--- 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*. So, you have no idea of the mechanics of extrodinary experiences? You just chalk it up to "Hey this is cool, but let's be clear on one thing, this is a sujective experience, and likely has no connection with any physical laws or I'm sure as hell not going to be the one to make this connection" > 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. You've got history on your side for his one. We've had a lot of insane individuals with their insane parallels. How bout the earth as not being the center of the universe. Some real insanity there. > > > Do not the objective and subjective world meet at some point, > > Why should they? Because you'd like them to? I personally don't care if they do, but you stand in oppostion to many quantum pioneers if you suggest they don't. > > > ...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. I see. It's the ol', "the universe in its great mystery allowed for this. Beyond our human understading". A corrollary for "God in his infinite wisdom". > > 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. Okay good to come up with some explanation. Anything would be better than saying it happened on the physical level, which was your first response until you've watered it down. Anything better than indicating an actual manipulation of physical laws.
I'm going to come back to this, because I've run out of time. But I find you explanations pretty lame. But I want to elaborate on this when I have some extra time. .> > 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. >
