News:

Here as a guest? Welcome! If you found a topic or discussion you like, we hope you'll register. Besides getting privileges to reply and start your own topics, you'll receive access to expanded content and entire boards unavailable to the general public. Sign up now! It's simple and fast.

Main Menu

Signs and Portents

Started by PPI Karl, May 04, 2009, 01:40:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

PPI Karl

I was motivated by a post I saw over at SCP to raise this topic for discussion:  Do you believe in the concept of "signs and portents"--that miraculous events and visions portend future disasters and worldwide changes?  For example, do you think Nostradamus was a visionary?  That Mothman was a prophet?  That the appearance of the Virgin Mary in unorthodox places is a message?

NOTE:  This topic might have a strong religious undercurrent about which people carry strong opinions.  Let's be respectful of one another's religious beliefs, or absence thereof, as we talk about this.   :)
If you want to end your misery, start enjoying it, because there's nothing the universe begrudges more than our enjoyment.

PPI Tim

There is alot things I don't rule out.
I say that these things are possible.
Why and what is the reason a person is picked to experience
Glenn might know.
Sounds interesting...Go on.

SCP_Dave

I do believe that there are signs out there, and profits and so on. I really, honestly do...however, with that said I also feel that 80% of the claims IF NOT MORE are false testimonies. IMO.

PPI Jason

I believe in the possibility of the existence of signs and portents. There are examples in the natural world. The way an earthquake may be a sign of an upcoming volcanic eruption, the way certain types of clouds indicate an impending tornado, and the way that you can tell someone is about to say something really offensive when they preface the comment with, "No offense, but...."

In some ways it's like a type of reverse consequence. But I don't know if I buy into the idea of signs as used by a few religions today. If I assume God is omnipotent, then I have to say that He could use signs to give us a heads up about what's coming down the pike. It seems to me though that signs are ocassionally used by people in a questionable way with questionable motives (like Dave pretty much said). It's hard for me to buy into a sign when someone says something like, "See, all the wars and volcanic eruptions and economic problems are a sign that Christ is about to return and so you should all give me your money so you'll be in good shape when He gets here." If there is a Divine Being, and He chooses to use signs, I'm sure He isn't doing it to get some blow hard rich. No offense  :D
Probably the earliest flyswatters were nothing more than some sort of striking surface attached to the end of a long stick.
-Jack Handey

PPI Tracy


SCP Ellie

#5
I have the same birthday as Nostradamus!!

On a different note...... I think most all that happens in life is strictly coincidence. I believe in energy, and that some people may sense it differently. If that is what being psychic is all about well then right on. I mean that would be a talent like anything else right. Some people sing different from others. Some people write different or better then others and some can feel energy different or better then others. 
Life feeds on Life

PPI Tim

Sounds interesting...Go on.

PPI Tracy

Quote from: PPI Tim on May 05, 2009, 09:33:13 PM
There are no accidents.

Oh yeah?   Try drinking a whole bottle of water and then reading one of Jason hilarious posts. 

PPI Jason

I think what Timmy is getting at is that it must be the divine will that you spit all over your keyboard from time to time. If the Big Guy Upstairs didn't want us to laugh so hard that we occasionally spit our coffee omnidirectionally, He woudn't have invented Scotch Guard. His ways are not our ways.......So say we all.  0:<
Probably the earliest flyswatters were nothing more than some sort of striking surface attached to the end of a long stick.
-Jack Handey

PPI Tim

Yah....What he said
God blessed you with a wonder sense of humor 0:<
Sounds interesting...Go on.

PPI Karl

#10
We're discussing comedy in my Drama Writing course this month, actually.  The weird thing is, it's impossible to talk about comedy without wanting to be funny.  Everyone in the class last week spent 75 minutes joking and laughing as we were discussing it.  (This week, we're studying camp comedy and watching the Yuiko Mishima 1960s classic, The Black Lizard.)

Anyway, the cultural roots of comedy aside, the psychological cause of laughter is actually ambivalence.  It's a "does not compute" moment in our brain;  we're caught between two impulses:  to scream or to sob.  All laughter, in another words, is nervous laughter on some level.  Low comedy is all about the physical humor (i.e., Did that hurt, or not?); high comedy is all about the intellectual humor (i.e., Is that tragic, or not?).  And why is none of this as funny as it should be?  Because there's no ambivalence about it:  you know you're supposed to take my words at face value and that I'm telling you the truth.  If I told you I was writing this post whilst wearing nothing but a thong, now you're not so sure how you're supposed to react to that, so laughter blurts out.  (Okay, let's make sure that's the only thing that blurts out :-\.)

You gotta love this stuff.
If you want to end your misery, start enjoying it, because there's nothing the universe begrudges more than our enjoyment.

PPI Tracy

Taylor and I were working in her room this past weekend.  She was doing her best Darth Vader, "Luke, I am your father".  I said to her, "you are Taylor Vader".  With that, she responds to me, "No Mom, I'm "Ella Vader".  I busted out laughing so hard that I was actually crying.  It was such a simple thing she said but her quick wit just blew me away.  It's so interesting how the simplest of things can be the funniest. 

My daughter, Ella Vader.  Still makes me crack up.  (just as much as the thought of Karl in a thong. - sorry buddy, but that WAS funny).   :D

PPI Jason

Quote from: PPI Karl on May 07, 2009, 12:54:06 PM
We're discussing comedy in my Drama Writing course this month, actually.  The weird thing is, it's impossible to talk about comedy without wanting to be funny.  Everyone in the class last week spent 75 minutes joking and laughing as we were discussing it.  (This week, we're studying camp comedy and watching the Yuiko Mishima 1960s classic, The Black Lizard.)

Anyway, the cultural roots of comedy aside, the psychological cause of laughter is actually ambivalence.  It's a "does not compute" moment in our brain;  we're caught between two impulses:  to scream or to sob.  All laughter, in another words, is nervous laughter on some level.  Low comedy is all about the physical humor (i.e., Did that hurt, or not?); high comedy is all about the intellectual humor (i.e., Is that tragic, or not?).  And why is none of this as funny as it should be?  Because there's no ambivalence about it:  you know you're supposed to take my words at face value and that I'm telling you the truth.  If I told you I was writing this post whilst wearing nothing but a thong, now you're not so sure how you're supposed to react to that, so laughter blurts out.  (Okay, let's make sure that's the only thing that blurts out :-\.)

You gotta love this stuff.

That's a really intersting point, Karl. I never thought of humor as being related to ambivilence. But there has to be something more to it than that. Why is it, then, that some "does not compute" moments don't make us laugh? A guy comes out on a stage wearing a tutu and quoting Shakespeare might be funny if one guy does it and maybe not when another does it. What is it about "delivery" and "timing" that make something not very funny one moment become hilarious the next?

I do agree with the assertaion that laughter is "nervous laughter on some level." It reminds of when a member of Abraham Lincoln's cabinet approached him about his loud laughter. He explained, "I laugh because I must not cry. That is all. That is all."
Probably the earliest flyswatters were nothing more than some sort of striking surface attached to the end of a long stick.
-Jack Handey

SCP Ellie

#13
I think I understand and forgive me if I seem off topic. My opinion of what Karl said is...... if laughter is caused by being nervous the I think I see your point. As for what Jason says. I see his point too. If I saw David in a too too. I would laugh nervously because I could not imagine being in that situation without well....being nervous, so I laugh in order to allow myself to accept it and not be upset or embarrassed with him. While Jason (please excuse me if I'm wrong) may find a large 275 pound man in a too too degrading or morally wrong so he may be upset rather then excited or nervous for him. Either way, you are putting yourself in the comedian's shoes. In fact that could mean that all comedy can only be funny to the person witnessing it. Like... 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. Comedy changes with the times as well. It's affected by the environment like no other emotion if you ask me. Also I honestly feel what someone might find as funny could also be a genetic trait. I realize those are two contradicting points because if what someone might find as funny was genetic then they wouldn't have a choice right? I think that both of these theories play a part in what someone might find as funny. I mean am I way off? Did I miss the point here?
Life feeds on Life

PPI Jason

Ellie,

I don't think you missed the point at all. I think you hit it on the head. The point, to me, seems to be that we have traditionally considered humor as one of those things "in the eye of the beholder." What's funny to one person may or may not be funny to another. It may not be funny at one time and it may be hilarious at another. It seems very individualistic. But Karl is hitting on the idea that we can break humor down to its constituent elements, examine them individually as if they were pieces on a table, and get at a much much deeper understanding to answer the question, "Why do we laugh?"

I just made my comment because I haven't been able to wrap my mind around the idea that humor has its root cause in "ambivalence." I see that sometimes this is the case (like the example I gave of Lincoln who suffered greatly from depression but had an incredible sense of humor. There are many instances where Lincoln used humor to deal with the difficulties he faced on a daily basis. I think this is also an example of that nervous laughter Karl referred to since I'm sure Lincoln spent much of his life in a sort of nervous state of mind).

But I can think of many instances where I don't see any connection to ambivalence. For example, when we get intoxicated sometimes we laugh at EVERYTHING. There doesn't seem to be any ambivalence there, IMO. Also, when we see a comedian bombing on stage. If we laugh it's out of sympathy. We certainly are ambivalent (i.e. we don't know whether to laugh out of sympathy or heckle the guy or groan or simply walk out). Yet laughter isn't the dominant reaction. Far be it from me to disagree with Karl the Amazing (and he is that), and I'm not disagreeing at all. I simply don't understand how the psychological cause of laughter is ambivalence.
Probably the earliest flyswatters were nothing more than some sort of striking surface attached to the end of a long stick.
-Jack Handey

externalink

I believe it is possible. I don't know about "visions" while I'm awake, but I've had many snippets of my dreams come true two or three years later.

I do believe some people have the gift of actually KNOWING. What a curse that would feel like, I think.
"The day which we fear as our last is but the birthday of eternity."

JP

I dont believe in sign's and portent's but rather inate phsycic ability that pops up in certain individual's now and then as we evolve. Which in theory will increase as we evolve, if such a thing exsists. Now if you beleive in a fixed timeline then theoretically Nostradamus could have had "visions" of the future. As far as seeing the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich, no.

Gary

*Sits down, adjusts thong and clicks reply*   ;D

Okay, seriously.  I agree with what externalink said about her dreams.  I too in the last year have had at least ONE dream that actually ended up happening some months later.  It wasn't anything too spectacualr, but it was definately out of my dream.  I just hope my current reoccuring dreams do not turn out true!  Besides that, I've never witnessed anyone "predict" something happeneing, good or bad.

As far as the Virgin Mary appearing on random things... I'm kinda of stuck between opinions.  But I do know that when someone thinks they have seen an image of the Virgin mary, it only sparks more peoples imaginations.  Now, we're seeing Michael Jackson in the clouds, and Elvis.  I'd personally rather talk to a burning bush (or hear about it) then see a stain in a penny that looks like Jesus.  Anyhoo... I like reading everyone elses response to this one.   

I'd like to show you this, on the topic of "seeing things"!  I was looking at a weather website a couple years ago... May 6th of 2006 to be exact.  I have a pretty interesting imagination.. not one I believe and live by, but I too can see things, and the image below is something I found.  I called it Heavenly Hell storm.  If you look at the LEFT red circle, you can make out some sort of Angelic figure, but you have to want to see it.  If you see just clouds, then sorry for wasting your time.  Now check out the red circle on the right.  If you want to see it, you can make out the face of a devil or demon.  Or a troll.  This is strictly fun, and saved for myself.  I do not claim to have seen the devil or an angel.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d126/slugface/odd/GetAttachment.jpg
Gary \m/
An idea, like a ghost, must be spoken to a little before it will explain itself!

PPI Tim

That picture has alot of matrixing in it.
I have seen about five pictures so far
You wait til Karl sees it.
Sounds interesting...Go on.

PPI Tracy

Quote from: SaveYoLife on August 28, 2009, 12:34:55 AM
*Sits down, adjusts thong and clicks reply*   ;D

Okay, seriously.  I agree with what externalink said about her dreams.  I too in the last year have had at least ONE dream that actually ended up happening some months later.  It wasn't anything too spectacualr, but it was definately out of my dream.  I just hope my current reoccuring dreams do not turn out true!  Besides that, I've never witnessed anyone "predict" something happeneing, good or bad.

As far as the Virgin Mary appearing on random things... I'm kinda of stuck between opinions.  But I do know that when someone thinks they have seen an image of the Virgin mary, it only sparks more peoples imaginations.  Now, we're seeing Michael Jackson in the clouds, and Elvis.  I'd personally rather talk to a burning bush (or hear about it) then see a stain in a penny that looks like Jesus.  Anyhoo... I like reading everyone elses response to this one.   

I'd like to show you this, on the topic of "seeing things"!  I was looking at a weather website a couple years ago... May 6th of 2006 to be exact.  I have a pretty interesting imagination.. not one I believe and live by, but I too can see things, and the image below is something I found.  I called it Heavenly Hell storm.  If you look at the LEFT red circle, you can make out some sort of Angelic figure, but you have to want to see it.  If you see just clouds, then sorry for wasting your time.  Now check out the red circle on the right.  If you want to see it, you can make out the face of a devil or demon.  Or a troll.  This is strictly fun, and saved for myself.  I do not claim to have seen the devil or an angel.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d126/slugface/odd/GetAttachment.jpg

I also see Ronald McDonald, Sponge Bob, Gene Simmons, the Twitter bird and Studio 54.  Don't even try and tell me it's matrixing.  You people always say stuff like that.  Jeez! 

Gary

You see Sponge Bob also?  That was actually the first thing I spotted, but I know not everyone gets as excited about that as I do!!! 
Gary \m/
An idea, like a ghost, must be spoken to a little before it will explain itself!

PPI Jason

I like the way the angel is hanging out in Hawaii and the fact that the devil is coming from Mexico. I think that this map is trying to say that Mexico's liberal drug laws are seeking to attack the United States who, of course, represent pure and saintly values. Spongebob represents how ridiculous the whole situation is. Tracy, I think you're confusing Gene Simmons with the devil, common mistake. Ronald McDonald represents how both fun, excessive make-up, and high caloric inexpensive meals will help the American angel defeat the evil Mexican cloud-drug devil. And Studio 54? Please Tracy, you just made that up  :P
Probably the earliest flyswatters were nothing more than some sort of striking surface attached to the end of a long stick.
-Jack Handey

PPI Tracy

Quote from: PPI Jason on August 28, 2009, 06:48:25 PM
I like the way the angel is hanging out in Hawaii and the fact that the devil is coming from Mexico. I think that this map is trying to say that Mexico's liberal drug laws are seeking to attack the United States who, of course, represent pure and saintly values. Spongebob represents how ridiculous the whole situation is. Tracy, I think you're confusing Gene Simmons with the devil, common mistake. Ronald McDonald represents how both fun, excessive make-up, and high caloric inexpensive meals will help the American angel defeat the evil Mexican cloud-drug devil. And Studio 54? Please Tracy, you just made that up  :P

Okay, FINE!  So I DID make up seeing Studio 54.  Big deal.

but I DO see Donna Summer......