I find the concept of walk-ins rather interesting. It's not one that we've really discussed here before. I didn't view the video but I've been reading some literature online because of it being posted here.

The walk-in subject is so cumbersome to describe that it seems overly complicated in some ways. I don't recall ever reading about this from people who describe travels in and out of their bodies for other reasons, such as near death experiences.

Ambivalent, that's amusing. You seem to become less ambivalent by the day.

recoverer wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 4:51pm:


Rondele, Don's spirit has finally left my body.  Strangely, I woke up to find bibles and crucifixes all over my house.  I'll have to donate them to the local church I suppose.

Albert, I agree that the term can be offensive, particularly to those who entertain beliefs associated with that mentality.  I didn't mean any offense in using it.  Perhaps "New Age Ignorance" would be a better fitting term.  I suppose the main problem with the expression is that it seems to lump all "new agers" into one category, when in reality, one can entertain certain new age beliefs in a way that is logical, intelligent, and based on real experience, in no way reflecting a "ghetto" mentality.  The term can even be seen as a bit racist, as a ghetto has more to do with the presence of minorities than it does ignorance.

Dude:

For the most part I believe it isn't the fault of new age people that questionable parts of new ageism exists. We all need time to develop discrimination. Perhaps the human race will reach the day where it isn't so easily fooled by the numerous misleading things that are out there, both new age and non-new age.


I Am Dude wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 6:49pm:

recoverer wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 5:47pm:

I am stupid. For instance, I am not mentally dexterous.

Whatever I have to do. A man must do what he as to do, put up with what he has to put up with.

Everything in life is comparable to the alternative/s.


Quote:

Whose fault is it then?

Without getting into it too much, I believe that new age teachings that are misleading come from those who seek to mislead.

I don't blame the people that are misled because we all need time to develop discrimination.

1796 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 6:35am:

That is an actual fortune cookie piece of paper that I ran across while moving objects around in my home today. I take no credit. It is reality revealing itself.

Common usage by the left of the term "discrimination" is usually as a mindless put down.

We frequently hear lefties saying, "That's discrimination", as a thoughtless way of dismissing an idea they don't like, and as a meaningless insult to whoever put forward the idea.

From the left side of western institutions and organisations, particularly those influenced by social psychology, is frequently heard the assertion: "You must not discriminate." Along with their other favourite squawk, "You must not generalise".

In those fields of employment at the left end of the socio-industrial spectrum where one's personality and opinions are considered more important than one's ability to do the officially declared job, such as in the government funded social sciences and in the various streams of societal engineering, to accuse someone of discrimination is likely to trigger gossip that will lead to their dismissal. Even if they survive the dismissal attempt, the accusation will stick and they may be pressed out of their job by malicious passive aggression. This malicious usage of the word discrimination, as a weapon, occurs despite propagators being aware of its correct usage. 

Social psychology students and even primary school children get guilted into complying with thought restrictions by teachers frequently telling them, "That's wrong because that's discrimination". 

Discrimination gets hammered home in the social sciences, and in child and youth education as something we must not do, and if we do discriminate then we are a bad person. The accusation of discriminating is nearly always used vaguely, with no or little meaning other than it means "you're bad", so that just the sound of the word being levelled at oneself is enough to cause a student fear of failure and a worker fear of dismissal.   


However, the word discrimination is used differently in fields where truth and reality matter, than it is in those fields where what matters is manipulative power and control over people's opinions.

In fields such as mineralogy, biology, immunology, physics, and the development of artificial intelligence, and other genuine sciences, particularly in the private sector and at the right end of the socio-industrial spectrum where one's ability to do the declared job is more important than one's personal opinions, the word discrimination refers to a functional ability to differentiate and evaluate the differences between one item and another.

The discriminatory function may be quantum/atomic, molecular, cellular, mechanical, chemical, electronic, or any other.   

There is a distinction between the terms differentiate or discern, and discriminate.

The distinction between differentiate and discriminate is that to differentiate means to discern the existent difference between one thing and another, the two of which may be or may not be the same as each other. The term differentiate is therefore more a numerical and positional distinction than a qualitative one. For example, one may differentiate between two identical items.

To discriminate though, refers not only to the ability to discern different items, but also the ability to differentiate between the qualities of the different items discerned.

As an illustrative example, a prospector's metal detector can differentiate between there being two metallic items under the ground, and can also discriminate between which item is iron and which is gold. The distinction therefore is not only between there being one item and another, but also between their differences in quality. That is discrimination.

The word discrimination is used in this same regard in cognitive psychology, although quietly and only in some quarters, for there is a fundamental rift between cognitive and social psychology, and it is from social psychology that the push comes to demonise discrimination and to eliminate people's ability to exercise it.

In such quarters of cognitive psychology the term discriminate refers to the conscious ability to differentiate between one thing and another and to evaluate the differences between them.

Discrimination, therefore, in the cognitive sense, is not only the ability to differentiate between the existence of one thing and another, in number and position, but is also the ability to differentiate between and evaluate any existent qualities.

Discrimination by its ability to recognise degrees of similarity and difference, enables generalisation, which is the ability to recognise a discernable pattern within a majority.

Discrimination underpins intelligence, which is the ability to freely choose from discernable items.

The degree of fineness to which one can discriminate, and therefore generalise, is the measure of one's intelligence quotient or general intelligence factor (IQ/g). Intelligence is distinct from one's education and knowledge, for intelligence is the potential to be educated, and underlies what we are able to do with what we know.    

Without the ability to discriminate, intelligence cannot function. One becomes a manipulable automaton.