--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <fintlewoodle...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > As far as JH is concerned it is happening. > > > > But not long enough to be measured by any device > > that tells you whether gravity is operating or not. > > The only sign of something happening is the burst > > of brain-wave "coherence" that happens the instant > > before liftoff. > > According to JHs Pphysics of flying lecture the point > of lift off *is* gravity being re-ordered.
But how would you measure whether there was an instant of gravity being reordered? <snip> > > Yeah, well... We did have one account way back on > > alt.m.t from TM teacher Susan Seifert of actually > > hovering, once. Very interesting description of > > what it felt like. I've never been able to find it > > again in the alt.m.t archives. > > I'll believe it when I see it and probably be sceptical > then. In fact you'd have to film it and have every > lab on earth check it for fraud before I'd consider > it wasn't faked. Well, sure, that's a given. All we know from her description is what she says about an experience she had. But from what I know of her, she isn't the faking type; regardless of what actually physically took place, I'm sure she did have the experience she described. It's just that what she described isn't what I would have expected a delusion of hovering to feel like. That's why I found it so interesting. > As for experiencing it, I have done, totally effortless > leaping about. One of the nicest experiences I ever had, > like drifting through clouds of the sweetest heaven... > But more easily explained as the awareness part of the > mind being totally not focussed on what the body was doing, > someone more credulous may attribute it to something rather > more mystical don't you think? To me, there's something quite odd about the mental repetition of a near-nonsense phrase generating that kind of experience, even if it's explained as you suggest. <snip> > > Whole philosophical issue here of the reality status > > of subjective experience, the extent to which it's an > > "illusion." We might well be able at some point to > > map the brain's rewiring down to the last synapse > > without getting anywhere near the answer to that one. > > We are very close to it already without mapping the > last synapse. We know how much brain activity is needed > to trigger consciousness, where things are stored in the > brain and even where consciousness arises. Only a matter > of time before it's sussed completeley, I'm very dubious that anything we can map or measure scientifically will tell us whether all subjective experience is an illusion. (Just for one thing, it's other brains doing the interpreting of the data.) <snip> > > Same issue with psychedelics. I'm editing a book > > recounting the author's extensive personal > > experimentation with LSD where this comes up in > > connection with experiences that are so fantastic > > it seems highly unlikely, in an Occam's razor sense, > > that they could have originated with anything > > stored within the physical brain. > > Been there, a wild ride, I travelled in time, met god, > became god, explored all past lives, and swam ina sea > of infinity more times than I could count. And where is all that stored in your brain? Where did the "data" of the experiences come from? Love to hear what you think of the book when it comes out; I'll let you know when it does if you're interested. Guy's very analytical about all this stuff, did a lot of studying up on various theories of what goes on with psychedelics (which appear to be undergoing a revival, BTW). Took around 50 trips over a period of years, documented them at the time in a journal in some detail. Not anything I want to try, but gee, it's fascinating. Got bored > of it in the end. I think it's the same sort of thing > as TM but the mind is being forced to do it rather than > by it settling down which makes it more intense but the > loss of spatial dimension and the inability to keep track > of time are very similar. Also quite a bit of correspondence to the TM model of development of consciousness, but very haphazard, confusing, often frightening and unpleasant, and, as you go on to say, not lasting. > It's the way we usually create the illusion within > ourselves of there being a three dimensional world > that gets changed, the contents are removed or altered > by the unconscious dreamscape taking over. No idea what you mean here--could you elaborate? I think the > Freudian idea of man subconsciously thinking himself > superior or godlike in order to stay motivated is where > all this spiritual stuff comes from. Some sort of drug > or spiritual practise comes along and it cracks us open > inside. It's all in the mind and the mind is in our heads. Or you could postulate that thinking oneself "superior or godlike" comes from unconscious knowledge that one *is* superior or godlike, knowledge that's usually blocked from conscious awareness by the brain as "reducing valve." (The knowledge would be not that "I" am superior or godlike, but that "I," "thou," and "all this" is That.) > Stop taking the tablets or saying your mantra and it all > wears off. Sad but true. Psychedelics can bring about permanent changes in outlook, if not one's consciousness per se. And there are quite a few folks whose spiritual practice did something to their consciousness that remains in effect whether they continue that practice or not. Plus which, there's another buncha folks who report major, permanent changes to their consciousness without ever having taken drugs or engaged in a spiritual practice. > > I'm pretty well convinced that the brain mediates > > consciousness rather than creating it, that the > > brain is a sort of "reducing valve," as Huxley put > > it, for something infinitely (you should pardon > > the term) vast. In this sense, "expansion of > > consciousness" is a matter of getting the brain's > > reducing function out of the way, neutralizing it, > > bypassing it, evading it, shutting it down. > > I instinctively agree with you but intuition is > absolutely the worst thing to rely on in matters > of the mind because it's our brains that control > it Circular reasoning here. You're assuming the truth of your conclusion. If it *isn't* our brains that control our intuition, the brain is the *last* thing we can rely on. and the main motivating factor in the subconscious > is the belief that we are going to live forever and > that our lives are hugely significant in some way. > We wouldn't bother getting out of bed if we thought > any different surely? Perfectly normal paranoia. Existentialists seem to have solved that one pretty neatly by finding the act of getting out of bed in the absence of any reason to do so to be significant in and of itself. (I've often wondered if the real hardcore existentialists weren't enlightened without realizing it. If you squint your eyes a little, the experiential perspective they describe can be seen as isomorphic with descriptions of enlightenment.)
