Lurk, your question was a good one, and one that I will follow up on because it still resonates with me after pressing the Send key once. :-)
In college I was a combination Sociology and English major. One of the reasons I never went on to graduate work in either field was my innate distrust of one of the (IMO) inherent problems with academia -- having to pretend that one's opinion is fact. In my English papers, I insisted on prefacing each of them with the following: CAVEAT EMPTOR: This paper is speculation. It may have nothing whatsoever to do with what the author of the work I am speculating about "meant" or intended when writing that work. It is my projection *onto* that work, and thus reflects only what I see in it, not necessarily what the author intended or saw in it. I felt at the time, and feel today, that such a caveat was necessary and more honest. Suffice it to say that my professors did not agree with me, and openly marked my papers down one grade every time I included that caveat on one of my papers. I got lots of "B" papers, papers that my professors openly admitted would have been "A" papers had I not chosen to rock their world by telling it like it is. I contend that the same sort of caveat emptor should precede any speculation about the nature of conscious- ness or spiritual phenomena that are out of the ordinary. It's FINE in my opinion to speculate, and to draw com- parisons between one thing and another; Joseph Campbell made a career of it. But in person (I met him several times, and heard him say it) Campbell admitted that all of the "connections" he made between things were PLAY. They were speculation, and speculation ONLY. He did *not* call them fact. What I bristle at is the number of people in the TMO and in the Newage (rhymes with sewage) communities who pretend that *their* speculations are fact. If they (or you) prefaced their speculations with a caveat emptor similar to mine, no problemo. But they don't. They pretend that their interpretation or explanation is "true," or worse, "Truth." I think that's 1) delusional, 2) full of hubris and a total lack of humility, and 3) inherently dishonest. My approach to the spiritual path and to the experiences that path has led me to is as a "mysterian." I do not seek to "explain" or "understand" the mysteries; I am content to merely experience them. While I understand that some derive a sense of fun or play from trying to convince themselves that they "understand" or can "explain" such mysteries, I regard such claims as delusional, ego-bound, and dishonest if not preceded by a caveat emptor such as mine. So shoot me. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <steve.sundur@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > I specifically asked her what she and her > > > fellow scientists thought of the New Age attempt to > > > co-opt her field, and was greeted by a level of disdain > > > and scorn I have rarely encountered before. > > > > Are you saying that you have not had experiences that would > > be best described as operating at a subtler, or quantum level > > of awareness? > > I am *absolutely* saying that. I have had any > number of profound experiences, but I describe > them *as they were*, not in terms of some made-up > association with a little-understood but often- > ripped-off branch of science. > > If thought stops but awareness does not, that is > "best described" as "thought stopping without > awareness stopping," NOT by "I merged with the > quantum field of all possibilities" or some other > such guff. I am surprised you would even suggest > such a thing. > > Jargon is jargon, whether it's traditional spiri- > tual jargon derived from Sanskrit or other lang- > uages or modern jargon ripped off from science. > It's very purpose is to *obfuscate* direct exper- > ience, not "explain" it. I prefer real words, used > to describe real experiences. > > > If a true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of > > human kind, would this not be an example of utilizing quantum > > mechanical laws? > > Absolutely NOT. It would be an example of *something*. > Something not completely understood, or not under- > stood at all. Dressing it up in language ripped off > from science does not make it one whit more under- > standable, it just puts a pretty name on the mystery. > > > Are not the effects similiar in terms of remarkable phenomena > > being displayed? > > So fucking what? Many of my experiences are more similar > in their effects and in their subjective experience to > the Harry Potter books than to quantum physics. Should I > then refer to them using terminology from the Harry Potter > books. That *IS* the case you seem to be making. > > "Similarity" is bogus. One can draw parallels between > anything and anything; that does not mean that those > parallels exist. Those who attempt to declare that such > parallels exist are more often call insane than wise. > > > Do not the objective and subjective world meet at some point, > > Why should they? Because you'd like them to? > > > ...and if they do, where might that point be? What is the hang > > up between trying to make a connection between these two, and > > using the terms consciousness and quantum mechannics in doing so? > > Done for FUN, and *knowing* that it's meaningless and > has *no relation* to reality on any level? No harm, no > foul. Done as if the speculation "means" something? Harm. > Foul. It's as meaningless an exercise in my opinion as > making the connection between one's subjective experience > and the Harry Potter books, and less entertaining. > > > And as reluctant as I am to use this example, if Rama levitated, > > (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be > > due to manipulating laws at a quantum level. > > Absolutely not. He just fucking levitated, that's all. > > That's ALL we witnessed. If it was happening on a physical > level, we witnessed a mystery happening on a physical level. > If it happened only on a subtle level, and wouldn't have > been recorded by video cameras or instruments (which is very > possible), it was a mystery happening on a subtle level. End > of story. > > No matter how much I or anyone else dresses up the mystery > with pretty words from either science or Harry Potter, a > mystery it was and a mystery it remains. > > In terms of *marketing* (which is what we are really talking > about), there is a world of difference between dressing such > an experience up in the language of quantum physics vs. > dressing it up in the language of Harry Potter. The former > is a *sales technique*, designed to try to give some "legit- > imacy" to someone's interpretation of what is going on, while > conferring not an ounce of that legitimacy in real life. The > latter -- using Harry Potter language -- would at least be > more honest, because people in the audience would *know* > that you were making it up and that the only thing involved > was an appeal to magic. Co-opting the language of a science > that is irrelevant to phenomena that do not take place at a > quantum level is essentially *dishonest*. And everyone who > does it *knows* that it's dishonest; that's why they get so > uptight when you call them on their ripped-off jargon jive. > > > I have had experiences that make sense to me when I describe > > them as operating at a quantum mechanical level of awareness. > > > > I'd love to get some feedback. > > This was mine. > > I think the issue here is in the language you use in your last > sentence above. You would like your experiences to "make sense." > What leads you to believe that they do, or even should? > > Some people get off on trying to come up with "explanations" > for life's mysteries that seem to "make sense." Cool, I guess, > if that gets them off. Less cool, I think, if they attempt to > claim that their "explanations" are actually true. > > Me, I'm just happy with the baseline mystery. I don't need to > dress it up in the language of quantum mechanics or in the > language of Harry Potter to make it "better" or "understandable" > or pretend that it "made sense." It was a mystery when it > happened, it's a mystery now, and a mystery it will remain, > no matter how long I ponder it. It makes more sense to me to > spend more of my time being open to *more* such mysteries than > sitting around trying to ponder the old ones and come up with > some bogus "explanation" for them. >
