Then use single-syllable words when you answer. Will/can you answer the question or not?
I’m also afraid that we’re not in a classroom, and nobody is marking and grading us according to our virtuosity in the use of English. Perhaps you fantasize that you are a teacher of some kind, demanding that I demonstrate my worth for you. Perhaps you are lost outside of academia and seek some familiar routine and the reassurance of your place in an intellectual pecking order.
Maybe something like this https://youtu.be/b2OLu8zi7cI?t=1m45
I just checked, and the only meaning of woo in a real dictionary is a verb meaning “to romance”.
Of course, one of the marks of a cult is specialized jargon.
Nothing childish about wondering if you know the definition of a word when you misuse it as you have.
Nevermind eh ? Folk are alright round here, just a bit starchy round the collar.
Very sloppy misdirection, there. I didn’t ask if you knew the definition of “woo”. I asked if you knew the definition of “cult”. Fail.
My realism is that there are enough people in the world that you can, with a bit of effort, find people who believe anything, will do anything, and/or will say anything. I didn’t say that the government (any government) were employing such people. Personally I think your theory about the government employing new agers is crackers, a view currently bolstered by the complete lack of evidence for it.
There are plenty of religious groups willing to go fuck with the minds of people in other countries all on their own, much like they’re fucking with the minds of people in their own countries. No reason to suspect the government in it.
As what I see the opinions of other posters so far (and in the pit), you are wrong indeed.
Deal with the questions from Czarcasm and others.
Well, somewhat ironically, to the (not very great) extent that there’s a meaningful position articulated in the article, it actually goes straight back to Pauli (together with C.G. Jung), who indeed proposed that mind and matter might stand to one another in a relationship very much like the complementarity of quantum mechanics (what would nowadays be considered a type of dual-aspect monism).
Since you’ve disparaged the term often enough in this thread, and it pertains directly to the subject at hand, could you at least give us your definition of “science”?
Pics plz.
“Woo” is a recent shortening of the word “woo woo,” which has meant “related to irrational superstition” for at least the past fifty years:
Nope, I finished with English exams years ago.
I’ve just described and linked government psy-ops based on promoting religion. You must be assuming that stopped sometime. When did it stop ?
You showed us something that supposedly happened in 1958. Why should we believe you when you say that scientists all over the world are continuing this more than half a century later? It’s your claim-you back it up.
If you are going to disparage science, it would be nice if you didn’t steal terms from it to mislabel whatever it is you are promoting. Of course, it would be nice if you could show us that you understood what the word “science” means in the first place.
Supposedly ? It’s there sitting in your government archives, not in the akashic records.
Man, if you have no actual interest in how the world works, nobody can help you, I’m not spoon feeding you. Is this deliberate, or even feigned, ignorance, I wonder.
Can you back up your claim that scientists all over the world are continuing to do this to this day, or not?
Is there any point in saying anything to you if you think a link to a respectable history book covering government religious psy-op programs only “supposedly” shows it’s existence.
I’ll maybe come back to you after I’ve watched a documentary on the CIA and Tibetan resistance. You don’t suppose they promoted buddhist supernatural woo at all, do you ? Nah, let’s not make such suppositions.
Can you back up the specific claim you made about that program being continued by scientists all over the world, or not? Quit stalling.