> Which you do by trial and error, testing this with one audience, > testing that with another. And voila, after enough such experiments, > you are able to verify an emerging theory as to what various groups > dig, and THEN based on this theory, you are able to fairly accurately > predict what style, banter, and sets will get various types of > audiences rocking. And if you get lucky, the journal of Blues Science > will publish your paper -- and you can get a cushy job teaching at > Georgetown U -- while still playing. Only now you can focus and hone > your research as to what sets, songs and styles get your female > students all worked up. A new theory, a new set of predictions -- LOTS> more field work ...
No, this is how Boy Band managers work. My job is to play the music that rocks my world and find the people who agree. If you try to play for the audience reaction as your center you become a lounge act. "Hey its really great to beeeee heeerrreeeee!" That doesn't give an artist the right to be a total dick and ignore the audience reaction, but when they want me to play some classic rock cuz they don't understand my musical focus, they get Son House's Death Letter Blues and I am either able to convert them on the spot, or not! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional > > > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. > > > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In > > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to > > invoke the name "science" at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to > > sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the > > religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, > > wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold > > standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and > > the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for > > spiritual practices. > > > > I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science." > > It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That > > means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a > > high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues > > science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are > > "wrong." I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our > > preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. > > Which you do by trial and error, testing this with one audience, > testing that with another. And voila, after enough such experiments, > you are able to verify an emerging theory as to what various groups > dig, and THEN based on this theory, you are able to fairly accurately > predict what style, banter, and sets will get various types of > audiences rocking. And if you get lucky, the journal of Blues Science > will publish your paper -- and you can get a cushy job teaching at > Georgetown U -- while still playing. Only now you can focus and hone > your research as to what sets, songs and styles get your female > students all worked up. A new theory, a new set of predictions -- LOTS > more field work ... > > > > > > > > > I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual > > practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than > > a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are > > fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with > > claims of "science." > > > > Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no "science of > > being", but there is an "art of living." And expressing the art of > > living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3 > > out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge > > alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells > > metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we > > feel something we personally value. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 2008, at 8:12 AM, cardemaister wrote: > > > > > > > According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or > > > > preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa > [shrad-dhaa]: > > > > "heart-putting" = faith). > > > > > > > > > The key words here being "preceded by", as in "before" or "prior > to". > > > No gnostic based spirituality ultimately rests on faith, instead it > > > rests on gnosis: direct knowing, jnana. However adherents of faith > and > > > deception-based orgs like the TMO are often conditioned to believe > > > gnosis or samadhi occurs at the gaps in thought, but that is rarely > > > the case. Bait and switch is common in such McMeditation orgs. Just > > > because you were burnt by such a group does not mean > direct-knowing is > > > not possible, nor does it mean these are items of faith. It merely > > > means you've been duped. > > > > > > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional > > > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. > > > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think. > > > > > > Those who haven't experienced samadhi will have to take this "on > > > faith" but if they follow a workable procedure (a technique or > method) > > > they too can abandon the crutch of faith. In terms of yoga teachers, > > > those who can lead to jnana are the real teachers. Those who don't, > > > are very likely fakes, esp. if they are asking for money. > > > > > >
