welcome to wikipedia, and enjoy your time here. icant wait to see how your expertise might raddto the community. Gabrielsimon 08:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've used wikipedia as a resource for some time, and looking at the history on my IP address I can see my roomies have tried their hand at editing, but this is the first time I really felt like making an addition/edition. Alexandra Erin 08:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Alexandra Erin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Some documentation for you. Sorry if you aren't a total newbie. :) Vashti 08:10, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Neither a total newbie (I've been reading for some time) nor a seasoned pro. :P Thanks for the links.Alexandra Erin 08:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

curiopsity

ifitsnot rude, may iask what sort of pagan? im well, fascinated by how many differencesthere are Gabrielsimon 08:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many differences because "pagan" is not a religion in itself, but a very broad category... and the category is not unified by any one shared belief, but rather, by a specific disbelief (i.e., the God of Abraham.) Attempts to generalize it to "pagans are polytheistic" or "pagans follow natural religions" are invariably exclusionary, no matter how broad the definition at first seems. I follow a personal path that blends elements of classical Greek philosophy with the modern Discordian religion, while identifying more strongly with the original conception of Eris as a deity than Discordians do.

In essence, I believe that there is an objective, concrete truth to the universe which is itself perfect, and that it is our job as human beings to uncover it... but that we are imperfect and bound by subjective, relative senses and minds, which means we will never completely uncover it. Many people who come to this conclusion decide it means we should stop trying, and just proclaim everybody equally right/wrong. To me, that's the same as laying down and dying. No, we'll never get there 100%... but if you never stop trying, you'll end up closer than you would otherwise be.Alexandra Erin 09:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

very profound. thank you very much. Gabrielsimon 09:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I realized that in my long-winded fashion, I never gave you a very concise answer. The sound byte for what I am is "Philosophical Discordian." What I believe in does not map to the large body of recognized Discordian beliefs, but that's in keepking with the large body of recognized Discordian beliefs.

thats very profound, and quite interesting. im .. well, theres no real word for what i am, a description might go like "reincarnated druidic demonic weapon" or something like that... its all very complicated. Gabrielsimon 09:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure many people could come up with a word for that. :P I believe you're sensitive about your beliefs, so I suggest you don't try to discuss them with me... it is a cornerstone of my beliefs that all beliefs are open not just to discussion but to debate and even what would be considered attack. I don't find anything respectful in the idea that all believes should be treated deferentially by default... I think the only way to show a belief real consideration is to actually consider it, which means examining it for truth/strength or falsehood/weakness... adopting what is strong and defensible, and rejecting it what doesn't hold up. I would rather somebody think enough about my beliefs to consider them and then tell me where they think I've gone wrong, then just say "Well, that's interesting and you're entitled to believe that but I have my own beliefs." The latter approach is regarded as being open minded, but in fact, it is the former approach that is so... the latter person will listen and nod sagely to another person's beliefs but never holds them up to their own to see how they measure up.

All this means my own beliefs are in a constant state of flux, which ties back into what I said about never actually reaching the truth, but striving to get closer to it.Alexandra Erin

i always listen to toheres belifs, but mine are based on memeories ive recovererd, some times accidentally. ,s so i tend to trust them. if you cant trustyour memories, what can you trust? any hoo, i thought id be honest becasue you were honest. Gabrielsimon 09:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the thing... why should you automatically and implicitly trust your own memories? Anything you may perceive, you perceive subjectively... and memories are perhaps most of all. Recovered memories? How can you distinguish between a genuine recovered memory and a fantasy or a delusion? Because, for instance, it "feels real?" I don't believe there is any objective standard by which you may recognize that it feels real... people who have a delusion also assert that the delusion feels real. That's what makes it a delusion. The world is full of people who are absolutely convinced of their religious beliefs, because they believe they recovered a memory of a past life, or that God/angels/other addressed them personally... and in each case, the person is sure that it's real because "when it happens, you just know" and "it feels real."

Well, no amount of "just knowing" equals true knowledge. There are people who "just know" that God is real today, who might lose their faith tomorrow. It's not like you can take your knowledge (belief) outside of your head, hold it up against theirs, and say, "Okay, mine is more real than theirs was."

I'm sure your inclination will be to dismiss what I'm saying because you feel insulted by the suggestion that it's a delusion, but I would hasten to point out, I'm not saying you're deluded. I'm asking you to ask yourself how do you know that you're not. Alexandra Erin

im glad you have those thoughts, becasue it took me five years to reconsile with myself that i aught to trust my memoires. one reason is , some of the magical skills i "knew" from "back then" work when i try them now and there are some interesting things that when i researched them, seemed to be based on fact, for example, mountain ranges and such matched the locations i would have seen. your fast becoming one of my favourite people on here, because your respectfull, and challenging :) Gabrielsimon 09:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the conclusion I came to was that it didn't matter whether I was deluded or not. I'm enjoying the ride. :) Maybe I'll believe the same things tomorrow, and maybe I won't, but in the meantime I'm not harming anybody and my life is enriched by believing what I do. Vashti 09:54, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

That's an attitude I can admire. My own belief that all beliefs are potentially delusions and should be treated with severe skepticism is by no means on a higher level or excempt from the same scrutiny... I'm not interested in forcing others to practice it, even while I make no excuses for practicing it myself. :P

a quote for you

your comments about your beliefs made me think of this quote, I hope you enjoy it. Once again welcome to wikipedia!

"It's like a rainbow. Without an observer at a twenty-three-degree angle to the light reflecting off a cloud of spherical droplets, there is no rainbow. The whole universe is like that. Our spirits stand at a twenty-three-degree angle to the universe. There is some new thing created at the contact of photon and retina, some space between rock and mind." -Zo Boone, in Blue Mars, by Kim Stanley Robinson

(Hope you don't mind me cluttering up your talk page.) This quote is quite nice. Also, to my mind, it's a great way of illustrating why we should not take our beliefs too seriously. What's perfectly True to us may cease to be real at all when seen from another perspective. Of course, this quote also contains the Holy Number 23, so this of course makes it Perfectly True Beyond All Doubt. I'm really quite touched. I'm going to go have a hotdog bun and ponder what I've learned here today. Friday 14:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah, p.s. that was me who posted the quote. Glad you liked it Friday, and silly me I didn't even notice the presence of the 'holy number.' :) Kit 20:45:31, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

Welcome

And, of course, Hail Eris! Friday 14:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Philosophical Discordian." very neat. im just a lowly panthistic person, who still uses western societal technology, such a hypocrite am i. o and, as for philosophy, what do you think of " know thyself? if i knew myself , id run away!" _ pharaphased from goethe Ketrovin 16:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly Hill

Thank you Alexandra. You are my hero this week! :D
Timmccloud 14:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And mine as well! - Zaron 15:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]