--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ispiritkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- new.morning wrote: > > --- "Richard J. Williams" wrote: > > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > I have not encountered even *one* technique > > > > in the realm of self discovery that works > > > > "as advertised" for everyone. Not one. And > > > > I don't ever expect to. Especially if there > > > > is a price tag attached... > > > > > > This would assume that you've tried every > > > technique known to man, which obviously you > > > have not. In fact, from what I've read of from > > > your writings, you've tried only a few. And > > > I don't understand how you think you'd be able > > > to find out if any worked on anyone else at > > > all. > > > > Yes. Its as valid as saying, "I saw two films. They were terrible. > > THEREFORE, all films are terrible." Jeeesh > > That's not how I read Turq's statement at all. He never said > THEREFORE anything. He said he never expected to encounter a > technique that works as advertised for EVERYONE. By golly, even > without testing as many as he's tested, I'd say just on the surface > of it that no technique will have the SAME effect on EVERYONE. I > don't think there is a food or a drug in existence that has the same > effect on EVERYONE.
I said it because a number of people were displaying attachment to systems that they personally believe "work" for everyone. I do not share that belief. > But then one is left with the notion that Turq's statement really > didn't say much except something obvious, like "It doesn't rain > EVERY day in Seattle." No, it was quite specific; it was about techniques and systems. I quite honestly don't believe that they work as advertised. I suspect that the reason that people believe they work is that 1) as Curtis said, there is a kind of codependent relationship going on, in which the seekers *want* to believe in a system, and thus project onto vague descriptions of predictions or results from a technique what they have been told to expect from them, and 2) the techniques or systems sometimes *do* "work" to trigger their own latent abilities. The techniques don't *cause* these latent abilities to appear, in my opinion; they just trick the practitioner into the state of attention from which intuition about the future or someone else's past is possible, or from which the particular siddhi or other supposed benefit happens. In other words, I see systems of any kind as being kinda like Dumbo's feather. The feather didn't "make" Dumbo fly; he could fly all along. The feather was a placebo that tricked Dumbo into doing what he had been able to do all along. > I think there is some validity in testing a few samples and making a > conclusion. In parallel to New Morning's example, I have a > counterexample: "I looked at 8 fashion magazines. They were > unhealthy exposure as a steady diet for the mind. THEREFORE ..." > and here is where New Morning departed from Turq's line, "THEREFORE > I don't expect to see a fashion magazine that is good mindfood." Bad example. Vanity Fair can be considered a fashion magazine, and it prints some of the best mindfood in the publishing industry. > I didn't conclude that all fashion magazines were unhealthy. It is > close to that, but not closed of mind, to say I don't *expect* to > see a healthy fashion mag. No, not at all. I clarified above what I meant. Deal with it however you want.
