of their own viewpoint (as they should be!) and not interested in having it torn down before they are able to share their personal knowledge.

yes, maybe i needed to start back at the positive affirmations and then work my way
on up to socratic method and axiomatic analysis.

Good idea! The DIRs may not be the best place though. Have you seen our Comparative Religions forum? That may be best.

it would work perfectly if the world was a holomorphic projection of my cognicentric thinking style. sigh.

Well, it is. For you.

Existentialism trumps esoterics.

 

[prometheuspan]

Good idea! The DIRs may not be the best place though. Have you seen our Comparative Religions forum? That may be best.

hmm. I will look but it seems likely that such a forum would offer little in terms
being specific enough and then I'd end up flooding it with my ten threads.

plus i am not so sure i am comparing anything to anything except denominations
to each other.

but i will look...

and not interested in having it torn down before they are able to share their personal knowledge.

i'm only helping to share the knowledge where i am a bridge to a larger group of people who normally don't talk about religions.

tearing things down is their habit and my problem; because that doesn't lead to a positive or tenable promotions department.

http://www.rbefoundation.com/viewgroup.php?f=95

I can't sell Islamic fundies on new arcologies for their dense populations if i have twelve threads dedicated to helping along the genocide
by demonizing fundie Islamics.

Thats the most obvious example.

To frame this i guess for perspective since its become so strangely complicated;

I'm interested in selling them the Arcology, to do that first i have to demonstrate that I'm kewl with their ;

whatevahs.

i mean it does and it doesn't matter; i mean i care in that i need to know about their whatevahs to be clear and present with them andmake them an arcology
that suits their culture and aesthetics...

does this make sense? am i just babbling now?