I was a little surprised to see I rubbed someone so wrong that my character and intelligence was brought into question. Even so, I would have preferred such problems to have been brought up as a personal matter on private email...and not contested before a whole group. However, since that has been done on a public forum I believe I would have the right to validate myself and yet hope to demonstrate some amiable reaction.
>Isn't it interesting we have such smart people on our list who
> know for a fact this is a hoax...or read the newspaper with such
> intense belief?
The purpose of this statement here is to make jest and discredit me for having and stating an opinion. Sobeit. Unfortunately, and admittedly...it seems to have lessened my own opinion...which I wish would never have happened. That's all I'll say about that.
We are supposed to be educators exemplifying that of being educated. This precludes citing "fact" ...as well as make reasonable assumptions. It also necessarily recognizes and utilizes expertise in areas where we lack our own. When we point to events of the Civil War, it is not based upon personal experience. So on and so forth. I have never met Mr. Nostradamus, and if some have met him...I apologize for abridging such first hand knowledge. For those that have not met him however, we are subject to reading and agreeing with or disagreeing with the opinions and studies of "others" or of having accurate copies in hand.
Somehow too, I am being compared by metaphor to the closeminded Aryan facist skinhead nonsense types that would decry all existing evidence of the attrocities against the Jewish people as false, and this simply because I am skeptical of all that is purported to have come from the hand of Nostradamus's own writings. Am I missing something here???? ...
>Sometimes you have to be open-minded and take a leap of faith...which I
> thought most art teachers were attuned to anyway
yes...but not a "blind" leap of faith. There is a saying that says, "if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for everything" and at the same time I've heard some make light by saying...."don't be so open minded that every good thing spills out and every bad thing floods in!"
Being open to new ideas and new experiences is not the same as grabbing onto them and believing them. There are principles and laws to reason, primarily the "Law of Noncontradiction" which states a thing cannot be both true and not true at the same time. For example, God cannot both exist or not exist. Varification is a matter of seeking and using reason and logic... of going about to determine that which is true or not true...and faith yet remains reasonable in so much as it does not violate truth. When a truth is determined, the law of noncontradiction would make any leap contrary. The willingness to make such a leap ought not be automatically assessed as sound judgment indicative of those possessing sure aesthetic openness.
Some might suppose in my argumentation for "reason" that I lean toward scientific naturalism, which basically believes "nature is all there is." I believe there is a transcendent Absolute Being whom is the Uncaused First Cause which is responsible for nature existing with its natural laws and order. Such believing calls upon faith, but is rooted in absolute truth and principles.
Scientific naturalism alone looks to existing rules and principles, but as though they evolved to be what they are. No inherent morality but that which is ascribed relativistically. No transcendent accountability.
Others unseat the idea of "God" thinking themselves free, but the ever pervasive nagging questions of meaning, purpose, and questions of how and why lead to other gods taking seat of their heart's throne. Such lean toward nature religions, myth, neo-paganism, new age, etc; All in all though, our common ground is worldview thinking. A worldview being that particular set of glasses we look at everything through. Worldviews are constructs of foundations that set in order one's response to the political, social, biological, scientific, religious, philosophical, psychological, etc; As such, individuals are much more complex than using descriptive discrediting adjectives and pronouns. Please lets not assume anything about anyone when we are clearly not in a position to know. Such brings doubts in fact to our own credibility when we do. It highlights and becomes a demonstration of our haste to form conclusions.
Now...I will paste a few of the things said in yesterday's newspapers, and it is up to each and every thinking person to have their own conclusion with this. I will hereafter refrain from anything more said about it. Thanks for your indulgence and patience.
Article headline- "Bogus Predictions by Nostrdamus Running Rampant-
Books about Seer Selling Quickly at Amazon.com" Knight Rider Newspapers
"The buzz has piqued so much interest that three books about the seer were among the top five sellers on Amazon.com Friday. Yet people who research such tings say the prohpecies are almost entirely bogus. "
"Still, people have been frightened by the predictions, because they talk about World War III or the destruction of humanity, said Barbara Mikkelson, whose Urban legends Web site investigates such stories."
<snip> Note- one of the propecies was concerning the 11th day of the 9th month, and spoke of two metal birdsÖ.but,
"those passages are no where to be found in Nostradamusí "Centuries," said James Randi, noted skeptic and author of "The Mask of Nostradamus."
<snip> Note- another verse cited the "great thunder and the two brothers torn apart by Chaos"Öand continues with "The third big war will begin when the big city is burning."
"Turns out a Canadian student made that one up in 1990 to show that anyone can write vague verse that fits all sorts of events. "He wrote it purely as an example," said Mikkelson, whose web site about the messages is at www.snopes2.com/inboxer/hoaxes/predict.htm."