Bear Outline

An outlet seemed appropriate

I haven't posted on this journal in almost 5 years. In reading over the last few posts before I moved on, I have much to reflect on in respect to how my views have evolved and stabilized over time. What and where may become apparent over time.

There are various reasons for this.... That might or might not be apparent over time.

We relocated much further north at this time, and we've been thriving. With that said, it has not been without its trials. Mania and depression have moved in their own inconvenient cycles, as we've sought out financing for our house, I've sought employment, and as we've put together a multi-generational household. 

This journal, which has often been used as a sounding board and a place to just kind of voice thoughts, is going to be re-purposed as a place for me to excise and separate out those demons, corner them, and take them down. 

More later.... 
Bear Outline

Here we are again...

It's been a while...

Truthfully, life has been interesting to say the least. Some ties have been cut. Men proved themselves to be less than honest. While I am not overly concerned with treatment of the uttangearde, beyond simple reputation, the innangearde is another matter. To steal is to betray...

But enough.

Other notes, picked up a 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid, and highly recommend them, taken to reading the Havamal again, along with some Welsh Triads, and found it highly edifying, been accepted for graduate work and will soon finish my bachelors and be on to my masters(First in Education, then in English while teaching so as to lay the ground work for a PhD). Eldest daughter is doing well, and will be in high school soon, tailoring her education to go into marine biology, and the other two little ones are growing like weeds, and it won't be long before they are in school themselves.

My bride thrives, as is her way, and all is well there. We recently returned to the sea for a week or two, and I must say, it has been recently as the first nights we spent together. Not that it isn't always a joy to be complimented so well, but it seems more obvious in recent days.

In all our house does well, and recently having fained Eostre, and also with other positive portents, it would seem that the gods are good allies.

Such is as it is, off to finish a bit of writing before bed...
Bear Outline

Stupid Philosophy Test


R-S-R

You scored 33% Non-Reductionism, 33% Epistemological Absolutism, and 44% Moral Objectivism!

You are an R-S-R: a metaphysical Reductionist, an epistemological Skeptic, and a moral Relativist. What does this all mean? Well, keep reading to find out.




Metaphysics: Reductionism (Monism or Positivism)
In metaphysics, my test measures your tendency towards Reductionism or Non-Reductionism. As a Reductionist, you like to cut away the metaphysical fat as opposed to multiplying concepts and entities like so many baby rabbits. The two broad categories of Reductionists that my test recognizes are Monists and Positivists.


1. Monists do not cut away the metaphysical fat so much as they just put the meat into a grinder and synthesize the fat into the meat. They tend to condense particular things and ideas into a Unity or Absolute, in other words. If you believe that reality is ultimately a unity and that mind and matter both exist but are simply two different ways of looking at the same substance, then you are a neutral monist in the sense of Spinoza. If you believe that reality is ultimately an Absolute because a whole is more than just the sum of its parts, proven by the fact that we can never have knowledge of a particular thing unless we also grasp its relations to the ultimate Absolute or whole of reality with which it is bound up, and if you feel that this Absolute is characterized by Spirit or Mind, and not matter, then you share the same views as Hegel and even Plato to a degree. A monist--because he or she believes that reality is a Unity or Absolute--tends to synthesize all particulars into universals, deny the reality of matter (Hegel) or mind (Spinoza, sort of), and so on. These concepts are all cast into the meat grinder and come out as a unified whole. Famous monists include philosophers such as Hegel, Spinoza, and Parmenides.


If none of the above sounded like you, then you are most definitely the other type of Reductionist.
2. Positivists, unlike monists, do not synthesize two apparently competing views into one--instead, they do away with one of the views, that being the one that cannot be empirically verified. A positivist, then, cuts away the metaphysical fat as meaningless conjecture about nothing in particular. He relies primarily on a tool called Ockham's Razor to shave away these ideas. Ockham's Razor states that we should do away with any hypotheses that needlessly multiply explanatory entities. For instance, in regards to the dispute about the existence of universals, a positivist tends to adopt the position of nominalism--which is the belief that only particulars are real. A universal is only a linguistic construction we use to put particulars into groups--meaning we can reduce all universals to the sum of their parts, that being particulars. After all, we can never have empirical experience of "whiteness", only particular things that are white--nor have we ever observed the universal "mankind", though we can observe individual men. On the mind-body problem, a positivist will be likely to do away with the concept of "mind", reducing it to a material product of our brain functioning. This position is often referred to as the Identity-Theory, because it equates mental states to states of the brain. Clearly, a positivist tends towards a materialistic outlook. Positivism will also revile any idealist conception of reality, which maintains that the world of experience and perception is merely a phenomenal world, whereas the "real" world lies underneath experience and is fundamentally unknowable. A positivist will tend to do away with the idealist hypothesis as needless and unverifiable. Well-known positivists include Carnap, Ayer, and Wittgenstein.


*****




Epistemology: Skepticism (Idealism or Subjectivism)
In regards to epistemology, my test measures your tendency towards Absolutism or Skepticism. As an epistemological Skeptic, you believe that ultimate reality cannot be known in any objective way. The two categories of Skeptics that my test recognizes are Idealists and Subjectivists.


1. Epistemological Idealists believe that knowledge of ultimate reality is impossible. All we can ever have knowledge about is the world of phenomenal human experience, but there is no reason to suspect that reality mirrors our perceptions and thoughts, according to Idealists. Idealists, then, tend to see truth not as a correspondence between propositions and reality--reality is, after all, fundamentally unknowable--but as a coherence between a whole system of propositions taken to be true. We cannot escape from language or our conceptualized world of phenomena, so we are unable to reference propositions to facts and must instead determine their truth by comparing them to other propositions we hold to be true. As a result of such an idealism, knowledge of any ultimate reality is taken to be impossible, hence the Skeptical tendency of idealism. All our pursuits of knowledge, science included, can only reflect a phenomenal reality that is of our own making. Famous idealists include Kant and Fichte.


If the above did not sound skeptical or idealistic enough to reflect your own views, then you are most likely a Subjectivist.
2. Epistemological Subjectivists, like idealists, believe that all our knowledge is ultimately of our own making because it is filtered through our subjective perceptions. Unlike an idealist, though, a subjectivist doesn't believe in any universal categories of "truth" that apply to the phenomenal world, because each individual can create his own truth. Either that, or he will hold that society or custom creates its own forms of truth. A subjectivist will tend to regard scientific inquiry as a game of sorts--science does not reveal truths about reality, but only gives scientists pseudo-solutions to pseudo-problems of the scientific community's own devising. It is a type of puzzle-solving, but the puzzle isn't of reality. The definition of truth to a subjectivist may be one that recognizes a proposition's usefulness to an individual. William James is one such subjectivist, who believes that we can "will to believe" certain propositions so long as we would find them useful. The example he gives is being found in a situation where you must leap over a chasm in order to survive. The true belief, in such a situation, is that the leap will be successful--this truth is certainly more useful to us, and in believing the truth we become more willing to commit to the jump and make it successful. So, in essence, knowledge of reality is possible for a subjectivist because they never make reference to any objective reality existing outside of our own perceptions and beliefs--we can have knowledge of reality through having knowledge of ourselves, and that is all that we should ask for. Famous subjectivists include Kuhn, Feyarabend, and James. Another famed critic of Absolutism is Hume.


*****




Ethics: Relativism (Subjectivism or Emotivism)
My test measures one's tendency towards moral Objectivism or moral Relativism in regards to ethics. As a moral Relativist, you tend to see moral choices as describing a subject's reaction to a moral object or situation, and not as a property of the moral object itself. You may also feel that moral words are meaningless because they do not address any empirical fact about the world. My test recognizes two types of moral relativists--Subjectivists and Emotivists.


1. Subjectivists see individual or collective desires as defining a situation's or object's moral worth. Thus, the subject, not the object itself, determines the value. Subjectivists recognize that social rules, customs, and morality have been wide-ranging and quite varied throughout history among various cultures. As a result, Subjectivism doesn't attempt to issue hard and fast rules for judging the moral worth of things. Instead, it recognizes that what we consider "good" and "right" is not bound by any discernable rule. There is no one trait that makes an act good or right, because so many different kinds of things have been called good and right. In regards to the definition of "good" or "right", a Subjectivist will tend to define it as whatever a particular person or group of people desire. They do not define it merely as "happiness" or "pleasure", for instance, because sometimes we desire to do things that do not produce pleasure, and because we don't consider all pleasurable things good. Furthermore, Subjectivists recognize the validity of consequentialism in that sometimes we refer to consequences as good and bad--but they also recognize that our intentions behind an action, or the means to the end, can also determine an act's moral worth. Again, there is no one rule to determine these things. Hence the relativism of moral Subjectivism. The most well-known of the subjectivists is Nietzsche.


If that didn't sound like your position, then you are probably the other variety of moral Relativist--the Emotivist.
Emotivists are moral Relativists only in a very slanted sense, because they actually deny that words about morality have any meaning at all. An Emotivist would probably accept Hume's argument that it is impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is"--no factual state of affairs can logically entail any sort of moral action. Furthermore, a emotivist's emphasis on scientific (and hence empirical) verification and testing quickly leads to the conclusion that concepts such as "good" and "right" don't really describe any real qualities or relations. Science is never concerned with whether a particular state of affairs is moral or right or good--and an emotivist feels much the same way. Morality is thus neither objective or subjective for the emotivist--it is without any meaning at all, a sort of vague ontological fiction that is merely a symbol for our emotional responses to certain events. Famous emotivists include Ayer and other positivists associated with the Vienna Circle.


*****


As you can see, when your philosophical position is narrowed down there are so many potential categories that an OKCupid test cannot account for them all. But, taken as very broad categories or philosophical styles, you are best characterized as an R-S-R. Your exact philosophical opposite would be an N-A-O.













My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
free online datingfree online dating
You scored higher than 99% on Metaphysics
free online datingfree online dating
You scored higher than 99% on Epistemology
free online datingfree online dating
You scored higher than 99% on Ethics




Link: The Sublime Philosophical Crap Test written by saint_gasoline on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test
Bear Outline

......

I have found out more in the past 24 hours than I wanted to ever know.

I know why omens came across again and again concerning how to lead my small clan here.

I know why we were told again and again, get away from Asatru (it isn't yours, you aren't theirs, etc.)

I know why we were told again and again to avoid following our own roots into Theodism.


I mean absolutely no disrespect to the few theods I hold in high esteem. However, as time has gone on, I've seen more and more dishonorable conduct, breaking of oaths, abuses of oaths, destruction of anything that might possibly serve the tribes of gods I know as the Ese and the Wena.


In the past 24 hours, I have found more and more disturbing information, more completion of the pattern, than I wanted to know.

Where I was merely saddened before at the failure of one man, I am now saddened at the failure of a whole theod, whose past actions are apparently reprehensible.

I have always maintained that tribes, theods, tuaths, whatever language you wish to speak about them, and whichever manner in which you choose to look at them (having ancestry and experience in both, I see a definite similarity), must be done either organically, or very, very slowly, over decades. You cannot speed up the process of merging life-paths, and while you can provide more ample ground through oath, following the form of the commitas, the commitas is not enough in and of itself to form a theod, especially if it is not done very, very carefully.

What I have come to learn of in the past 24 hours, has done nothing but confirm that.

Me and mine will have to remain friends of the theods we find to still be honorable for the time being, and watch this new "old rite" reform.

GFS I've seen, and found it unsatisfactory for some very basic reasons not worth discussing. In short, it isn't the tribal model that is flawed, it is the manner in which it was, and still is in many places, carried out.

Those theods we hold in high regard know of it, and so I see no need to mention. Since leaving where I found no value not so long ago, and then checking in again now and then.

This said, I've found two places I am willing to stick my toes in, one old, one new, and will have to wait and see what comes of it.

In any case, I am somewhat bitter, but in the end, gladdened to see the warding of the Gods in this way...
Bear Outline

If I'm going to use this thing again...

...I might as well go ahead with the most interesting meme I've seen as of late.

Ten Things
Viked from Ermund:

"List 10 true facts about yourself that you don't think people know about you."

• My favorite artists are Manet and Van Gogh.

• When I had two of my wisdom teeth removed, they had to break my jaw, and there is still a piece missing.

• Dragon's Blood is my incense of choice.

• I plan to retire to either far in the Northeast of North America or the Northwest of Great Britain.

• I cannot digest anything apple-based properly (Okay, so my wife is very well aware of this fact, but that is neither here nor there).

• My favorite Shakespeare work is MacBeth. My second favorite is A Mid-summer's Night's Dream.

• I've never used any name other than my given name, which has been in my family for atleast 7 generations.

• I am a descendant of both Anglo-Saxon and Welsh nobles.

• I cannot stand the smell and taste of Bailey's Irish Creme due to an unfortunate night in my early 20's.

• The antler that is bound to the head of my staff was a gift from the lands I lived on at the time.
Bear Outline

It has been a very long time...

I have corresponded with men I considered giants, holy men.

I have learned, relearned, forgotten, changed, accepted, rejected, and finally, disposed of, many things, at the encouragement of men I considered my betters.

I have used their example as my own, even if only in logic and reasoning.

Now, I have seen why I had very good reason for taking my family and myself into the woods, leaving, learning from other portions of what resulted in me, and forming a new, living theodisc geleafa for us, that is ours, not revived from the dead, not reconstructed, but reborn through ourselves, through what could easily be termed a blend of research, lore, learning to think in other languages other than Christianized Modern English, and what admittedly amounts to UPG, a necessity due to human subjectivity.

Recent events on many fronts are saddening. May the Gods watch over all.

Mayhap, other encouraging developments denote a different breeze flowing through Eormensul?

Welga!
Robert Seeker-After-Patterns
  • Current Music
    Science Friday Podcast - Science as Election Issue -- SciFri 2006102011
Bear Outline

It is about time...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/19/senate.english.ap/index.html

You know, in Mexico, there is no question as to the language "officially" spoken there. In Brazil, in China, in most nations of the world, there is absolutely no question as to the language of the nation.

But here in the United States, we had to take forever to finally get around to telling folks who immigrate here that they need to assimilate, and not attempt to change the national language of the United States, or demand that everything be in both languages, so as to not have not knowing the language be to their detriment.

Now, don't get me wrong. I fully support multi-lingualism. I personally know at least enough to ask for basic directions and the like, in 3 languages besides English.

I am working on learning a few dying languages, Gaelic and Cymric, on sheer principle, and for the effort of reading certain documents in the original.

But when I go to Germany, I don't expect that the Germans all speak English, or make everything bilingual for me. I learn German.

And the same goes for Italy, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Brazil. I take the time to learn the language, and the basic cultural mores, before I even go, as a matter of course.

Why should the United States have to fight to remain the bastard child of England, and continue to speak primarily English?

Bravo to the Senate on this one. It is about time.