Almost noon. Today is your father-in-law’s birthday, Dr. Grandville Harry Sharp “Scotch” Hammond was born in Glasgow, Scotland in 1917, a year before his wife and your mother and father. Here is what you have in your ‘Reunion’ genealogical software:
**
‘Scotch’ grew up in New Philadelphia, Ohio and worked his way through Otterbein College. He met his wife at Otterbein. He spent the war in the Pacific Theatre in the Navy Sea Bees [the Navy Sea Bees are similar to the Army Engineers] at island air bases. He taught at Westerville High School and Otterbein as he worked on his Masters and Doctorate at Ohio State. He was a principal at Plain City Schools and eventually became superintendent at Alliance City Schools in Ohio. From there he worked for the Agency of International Development (AID) with the State Department in Washington. He was a professional (rather than a political) diplomat in the Upper Education Division of State in Korea, Vietnam, India and Thailand. When he retired he played a little golf and gave well-received lectures at Sun City Center, Florida focusing on ‘the World Future Society social and economic issues’ and on the workings of the Agency for International Development programs. Dad died 25 December 1993. (Reunion 9 software)
**
It is not right not to include my favorite mother-in-law in this. Dorothy Jean Cook Hammond was born 10 October 1918 in Westerville and died 13 January 1994 at Sun City Center. She had been a Latin schoolteacher in the States and Overseas.
**
Mom was a gracious and fun loving hostess as well as a wonderful cook! She was the very kind and organized wife to her husband and a fantastic mother to their four girls, Carol, Mary Lou, Gayle and Linda. She and Scotch loved their usual many social events and affairs as well as square dancing in their retired years, The family gathering at Christmas always seemed to be Mom’s most special time of the year. Whether cooking for two or for over fifty, Jean’s roast beef and potatoes and many other main and side dishes and creative desserts were out of this world in presentation and taste! (Reunion 9 software)
**
I miss them both. Dad had many stories about his work. One of the best was when he and others were in a meeting with Bobby Kennedy when John was assassinated. Later, when the film JFK came out (1991) Dad said that it was very clear to him that no one in that room (of several very high officials) and later through personal witnessing of officials in the Department of State that he could ever believe there had been a government cover up as hypothesized in the Oliver Stone film.
You had a nap and Linda’s warm homemade peach pie from the peaches Carol brought down from Georgia. A scoop of vanilla ice cream topped the dessert.
1823 hours. I am still interested in how the soul shares what it ‘knows/understands’ with its ‘current’ heartanmind.
2025 hours. Reincarnation according to the Skeptic’s Dictionary:
** **
From a philosophical point of view, reincarnation poses some interesting problems. What is it that is reincarnated? Presumably, it is the soul that is reincarnated, but what is the soul? A disembodied consciousness?
Reincarnation does seem to offer an explanation for some strange phenomena such as the ability of some people to regress to a past life under hypnosis. Also, we might explain child prodigies by claiming that unlike most cases of reincarnation where the soul has to more or less start from scratch the child prodigy somehow gets a soul with great carryover from a previous life, giving it a decided advantage over the rest of us. Reincarnation could explain why bad things happen to good people and why good things happen to bad people: they are being rewarded or punished for actions in past lives (karma). One could explain déjà vu experiences by claiming that they are memories of past lives. Dreams could be interpreted as a kind of soul travel and soul memory. However, past life regression and déjà vu experiences are best explained as the recalling of events from this life, not some past life. Dreams and child prodigies are best explained in terms of brain structures and genetically inheritable traits and processes. And since bad things also happen to bad people and good things also happen to good people, the most reasonable belief is that there is no design to the distribution of good and bad happening to people.
Stories, especially stories from children, that claim knowledge of a past life, abound. One collector of such stories was the psychiatrist Ian Stevenson, who made a weak case that the stories offered scientific evidence for reincarnation.
Finally, since there is no way to tell the difference between a baby with a soul that will go to heaven or hell, a baby with a soul that has been around before in other bodies, and a baby with no soul at all, it follows that the idea of a soul adds nothing to our concept of a human being. Applying Occam’s razor, both the idea of reincarnation and the idea of an immortal soul that will go to heaven or hell are equally unnecessary.
Selected and edited from the Skeptics Online Dictionary
** **
While I am at it here is what the Skeptics Dictionary say about the soul.
A soul or spirit is a non-physical entity capable of perception and self-awareness. Souls are often believed to be immortal.
If ever there were an entity invented for human wish-fulfillment, the soul is that entity. As Thomas Hobbes pointed out, the concept of a non-substantial substance is a contradiction. It is not possible to imagine a non-physical entity having life and perception. Even believers in souls always imagine them as being like human shaped clouds or fogs. It is a delusion to believe that the concept of soul is conceivable. Yet, billions of people have believed in a non-spatial perceiver, which can travel through space and perceive and interpret vibrations and waves in the air without any sense organs.
Work done by philosophers and psychologists based on the assumption of a non-physical entity, which somehow inhabits and interacts with the human body, has not furthered human understanding of the working of the mind. Instead, it has furthered superstition and ignorance while hindering the development of any real and useful knowledge about the human mind. More promising is the work of those who see consciousness in terms of brain functioning and who try to treat 'mental' illness as primarily a physical problem. Two vast industries have been made both possible and lucrative by this belief in a non-entity in need of treatment from experts in non-entities: religion and psychology. A third industry, philosophy, also flourishes in great part due to the concept of soul: a good many philosophers write books and articles based on the assumption of the existence of spirits, while a good many others make a living writing refutations and criticisms of those books and articles. It seems that the skeptic and the true believer need each other!
From the Skeptic’s Online Dictionary
** **
You do not consider the above blasphemous? – Amorella
No. Opinions are what they are. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Questions exist. However, as souls and seemingly reincarnation are a part of the metaphysics; what does the dictionary say about metaphysics? (As I read over this I think I have added this in my notes at an earlier date.)
** **
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy consisting of ontology and cosmology. In the 'weak' sense, metaphysics is used loosely to refer to New Age and non-empirical notions such as 'energy' (chi, prana) being balanced, harmonized, tuned, aligned, unblocked, etc. Although 'metaphysics' in the weak sense is the most common in the Skeptic's Dictionary, here we are concerned with 'metaphysics' in the strong sense.
The term 'metaphysics' is often used to entail ideas and theories as to what kinds of beings are real, the nature of those beings and of the concepts and language used to think and speak or write about those beings. For example, a theory of mind would be a metaphysical theory concerned with mental phenomena and related concepts such as perception, idea, consciousness, memory, intention, motive, reasoning, etc.
However, typically, 'metaphysics' refers to broad theories of reality, such as materialism and dualism, and to broad issues regarding the nature of reality.
Why is there something rather than nothing? Is there free will or is every action determined by causes? Was the universe created or has it always existed? Are there spiritual beings? Is there life after death? What is the nature of the universe, of substance, causality, etc.? These are all metaphysical questions.
Most philosophers would agree that metaphysical claims are not scientific and that contradictory metaphysical positions cannot be tested empirically to determine which is false. For example, materialism and dualism are contradictory but both theories are coherent and consistent with experience, and there is no empirical event that could falsify either theory.
Modern philosophy is often said to begin with Descartes, when the focus of philosophy turned to epistemological questions, i.e., questions regarding the origins, nature, and limits of knowledge. Metaphysical speculation about kinds of realities, which at one time dominated Western philosophy, has gradually given way to careful analyses of what can reasonably be posited about reality given what we know about how we come to experience reality and how we come to generate ideas about reality.
Philosophers give various reasons for preferring one metaphysical belief to another. One thinks one's own theory is more coherent than a rival theory, or that one's own belief has more explanatory power or requires fewer assumptions. Some argue that their metaphysical beliefs fit better with what is known from other disciplines such as science, history, or psychology. Some criticize rival theories for being too farfetched: possible but implausible.
Some defend their metaphysical beliefs by appealing to the consequences of belief, e.g., it gives hope for an afterlife or meaning to existence. Others maintain that such considerations are irrelevant to the truth of the claims, and indicate the belief is based more on desire than good logical reasons.
Since coherent metaphysical beliefs cannot be refuted it is sometimes maintained that philosophers adhere to their metaphysical theories more out of personal disposition and temperament than evidence and proof.
Some consider metaphysics to represent what is highest in human nature, the drive to know and understand the nature of the universe in which we find ourselves while we move towards our inevitable end. Others consider metaphysics, specifically speculative metaphysics about non-empirical and transcendent realities, to be, more or less, bunk. Perhaps Kant was correct when he said that although we can never hope to answer our metaphysical questions, we can't help asking them anyway.
From the Skeptic’s Online Dictionary
** **
You wish me to respond to the Skeptic’s Dictionary? – Amorella
I don’t feel I should ask you to do anything, as I am not qualified to ask. It does not feel right not to include the skeptic’s perspective though. Skepticism is built in to the human psyche. This is a part of the humor in our existence; even if we know who we are, we can continue to question our own self-definitions. Well, that’s my opinion.
