tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22780425265907829602010-03-11T19:10:04.935-06:00Looking-Glass SelvesPersonal ReflectionsMark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.comBlogger183125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-67901636179186813182010-03-11T19:08:00.000-06:002010-03-11T19:10:04.943-06:00InterestingInteresting posting I found on the web:<br /><br />dauer<br />passed the turing test<br /> <br />dauer's Avatar<br /> <br />Join Date: Sep 2004<br />Location: im in ur forumz.<br />Posts: 3,080<br />dauer has a spectacular aura aboutdauer has a spectacular aura about<br /> <br />Re: halakhically<br />Thought of a few more:<br /><br />reformadox -- someone whose ideology and home minyan is likely reform but who's very observant<br /><br />conservadox -- same as above but with the conservative movement<br /><br />conservaform -- I think this usually means someone who's home minyan is conservative but whose practice and ideology is much more reform.<br /><br /><br />conservadox and reformadox don't really make a whole lot of sense since their -doxy is conservative or liberal. might be better conservaprax and reformaprax. It's a bit silly we need the word conservadox since by definition all conservative jews who are engaged in their judaism are fairly observant. With some minor differences, R. Isaac Klein's code is pretty close to something Orthodox (granted he was older-school and a little right-wing.)<br /><br />I think conservaforms are finding it's easier to find a home in a Reform shul now that it doesn't feel like going to a white anglo-saxon protestant church.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-6790163617918681318?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-36828798894660721202009-06-25T05:05:00.015-05:002009-07-06T16:30:28.621-05:00The Presentation of Self<p>In defining oneself, one should, in my view, always begin with the general and then move to the specific. In other words, discuss oneself deductively, not inductively. For instance, I would define myself as a critical sociologist, an advocacy journalist, and a radical historian.</p><ul><li>Critical sociology is the general term. From it, I can say I am a sociologist of religion, a social theorist, a public sociologist, and a clinical sociologist.<br /></li><li>Similarly, advocacy journalism is the general term. From it, I can refer to my focus on radical journalism or critical journalism. (That last term has so many usages, including referring to critical theory, that it is probably best avoided.)<br /></li><li>Finally, radical history is the general term. From it, I can refer to new cultural history (Foucault, etc.), to social history, to intellectual history, to a variety of Marxist approaches, and, regarding time period, to contemporary history.<br /></li></ul><p>The advantage of this approach is that it allows the other person to immediately make an association between yourself and your occupaton(s) without having to revise it in the future.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-3682879889466072120?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-33466977121736741942009-06-19T06:25:00.009-05:002009-06-20T22:42:32.836-05:00Aleister Crowley<div style="text-align: left;">Here are two quotations from the inimitable Aleister Crowley, the originator of the system of Thelemic Magick. In both of them, Crowley asserts that he is a nominalist. I request that you read them carefully. I will comment afterwards.</div><br /><div style="font-style: italic; text-align: left;">In philosophy I was a realist of the Cabbalistic school.</div><span style="font-style: italic;">In 1900 I left England for Mexico, and later the Far East, Ceylon, India, Burma, Baltistan, Egypt and France. It is idle there to detail the corresponding progress of my thought; and passing through a stage of Hinduism, I had discarded all deities as unimportant, and in philosophy was an uncompromising nominalist. I had arrived at what I may describe as the position of an orthodox Buddhist; but with the following reservations.</span><br /><ol style="font-style: italic;"><li> I cannot deny that certain phenomena do accompany the use of certain rituals; I only deny the usefulness of such methods to the White Adept.</li><li>I consider Hindu methods of meditation as possibly useful to the beginner and should not therefore recommend them to be discarded at once.</li></ol>-- <a target="_blank" href="http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/confess/chapter44.html">The Confessions of Aleister Crowley</a>, pp.356-357<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> Well, now, before going further into this, I must behave like an utter cad, and disgrace my family tree, and blot my 'scutcheon and my copybook by confusing you about 'realism.' Excuse: not my muddle; it was made centuries ago by a gang of curséd monks, headed by one Duns Scotus—so-called because he was Irish—or if not by somebody else equally objectionable. They held to the Platonic dogma of archetypes. They maintained that there was an original (divine) idea such as 'greenness' or a 'pig,' and that a green pig, as observed in nature, was just one example of these two ideal essences. They were opposed by the 'nominalists,' who said, to the contrary, that 'greenness' or 'a pig' were nothing in themselves; they were mere names (nominalism from Lat. nomen, a name) invented for convenience of grouping. This doctrine is plain commonsense, and I shall waste no time in demolishing the realists. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> All à priori thinking, the worst kind of thinking, goes with 'realism' in this sense. </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> And now you look shocked and surprised! And no wonder! What (you exclaim) is the whole Qabalistic doctrine but the very apotheosis of this 'realism'? (It was also called 'idealism', apparently to cheer and comfort the student on his rough and rugged road!) Is not Atziluth the 'archetypal world?' is not— </span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Oh, all right, all right! Keep your blouse on! I didn't go for to do it. You're quite right: the Tree of Life is like that, in appearance. But that is the wrong way to look at it. We get our number two, for example, as 'that which is common to a bird's legs, a man's ears, twins, the cube root of eight, the greater luminaries, the spikes of a pitchfork,' etc. but, having got it, we must not go on to argue that the number two being possessed of this and that property, therefore there must be two of something or other which for one reason or another we cannot count on our fingers. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The trouble is that sometimes we can do so; we are very often obliged to do so, and it comes out correct. But we must not trust any such theorem; it is little more than a hint to help us in our guesses. Example: an angel appears and tells us that his name is MALIEL (MLIAL) which adds to 111, the third of the numbers of the Sun. Do we conclude that his nature is solar? In this case, yes, perhaps, because, (on the theory) he took that name for the very reason that it chimed with his nature. But a man may reside at 81 Silver Street without being a lunatic, or be born at five o'clock on the 5th of May, 1905, and make a very poor soldier. "'No, no, my dear sister, how tempted soever, To nominalism be faithful forever!' </span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">(If you want to be very learned indeed, read up Bertrand Russell on 'Classes'.) </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> Enough, more than enough, of this: let us return to the relative value of various types of thought. </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> I think you already understand the main point: you must structuralise your thinking. You must learn how to differentiate and how to integrate your thoughts. Nothing exists in isolation; it is always conditioned by its relations with other things; indeed, in one sense, a thing is no more than the sum of these relations. (For the only 'reality,' in the long run, is, as we have seen, a Point of View.)</span><br /><br />-- <a target="_blank" href="http://hecate.com.ar/mwt/mwt-a.html">Magick Without Tears</a>, by Aleister Crowley<br /><br />Crowely was both a nominalist and a relativist. One of the mistakes made by some of his followers, in my view, is to read his narratives as something other than useful conventions. That is not to say he was not a magician. However, he appears to have regarded his descriptions, initiatory practices, Gnostic mass, etc., not as symbols of real things, but, rather, as utilitarian devices to bring about a transformation in the cosmic will, or thelema, of the practitioner.<br /><br />In this respect, Crowley's writings were, I feel, similar to the Bahá'í scriptures. I am not, of course, suggesting any substantial theological similarities. However, I believe that the perspective generally given by both Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, particulary concerning the doctrine of progressive Revelation, can be viewed in a similar functional fashion. Some of the variations in scriptural accounts may be attributed to a use of language games, according to Jean-François Lyotard's reconstruction of Wittgenstein's concept. They, like Crowley's stories, are pragmatic, not necessarily descriptive.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-3346697712173674194?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-86675539448921322212009-03-29T16:45:00.013-05:002009-06-18T02:40:11.526-05:00Problems with Ken Wilber's Metanarrative<p>Metanarratives – totalizing schemes or language games – are, like medieval first principles, frequently circular. The end, triumphantly, confirms the beginning, However, the circularity of Ken Wilber's <span style="font-style:italic">integralism</span>, even more so than the better-known version (in my field) by Pitirim A. Sorokin, is particularly vicous.</p><br /><p>Wilber's model begins with the mythic premodern, continues with the modern and, then, the postmodern, and culminates in the integral. To Wilber, the integral incorporates, and explains, the previous stages. Here is <a target="_blank" href="http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptD/part1.cfm/">Wilber</a>:</p><p style="margin-left:35px;margin-right:35px"><br />Instead of attacking the paucity of the modern and postmodern worldviews—which is the standard move by spiritual and new-paradigm advocates—it is perhaps more adept to reformulate and reconstruct the premodern interpretations of Spirit in light of modern and postmodern developments, such that the enduring fundamentals of the premodern, modern, and postmodern forms of Spirit's own display can all be honored by trimming their absolutisms and acknowledging their true but partial natures (which is surely what Spirit does as it moves through its own manifestations in the premodern, modern, and postmodern world: just who did you think was authoring all that?). <br /></p><p>Indeed, Wilber seemingly opposes all "absolutisms" except for his own. However, my difficulty with his approach, as a nominalist, is that he begins with two substantially realist stages (the premodern and the modern), moves on to a nominalist stage (the postmodern), and concludes with another realist stage (the integral). Consequently, while Wilber's framework may offer some appealing synergy for the new ager or transpersonalist, it is, to me, distinctly unsatisfying.<br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-8667553944892132221?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-37240983594922724262009-02-21T20:42:00.009-06:002009-02-21T20:55:03.951-06:00My Vox Archive (February 5, 2009)<p>There was only relevant one post in this <a target="_top" href="http://drmarkfoster.vox.com/">blog</a> (from February 5, 2009). It was titled, <span style="font-style: italic;">Villains and Others</span>:<br /><br />"Villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot. Those who<br />clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged."<br /><br />--Star Trek: TNG, "The Drumhead"</p><p>The other posting is in my <a target="_top" href="http://blog.markfoster.name/">autism blog</a>.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-3724098359492272426?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-7743224956130763562009-02-18T14:33:00.001-06:002009-02-18T17:47:36.556-06:00DeadJournal.com Archive (2002-2006)<p>This is my first entry in DeadJournal. Actually, I really do not have a whole lot to say right now. As soon as I can think of something, I will post ie. ;-)</p><br /><br /><p>Take a look at my recent article on religious terrorisms. Its approach is different and decidedly anti-American in its policy arguments. (By the way, I am an American.)</p><br /><br /><p>http://terrorism.religionsnet.com.</p><br /><br /><p>Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.</p><br /><br /><p>The time will come when the evils of the present U.S. administration will be exposed. My prediction (based on my readings and observations, not on some imagined psychic readings!!!) is that George H.W. Bush will go down in history as the most corrupt president in American history. Enough said for now.</p><br /><br /><p>I know that some writers have made comparisons between Pakistan-India (vis-a-vis Kashmir) and Palestine-Israel. In my view, however, such comparisons have little merit.</p><br /><br /><p>Neither Pakistan nor India are colonial powers. On the contrary, prior to their independence, they constituted a single colony (India) governed by Great Britain.</p><br /><br /><p>On the other hand, Israel is itself a colonial power. That makes Palestine occupied territory, by definition, just as the Palestinians have claimed.</p><br /><br /><p>Making analogies between these two divergent geopolitical situations may serve certain partisan agendas, but they have little basis in fact.</p><br /><br /><p>Some comments:</p><br /><br /><p>>>Religion<br />is the biggest hoax that there ever has been. Yes God exists but<br />religion is the exploitation of peoples beliefs to get them to conform<br />with an idea or value set. There is only one thing that needs to be<br />followed and that is to do your best to be a good person.<<>>There<br />is no differentiation between God and the Devil either, they are one<br />and the same the Host and the Excecutioner, the Healer and<br />Death.<<>>Be<br />good go to heaven be bad go to hell it doesn't matter what religion you<br />look at this is the only thing that is common for all. The rest of the<br />crap that they tell you is to make money and get you down on your knees<br />before them, its about power!<<>>These are my personal beliefs<br />and many will say that they are wrong but then again everyone in an<br />organised religion is at least following the last thing I said.<<>>By<br />following one religion you limit yourself to that religion and its<br />values but if you choose to just follow your heart then no matter what<br />happens when you die there is a good place for you to go, that is if<br />you actually did lead a good life!<<></p><br /><br /><p><br />If there is a "true" Judaism, it is comes closer to Jewish Renewal (the</p><br /><br /><p>continuation of the 1960s havurah/havurot movement), Reform, Reconstructionism, or</p><br /><br /><p>Conservative.</p><br /><br /><p><br />Orthodox Judaism, especially the ultra-orthodox - as contrasted with the modern (Yeshivah</p><br /><br /><p>University) Orthodox - contradict the notion of contextualism, an idea which is inherent in the</p><br /><br /><p>history of Judaism, including the adaptations incorporated into the Talmuds and the Kabbalistic</p><br /><br /><p>works.</p><br /><br /><p><br />Pres.<br />Bush will give a nationwide speech tonight announcing that a new<br />cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security will be established.<br />Presumably, Gov. Tom Ridge, the current Homeland Security advisor, will<br />be the appointee.<br />Big brother just keeps on getting bigger. Pretty soon, no one will be able to deny that the U.S. has become a police state.<br />Sadly,<br />both of the major political parties, Republicans and Democrats, do not<br />see (or do not care about) the onward march of American society toward<br />fascism.</p><br /><br /><p><br />Sadly, both of the major political parties,<br />Republicans and Democrats, do not see (or do not care about) the onward<br />march of American society toward fascism.</p><br /><br /><p><br />Will jaywalking be the next terrorist act?</p><br /><br /><p><br />There<br />are two countries in the U.S. - America (the nation of<br />anti-establishment Leftists) and Amurica (now, Pres. Bush's country).<br />The real culture war is not between so-called liberals (modern<br />liberals) and conservatives (classical liberals) but between both of<br />these Right-Wing political perspectives (Amurica) and the Left<br />(America). Both liberals and conservatives have united around Pres.<br />Bush on the so-called war on terror. The American dissidents are the<br />Leftists, who may soon have the status of dissidents in other<br />authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, such as the former Soviet Union.</p><br /><br /><p><br />The<br />revolution, however, is progressing. It will, hopefully, continue on<br />its own (without any encouragement from the intelligentsia)</p><br /><br /><p><br />It<br />was pointed out, on a web bulletin board, that there may soon be life<br />sentences for those who create viruses or deface websites. (I am just<br />reporting.)</p><br /><br /><p><br />In response, I posted the following:</p><br /><br /><p><br />Although<br />I am not a fan of illegal hacking, IMO, this most recent proposal seems<br />to me to have the bloody fingerprints of John Ashcroft all over it.</p><br /><br /><p><br />As<br />soon as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is established by<br />Congress (and, mark my words, it will be, following King George's<br />address to the Amurican nation last night), the true nature of the<br />domestic police state will become so evident that only the most<br />hardened fascist Republican will be able to deny it.</p><br /><br /><p><br />It should be pointed out that the majority of Isl?mists (the Saudi Wahabbis) are not militants or terrorists.</p><br /><br /><p><br />A<br />parallel might be drawn between the postmillennial Christian<br />reconstructionists, wanting to establish Christian countries before the<br />return of Christ, and the Isl?mists, i.e., the former Taliban regime in<br />Afghanistan. The militant Wahabbis might be compared, with some<br />justification, to the extreme right wing of Christian<br />reconstructionism, i.e., the Christian Identity Movement (Aryan Nation,<br />etc.) and its militias.</p><br /><br /><p><br />In other words, just as most<br />Wahabbis are not militants, the majority of Christian<br />reconstructionists are not members of the Christian Identity Movement<br />and do not promote its extreme racism and ethnicism.</p><br /><br /><p><br />The<br />term "globalization" has, unfortunately, been abused and corrupted by<br />corportate capitalism. It has been associated with greed, the abuse of<br />the environment, the not-so-hidden agenda of King George II and his<br />royal court (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al.), a desire for<br />global domination (neoconservatism) and a disdain for global justice (a<br />rejection of the world court on war crimes), etc.</p><br /><br /><p><br />My<br />prediction is the Bush II will go down as the most corrupt president in<br />American history. He has used the events of Sept. 11th, with which he<br />may have been (at least partially) complicit, as an opportunity to<br />advance his vision of a bourgeois new world order based on dominant<br />U.S. values.</p><br /><br /><p><br />Indeed, there are, in reality, two nations in<br />the U.S., which constitutes that country's culture war: America and<br />Amurica. America is the minority - both in terms of numbers and power.<br />It is the nation that works for socialist globalization. Amurica is the<br />knee-jerk jingoistic nation. It is the land of unilateralism, of "my<br />country, right or wrong," and of capitalist globalization.</p><br /><br /><p><br />Both<br />conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, are, for the<br />most part, agencies of Amurica. Both support the Amurican war on terror<br />(the war of U.S. imperialism). Both advocate an invastion of Iraq.</p><br /><br /><p><br />On<br />September 11, the international revolution came to the U.S. Now,<br />hopefully, a new domestic revolution of America against Amurica can<br />progress without any addtional violence.</p><br /><br /><p><br />Of all the branches<br />of Christianity, I am mostly fond of the Church of the Brethren,<br />Friends General Conference, and the United Church of Christ. Christ<br />taught a message which emphasized orthopraxy over orthodoxy, and He<br />explicitly denied the claim made by some of the Jews that He was the<br />incarnation of God (John 5:16-20).</p><br /><br /><p><br />Unificationism is a<br />child-like, right-wing ideology originally developed to theologically<br />justify the battle against North Korean communism. These days, it has<br />been used by Moon and his followers to rationalize other right-wing<br />causes.</p><br /><br /><p><br />Its basis is conceptualizing the world as consisting of types of Cain (satanic) and Abel (godly).</p><br /><br /><p><br />Furthermore,<br />Bush's political Manichaeism, bifurcating the world into good and evil,<br />reminds me of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's unificationism. Since Moon<br />publishes what is perhaps the most powerful conservative daily in the<br />U.S., the Washington Times, and he has made extensive inroads into the<br />Washington political establishment, it would not be inconceivable that<br />he may have had an influence on King George, or the king's royal court,<br />too.</p><br /><br /><p><br />>>IMO, Andrea Yates was mentally ill at the time<br />she killed her children, and as such, should not be in prison, but<br />under medical treatment. Her doctors failed her, the system failed her,<br />and her family failed her. As to why there was no "massive revolution",<br />my only hypothesis is that the American public was "brainwashed" by the<br />talking heads appearing on every news program, talk show, etc., each<br />with their own agenda to advance.<<>>nothing is beyond the<br />universe, because the universe is everything.</p><br /><br /><p><br />>>Why<br />can't everybody have a domain, payed by their gouverment, so they can<br />develope bussinessess and make money? Well, not everybody, but at least<br />50% of the population. Ha? This economic situation has really turned me<br />down...http://mark-foster.olathe.ks.us</p><br /><br /><p><br />I got it simply because it was available, but I never used it.</p><br /><br /><p><br />Now,<br />however, the dot us domain has been taken over by a commercial<br />registry, and the price range approximates what it costs to register a<br />dot com.</p><br /><br /><p><br />Capitalism. You gotta love it .</p><br /><br /><p><br />If the<br />objective is a purely economic union, I can see excluding, at least for<br />the time being, Mexico from a "United North America." However, if the<br />goal is the establishment of a political union of North America,<br />something which does not fully exist in Europe, then I do not see how<br />Mexico can be excluded - even in the first stages.</p><br /><br /><p><br />If<br />Canada, Mexico, and the United States are to share a common federal<br />government, the addition of political power can allow that government<br />to be more "liberal" in terms of who is included. In other words, in a<br />purely economic union (such as the EU, with its somewhat restrictive<br />policies), its members can be more easily threatened by economic<br />disparities than in a confederation which is both political and<br />economic.</p><br /><br /><p>Under the assumption that it is prudent to know one's<br />enemy, I sometimes watch Fox and Friends on the Fox News Channel. This<br />morning I responded to the question of the day, which asked how viewers<br />felt about the American legislators who just went to Iraq. Here was my<br />email response:</p><br /><br /><p><br />"I would like to see large groups of<br />Americans go over to Iraq and then, in civil disobedience, refuse to<br />leave unless and until the United Nations formally approves military<br />action in that country."</p><br /><br /><p>Americans, including politicians, are<br />trapped in a collective delusion that there is really a difference<br />between the two major parties. The fact that both parties are about to<br />approve an Iraqi war resolution should, hopefully, shake some people<br />out of their mass hallucination.</p><br /><br /><p>[13 Oct 2002|07:57pm]<br />What do you know, an Isl?mic fundie asking for the murder of a Christian fundie. Will two negatives cancel each other out?</p><br /><br /><p><br />Iranian<br />Muslim cleric, Muhsin Mujtahid Shabistari, has declared a fatwa, or<br />religious edict, calling for the death of a major player in the<br />American axis of evil, Jerry Falwell.</p><br /><br /><p><br />Falwell, who headed<br />the now defunct American fascist organization, the Moral Majority, had<br />referred to the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. As the old adage says.<br />"The evil thou seest in others, in thyself may be true."</p><br /><br /><p><br />A<br />Christian Zionist, Falwell, a victim of chronic foot-in-mouth disease,<br />later apologized for his remarks, but not for his views, on this<br />subject. His apology was also too late for those who died in India, as<br />a result of his comments, in rioting.</p><br /><br /><p><br />May God forgive this misguided, publicity-seeking preacher when he stands before his Creator.</p><br /><br /><p><br />>>I<br />can't imagine a muslim would write "Dear policeman, I am God" though,<br />otherwise I would have suspected it could have been Al Queada. The guy<br />is turning out to be a real bastard though, he seems to be getting<br />someone every day.<<>>I agree the whole world (especially<br />Britain) needs saving from American Imperialism, but CAN'T ANYBODY DO<br />BETTER THAN A STUPID SNIPER?!?!?!?!<br />To: "'Realityman@netscape.net'"</p><br /><br /><p><br />Dr. Foster,</p><br /><br /><p><br />Thank you very much for your email. It was a bright spot after reporting for several days on very sad news.</p><br /><br /><p><br />These sniper shootings just tear at my heart. I hope and pray that police catch the killer very soon.</p><br /><br /><p><br />Your kind email was an encouragement.</p><br /><br /><p><br />Thank you...and thanks for watching Fox.</p><br /><br /><p><br />Sincerely,</p><br /><br /><p>Molly Henneberg</p><br /><br /><p>-----Original Message-----<br />From: Realityman@netscape.net [mailto:Realityman@netscape.net]<br />Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 3:46 PM<br />To: Henneberg, Molly<br />Subject:</p><br /><br /><p><br />Molly,</p><br /><br /><p>I<br />wanted to say how much I enjoy your reports. You appear to have genuine<br />compassion for the people in the stories you cover, including the<br />current killings in the Washington, D.C, area.</p><br /><br /><p>--<br />Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.<br />http://markfoster.net</p><br /><br /><p>>>Throughout<br />all of this [Iraq, Middle East, al-Q?'?d?, India vs. Pakistan, etc.],<br />why is China being sooooo quiiiiiiet.....?<<></p><br /><br /><p>"There is a liberal media." The Fox News Channel is "fair and balanced." Both of these are examples of useful lies:</p><br /><br /><p>"A harmful truth is better than a useful lie."<br />- Thomas Mann</p><br /><br /><p>In the following passage, after the Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be equal with God, Jesus totally rejects their charges.</p><br /><br /><p>It<br />is clear from the below (John 5) that Jesus would never have approved<br />of the non-biblical dogma of the Trinity subsequently formulated by the<br />church fathers.</p><br /><br /><p>quote:</p><br /><br /><p>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><br /><br /><p>18<br />Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had<br />broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making<br />himself equal with God.</p><br /><br /><p>19 Then answered Jesus and said unto<br />them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of<br />himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he<br />doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.</p><br /><br /><p>20 For the Father<br />loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he<br />will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.</p><br /><br /><p>21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.</p><br /><br /><p>22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:</p><br /><br /><p>23<br />That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He<br />that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.</p><br /><br /><p>24<br />Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth<br />on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into<br />condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.</p><br /><br /><p>25 Verily,<br />verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead<br />shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.</p><br /><br /><p>What about the recent discussion in the news media of gay marriage? Should it be legal?</p><br /><br /><p><br />In<br />my view, yes. The government may have a right to decide who marries<br />whom in civil ceremonies but not in religious ceremonies. For a<br />government to interfere in these matters would constitute a human<br />rights violation.</p><br /><br /><p><br />In the case of a religion (any religion,<br />no matter how small), it is the religious community (or its<br />administration) which should make this determination. Since membership<br />in a religion is, in Western countries, a matter of personal choice<br />(not demanded by a government), religions can, in this respect, do what<br />they like. If a member does not like the religious law, she or he can<br />choose to ignore it (and incur whatever penalties may be imposed) or to<br />leave the religion.</p><br /><br /><p><br />For instance, the Baha'i law, as<br />interpreted by Shoghi Effendi, which excludes the possibility of gay<br />marriage, applies to Baha'is. Baha'i law, however, is religious law.<br />Does it (or should it) apply to those who are not Baha'is? Obviously<br />not. It is not for one religion to impose its own religious law on<br />those who are not members of that religion.</p><br /><br /><p>There are many constructions of the Illuminati. What, then, are these<br />Illuminatis? They are social constructions of fear, hatred, or both. To<br />those who are afraid of, or who hate, the Jews, the Jews become the<br />Illuminati. To those afraid of, or who hate, occultists, the occultists<br />become the Illuminati. To those afraid of, or who hate, certain alleged<br />extraterrestrials, they become the Illuminati.</p><br /><br /><p>None of this is<br />to say that there are not people with nefarious objectives. Some of<br />them may even cooperate with each other in areas where their objectives<br />coincide. One may deny particular constructions without denying history<br />or current events.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-774322495613076356?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-62569082220262974972009-02-18T13:56:00.002-06:002009-02-18T14:23:24.478-06:00LiveJournal.com Archive (2007)Hermeneutics or Herman U. Tics ;-)<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">From a historical standpoint, there is no evidence for many seemingly historical statements in certain world scriptures (one way or the other). Histories are mirrors, and those mirrors reflect the perspectives of specific individuals and populations. Various academic and traditional systems are operating within different constructions of reality, and there is no point in trying to connect them.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">As an example: Adam can be viewed in the context of diverse religious narratives. Affirming his existence serves a function in those narratives. As to whether Adam existed - that is a matter for which can only be answered in those narratives (relative truth). </span></span> <p style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;"> We are not, therefore, talking about "what happened." Who knows what happened? Even eyewitnesses to current events, like auto accidents, may, for various reasons (including racial and gender prejudice), not agree. We can only speak in the context of different stories as expressions of power and intentionality.</span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-6256908222026297497?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-14298381246054778342009-02-17T16:12:00.008-06:002009-02-17T23:18:16.678-06:00Welcome<p>Welcome to the new home of the <a href="http://sociosphere.com/" target="_top">SocioSphere</a> Editorials Blog. I am now publishing the blog using Blogger. The desktop software I had been using (called, simply, <span style="font-style:italic">Blog</span>) was good, in its time, but, as the Internet goes, quite old and, therefore, limited.</p><br /><p>I also imported/merged into this blog my older Blogger blog (and then deleted it), which explains the earlier postings.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-1429838124605477834?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-45528143996669566272006-05-07T10:46:00.006-05:002009-02-17T23:02:37.570-06:00<p> There are many constructions of the Illuminati. What, then, are these Illuminatis? They are social constructions of fear, hatred, or both. To those who are afraid of, or who hate, the Jews, the Jews become the Illuminati. To those afraid of, or who hate, occultists, the occultists become the Illuminati. To those afraid of, or who hate, certain alleged extraterrestrials, they become the Illuminati. </p> <p> None of this is to say that there are not people with nefarious objectives. Some of them may even cooperate with each other in areas where their objectives coincide. One may deny particular constructions without denying history or current events.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-4552814399666956627?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-25511162607299133152006-05-07T10:46:00.005-05:002009-02-17T23:01:42.195-06:00<p> There are many constructions of the Illuminati. What, then, are these Illuminatis? They are social constructions of fear, hatred, or both. To those who are afraid of, or who hate, the Jews, the Jews become the Illuminati. To those afraid of, or who hate, occultists, the occultists become the Illuminati. To those afraid of, or who hate, certain alleged extraterrestrials, they become the Illuminati. </p> <p> None of this is to say that there are not people with nefarious objectives. Some of them may even cooperate with each other in areas where their objectives coincide. One may deny particular constructions without denying history or current events.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-2551116260729913315?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-65300365112674274682006-05-07T10:46:00.004-05:002009-02-17T22:59:14.145-06:00<p> There are many constructions of the Illuminati. What, then, are these Illuminatis? They are social constructions of fear, hatred, or both. To those who are afraid of, or who hate, the Jews, the Jews become the Illuminati. To those afraid of, or who hate, occultists, the occultists become the Illuminati. To those afraid of, or who hate, certain alleged extraterrestrials, they become the Illuminati. </p> <p> None of this is to say that there are not people with nefarious objectives. Some of them may even cooperate with each other in areas where their objectives coincide. One may deny particular constructions without denying history or current events.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-6530036511267427468?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-85124341169864046432006-05-07T10:46:00.003-05:002009-02-17T22:47:43.208-06:00<p> There are many constructions of the Illuminati. What, then, are these Illuminatis? They are social constructions of fear, hatred, or both. To those who are afraid of, or who hate, the Jews, the Jews become the Illuminati. To those afraid of, or who hate, occultists, the occultists become the Illuminati. To those afraid of, or who hate, certain alleged extraterrestrials, they become the Illuminati. </p> <p> None of this is to say that there are not people with nefarious objectives. Some of them may even cooperate with each other in areas where their objectives coincide. One may deny particular constructions without denying history or current events.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-8512434116986404643?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-58830608429803919382006-05-07T10:46:00.002-05:002009-02-17T22:45:41.782-06:00<p> There are many constructions of the Illuminati. What, then, are these Illuminatis? They are social constructions of fear, hatred, or both. To those who are afraid of, or who hate, the Jews, the Jews become the Illuminati. To those afraid of, or who hate, occultists, the occultists become the Illuminati. To those afraid of, or who hate, certain alleged extraterrestrials, they become the Illuminati. </p> <p> None of this is to say that there are not people with nefarious objectives. Some of them may even cooperate with each other in areas where their objectives coincide. One may deny particular constructions without denying history or current events.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-5883060842980391938?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-16331553840138487472006-05-07T10:46:00.001-05:002009-02-17T22:41:37.614-06:00<p> There are many constructions of the Illuminati. What, then, are these Illuminatis? They are social constructions of fear, hatred, or both. To those who are afraid of, or who hate, the Jews, the Jews become the Illuminati. To those afraid of, or who hate, occultists, the occultists become the Illuminati. To those afraid of, or who hate, certain alleged extraterrestrials, they become the Illuminati. </p> <p> None of this is to say that there are not people with nefarious objectives. Some of them may even cooperate with each other in areas where their objectives coincide. One may deny particular constructions without denying history or current events.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-1633155384013848747?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-86365350649347994532006-05-07T10:46:00.000-05:002009-02-17T22:40:13.586-06:00<p> There are many constructions of the Illuminati. What, then, are these Illuminatis? They are social constructions of fear, hatred, or both. To those who are afraid of, or who hate, the Jews, the Jews become the Illuminati. To those afraid of, or who hate, occultists, the occultists become the Illuminati. To those afraid of, or who hate, certain alleged extraterrestrials, they become the Illuminati. </p> <p> None of this is to say that there are not people with nefarious objectives. Some of them may even cooperate with each other in areas where their objectives coincide. One may deny particular constructions without denying history or current events.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-8636535064934799453?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-61454139644953509782004-01-05T16:48:00.006-06:002009-02-17T23:02:37.599-06:00It's finally 1984, twenty years "back to the future," with U.S. Visit. Actually, I wouldn't much object to this fingerprinting of non-U.S. nationals requiring visas if it was accompanied by a dismantling of the American corporatocracy. Protecting America from Islamist counterterrorism without eliminating U.S. terrorism is hypocrisy to the extreme.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-6145413964495350978?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-3321178951496522852004-01-05T16:48:00.005-06:002009-02-17T23:01:42.230-06:00It's finally 1984, twenty years "back to the future," with U.S. Visit. Actually, I wouldn't much object to this fingerprinting of non-U.S. nationals requiring visas if it was accompanied by a dismantling of the American corporatocracy. Protecting America from Islamist counterterrorism without eliminating U.S. terrorism is hypocrisy to the extreme.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-332117895149652285?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-37715679673637690002004-01-05T16:48:00.004-06:002009-02-17T22:59:14.174-06:00It's finally 1984, twenty years "back to the future," with U.S. Visit. Actually, I wouldn't much object to this fingerprinting of non-U.S. nationals requiring visas if it was accompanied by a dismantling of the American corporatocracy. Protecting America from Islamist counterterrorism without eliminating U.S. terrorism is hypocrisy to the extreme.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-3771567967363769000?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-40071288298926968812004-01-05T16:48:00.003-06:002009-02-17T22:47:43.236-06:00It's finally 1984, twenty years "back to the future," with U.S. Visit. Actually, I wouldn't much object to this fingerprinting of non-U.S. nationals requiring visas if it was accompanied by a dismantling of the American corporatocracy. Protecting America from Islamist counterterrorism without eliminating U.S. terrorism is hypocrisy to the extreme.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-4007128829892696881?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-26108322593164445992004-01-05T16:48:00.002-06:002009-02-17T22:45:41.831-06:00It's finally 1984, twenty years "back to the future," with U.S. Visit. Actually, I wouldn't much object to this fingerprinting of non-U.S. nationals requiring visas if it was accompanied by a dismantling of the American corporatocracy. Protecting America from Islamist counterterrorism without eliminating U.S. terrorism is hypocrisy to the extreme.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-2610832259316444599?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-22704324133274915932004-01-05T16:48:00.001-06:002009-02-17T22:41:37.638-06:00It's finally 1984, twenty years "back to the future," with U.S. Visit. Actually, I wouldn't much object to this fingerprinting of non-U.S. nationals requiring visas if it was accompanied by a dismantling of the American corporatocracy. Protecting America from Islamist counterterrorism without eliminating U.S. terrorism is hypocrisy to the extreme.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-2270432413327491593?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-26723678579516643182004-01-05T16:48:00.000-06:002009-02-17T22:40:13.599-06:00It's finally 1984, twenty years "back to the future," with U.S. Visit. Actually, I wouldn't much object to this fingerprinting of non-U.S. nationals requiring visas if it was accompanied by a dismantling of the American corporatocracy. Protecting America from Islamist counterterrorism without eliminating U.S. terrorism is hypocrisy to the extreme.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-2672367857951664318?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-40421404550063823482003-07-23T18:07:00.006-05:002009-02-17T23:02:37.586-06:00What about the recent discussion in the news media of gay marriage? Should it be legal?<br /><br /><br />In my view, yes. The government may have a right to decide who marries whom in civil ceremonies but not in religious ceremonies. For a government to interfere in these matters would constitute a human rights violation.<br /><br /><br />In the case of a religion (any religion, no matter how small), it is the religious community (or its administration) which should make this determination. Since membership in a religion is, in Western countries, a matter of personal choice (not demanded by a government), religions can, in this respect, do what they like. If a member does not like the religious law, she or he can choose to ignore it (and incur whatever penalties may be imposed) or to leave the religion.<br /><br />It is not for one religion to impose its own religious law on those who are not members of that religion.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-4042140455006382348?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-58601301595017583002003-07-23T18:07:00.005-05:002009-02-17T23:01:42.213-06:00What about the recent discussion in the news media of gay marriage? Should it be legal?<br /><br /><br />In my view, yes. The government may have a right to decide who marries whom in civil ceremonies but not in religious ceremonies. For a government to interfere in these matters would constitute a human rights violation.<br /><br /><br />In the case of a religion (any religion, no matter how small), it is the religious community (or its administration) which should make this determination. Since membership in a religion is, in Western countries, a matter of personal choice (not demanded by a government), religions can, in this respect, do what they like. If a member does not like the religious law, she or he can choose to ignore it (and incur whatever penalties may be imposed) or to leave the religion.<br /><br />It is not for one religion to impose its own religious law on those who are not members of that religion.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-5860130159501758300?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278042526590782960.post-84131971407334228342003-07-23T18:07:00.004-05:002009-02-17T22:59:14.161-06:00What about the recent discussion in the news media of gay marriage? Should it be legal?<br /><br /><br />In my view, yes. The government may have a right to decide who marries whom in civil ceremonies but not in religious ceremonies. For a government to interfere in these matters would constitute a human rights violation.<br /><br /><br />In the case of a religion (any religion, no matter how small), it is the religious community (or its administration) which should make this determination. Since membership in a religion is, in Western countries, a matter of personal choice (not demanded by a government), religions can, in this respect, do what they like. If a member does not like the religious law, she or he can choose to ignore it (and incur whatever penalties may be imposed) or to leave the religion.<br /><br />It is not for one religion to impose its own religious law on those who are not members of that religion.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2278042526590782960-8413197140733422834?l=blog.sociosphere.com' alt='' /></div>Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10958146163540562735noreply@blogger.com0