User talk:Justallofthem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because of certain personal issues, Justallofthem is editing Wikipedia at a very reduced level for an unspecified period of time.

Contents 1 Refactor request 2 Suggestion 3 Larson AFB Image 4 Curiosity 4.1 What about Scientology 4.1.1 I know I didn't ask, but...

[edit] Refactor request

Please refactor your reply.[1] Durova^Charge! 01:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss this on your page under my thread. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Justallofthem, may I make a suggestion? Right now, it looks like communication has broken down between you and Durova. I don't know the situation (coming off a long wiki-break here), but I don't think there's going to be anything gained from further discussion on talk pages. If you really must bring it forward, may I suggest a user conduct Request For Comment? Otherwise, I suggest that you agree to disagree and leave the situation alone. SirFozzie (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, if Durova will not agree to mediation then User RfC or Arbcom are my alternatives. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally do not think you will get far with it, but I can certainly not stop you from doing it. I'd think you'd be best served just to let it drop, but it's my (*and ONLY mine*) opinion. SirFozzie (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Durova only has to agree to mediation - not either of the other alternitives. But thus far I haven't seen any kind of behaviour that warrants any of the above DR methods. Viridae^Talk 07:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Durova has wikistalked me on behalf of User:Cirt both here and on Wikinews and misrepresented my edits and my history including an arbcom case here in which I was the victim of another obsessive editor (and former associate of Smee/Cirt). Here is a good example in which she misrepresents my good-faith edits as "a harassment campaign", misrepresents the arbcom on CofS (which found in my favor) and brings up old issues to malign me. Here are some comments by uninvolved editors that took the time to review the actual diffs and not just react in a knee-jerk manner to Durova's claims. And that is what Durova elicits with her accusations and misrepresentation, "knee-jerk" reactions.

In no instance, did I find JustaHulk to be harassing anybody as was alleged. In fact, I am concerned that this may look like a concerted effort to silence certain voices. -- SVTCobra 01:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that JustaHulk has been unfairly treated . . . -- Anonymous101 07:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

While I do acknowledge that I am no fan of Cirt and our mutual ill-will goes back to when Cirt was Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), I do not stalk or harass Cirt and if there is any stalking or harassing going on then I am the recipient of it. I do not know if Durova does it intentionally or if she is just careless and given to misjudgment. Durova and I go way back also and I think it is the latter; she seems to be lacking in some judgment. I really do not think that she thinks: "If I misrepresent boldly then some admin will sanction him without bothering to go through the diffs closely." I think she does it from a self-righteous viewpoint and her own version of "good faith". Durova points to a WP:AN thread and I will point to the same thread and specifically Bishonen's comments here which speaks of what happens when respected editors start tossing around "cheaply-bought accusations of disruptiveness":

What has Justanother done, then, that does not dissolve, when you shine a light on it, into matters of abandoning his "DYK mentoring", or being a scientologist (this seems to be the main trouble over at Wikinews, as far as I understand Brian's posts) or having a sharp tongue and a bit of a temper (IMO often sorely tried)? -- Bishonen | talk 19:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I need Durova to see that she is harming me here and I need her to stop. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larson AFB Image

Re: Image:Larson afb gate.jpg. I wasn't the original uploader of the image, however I recall seeing it on a website (not the identical image, a different scan of it however) which said it came from a USAF postcard from the base in the early 1960s. That's why I wrote the caption as such. As far as it being a copyright violation, the image certainly looks like a postcard, however as I don't have an origional, so I can't be 100% sure. It's an illustration more than anything else so whatever it is decided, that's fine with me.. Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Let's see what the image gurus do with it. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Curiosity

Do you mind if I ask you a few questions regarding your faith? On or off-wiki is fine by me. Best, ChaoticReality 00:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You can ask me here. Please be patient as I am spending as little time on the 'net these days as I can manage as I am way busy IRL. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you get bored please feel free to read my page from back when I was a lot wordier. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I will copy the most relevant wordiness below. Perhaps it will answer some of your questions. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about Scientology

Scientology is a philosophy. In its broadest sense as envisioned by L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology would be essentially the same thing as metaphysics, the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of Life, the Universe and Everything. Since it deals with man as a spirit, comprises a community of "like-thinkers", and has shared morals codes and practices, it is what is commonly termed a religion, at least for members of the formal Church of Scientology. Many rational and intelligent people subscribe to the beliefs of Scientology. The core belief being that you are a spiritual being called a thetan that inhabits a body and has and uses a mind. No-one says that Hubbard invented this idea, what Hubbard did was attempt to determine if there were underlying laws to the nature and behavior of spiritual beings, akin to the laws of the physical universe, for example the laws that control bodies in motion. He came up with sets of basic laws that he termed the "Factors" and the "Axioms". Hubbard also attempted to develop techniques based on these laws that would improve the state of the thetan. He termed this entire body of work, Scientology. No-one claims that Hubbard created Scientology in a vacuum, out of whole cloth as it were. He researched many, many previous philosophies and took what he could from them. People should not point at some similarity between Scientology and some earlier philosophy and say "Hubbard copied this". That is like pointing at Einstein and saying "Oh look, he copied Newton".

If one wants to approach Scientology intelligently as an editor of articles describing the philosophy and practice of Scientology (as opposed to articles describing the controversies associated with the Church of Scientology, which require a different knowledge-set), it is important to understand something about metaphysics or religion and science. Science, as commonly described, is a subset of metaphysics. Science, especially natural science (which includes physics and biology), deals with things that can be measured with physical instruments. Things that cannot be measured, love for instance (as distinct from the effects of love on the physical body which can be measured), are beyond the scope of science. Those individuals that understand science best, men like Newton, Einstein and Schrödinger, understand this point and know the limitations of science. If there is an "ultimate reality", that reality likely lies at the intersection of the physical and the spiritual; The Tao of Physics explores that idea and the author found agreement from two more giants of the physical sciences, Heisenberg and Bohr. People that do not have that depth of understanding sometime mistakenly believe that science describes or addresses everything, "observable" or not, in the entire universe of human experience and that if something is not explained by science then it is "wrong". Such people may not know it but they subscribe to a philosophy termed Scientism, a philosophy that I doubt many scientists themselves follow. They perhaps forget that that very concept (i.e. that "thought") cannot be measured or explained by science. Attempts to "measure" a spiritual thing such as a concept amount to nothing more than attempting to measure their influence or effects on the human body. Hubbard, in addition to taking a few stabs at that "ultimate reality" previously mentioned, attempted to bring an understanding to the spiritual universe akin to that brought to physics by physical scientists. That does not make Scientology a "physical science"; it might be termed a "spiritual science" if one were to term it a science at all; it is better termed "an applied religious philosophy" which is what Hubbard termed it. However, it works and it is reproducible. If I apply the principle of the ARC triangle to my relationship with another person, I get the uniform result of improved understanding between us and a more harmonious relationship. The fact that people can "naturally" do this does not invalidate the "law of ARC" no more than the fact that people can "naturally" fall down invalidates the law of gravity. Hubbard's genius was in describing what "laws" underlie human experience and when you look at human experience using Scientology it makes much more sense and you can be more effective in life. You don't need to understand Hubbard's "Axioms" and "Factors" to be effective with Scientology, you can just learn the techniques mechanically. Just like you don't need to understand aerodynamics, metallurgy, and mechanical engineering to be an effective pilot, you just learn the techniques of flying.

It is interesting that the recent lecture by Pope Benedict XVI that started such a stir was not so much about Islam as it was about this very point; what is reason and what is science in relation to religion. The lecture was entitled Faith, Reason and the University; Memories and Reflections and is a "critique of modern reason". The lecture makes interesting reading for those interested in the intersection of science and religion.

In the lecture, the Pope discusses the "modern [i.e. limited - Justanother] concept of reason [...] based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology." and makes the following observation:

"This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned."

He continues, "it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology's claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science", so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective."

The Pope concludes that there is a need for "broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity [i.e. the technological fruits of "modern scientific reason" - Justanother], we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically falsifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons".

While Hubbard may have, at some point, had the intention that Scientology be an attempt to expand the limited definition of reason and science beyond the merely measurable, it has, for better or worse, become something else altogether. Early on in the history of Scientology, Hubbard "gave" it freely to the world and, at that point, Scientology might have been described as a protoscience. Later, it seems, he reconsidered that "gift" and, in one of Scientology's most important Policy Letters, Keeping Scientology Working, he claimed that contributions from others had been of no real value, had in fact been almost uniformily destructive, and that Scientology would not entertain contributions by anyone other than himself. With that stroke, Scientology moved from protoscience to dogma. Hubbard believed that it was more important that the "workable path" that he had developed remain unaltered than that Scientology be developed further by a community. History will perhaps prove him right or wrong in that but that viewpoint does not detract from the value of what he created.

[edit] I know I didn't ask, but...

Hi, Justa* (heh). I know it's been a while since we talked, and I know I'm not the one who asked the question that led you to post this, but there's something in it that I keep coming back to that's absolutely driving me batty, and I have to mention it.

L. Ron Hubbard was very big on understanding the meaning of a word, even going so far as to say that students could do worse than having a dictionary on every table (something I heartily agree with). With that in mind, here is the definition of "science" according to our good friends at American Heritage:

1. . The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. . Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. . Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

There are other meanings, of course. But these are the pertinent ones for what we generally regard as the "scientific method."

Above, you speak repeatedly about "limitations" in regard to science and reason. You say "limited definition of reason and science" as if that's a bad thing.

I want the definitions of reason and science to be limited, because anything beyond the scopes of those definitions aren't reason and science. That's not to invalidate things that are beyond their scope; love is a great example, because only the chemical aspects of love can be studied scientifically. All else to do with love is the purview of religion, spirituality, and philosophy. But that doesn't mean we should expand the definition of biochemical science to include those other aspects of love, any more than we should expand the definition of "car" to include the road it's driven on.

Science is, at its core, concerned only with that which can be studied with scientific principles. Spirituality, including Hubbard's spiritual studies, are inherently unscientific, and trying to jam the two together does disservice to both.

And that, I think, is something that Scientology as a whole needs to come to grips with. Scientology isn't science. It isn't even close. Nothing in it can be scientifically validated. Again, that isn't to say Scientology isn't valid, it's just not scientific -- just like passion and poetry. Its methods and beliefs aren't scientifically falsifiable, and that's OK. They don't need to be. Science doesn't need to be expanded to incorporate spirituality, spirituality and science both need to accept that they aren't each other. Let science deal with the mechanics of the universe, and let spirituality deal with the questions of why.

OK, I'll get off my soapbox now. :) --GoodDamon 18:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You are limiting "reason" to science. You are lumping them together as "reason and science" as if they were the same thing or of the same magnitude. I think you are misreading me if you think that I say "reason" should be limited. Reason is whatever man can envision, whether "scientific" or not. That is what the Pope is talking about also, reread what he is saying there. We reduce man when we consider that that which is not "scientific" is not "reason". Science is a useful tool, it is not the be all and end all of reason. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I never call Scientology a "science". Again, reread what I wrote. I say it had a shot at being a protoscience but became dogma instead. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and lastly, I am pretty sure that we agree on the definition of "science" if not on the definition of "reason". I do not consider a discussion of art or love (or thetans) to be beyond the realms of reason though such a conversation would almost certainly not be about science (though it could certainly be about Scientology). --Justallofthem (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)