--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> 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, > > The term "subtler" requires definition. In what sense? The Maharishi sense > was just an assertion whose proposed evidence was that the mantra changes in > different ways during meditation. We were taught to believe that the > subjective experience of meditation was "subtler" using the proof by analogy > of the bubble diagram.
What!? WHAT??!! Are you suggesting the bubbles are actually not getting smaller??!! But if you meditate without those presuppositions you might not experience it as "subtler", I don't. For me I wouldn't use that to explain what I experience in meditation. > > <or quantum level of awareness?> > > This is a technical term for a non-sensory level of life. It may sound > analogous to sensory experiences but why would you use it? It's use in > science is highly specific. Slapping it on our sensory experience without > the context of its true meaning seems to me to be a misuse of technical terms > at best and misleading at worst. Using the language of a non sensory world > to sensory ones is a good way to conflate terms that shouldn't be together. Sex and Love? Using subatomic terms in the world of our senses leads us to the false conclusion that our intuitions could work with these terms. They do not. We are really bad at thinking about things outside our range of sensory experiences. And when physicists to it, they use math as the appropriate language. Like the pole I just ran into. I could not see the damn thing. I did not think about it. Wham! The Big O meets the Big S. > > < If a true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of human kind, > > I don't know why we would assume this since humans have made up so many > claims that have not panned out. > > < would this not be an example of utilizing quantum mechanical laws?> > > Not necessarily. A person might float from something at a completely > different level of nature. Quantum mechanics might have some insight into > how it is accomplished but that wont be from shoving the ideas together in > poetic usage, it would be from the physicists themselves in their own > language and with the same reasonable restraints of science. Maybe they just sucked a lot of helium. But its a well known fact that when we marched on the Pentagon in 1967, it levitated because of LOVE. LOVE from its infinite Subjective state bubbled and overwhelmed the physical Objective. Big S, five, Big O, zero. > > < Are not the effects similiar in terms of remarkable phenomena being > displayed? > > > Here again we are comparing sensory with non sensory phenomenon and > mistakenly thinking we have an intuition about what the words mean. We don't > know what is similar about how atoms behave on a subatomic level because they > are not in our everyday sensory experience. And it is that experience that > guides our intuitions and feelings about things. > > <Do not the objective and subjective world meet at some point, and if they > do, where might that point be?> > > This is the subject of neuro-science. So far they have their hands full with > sorting out the chemical and electrical brains connections. I don't believe > we are close to sorting out the subatomic levels and how they relate. > > < 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? > > It depends on your goal. If you are indulging in the use of the terms as > poetry and want to induce a feeling, go ahead and have a blast. If you are > trying to actually understand quantum mechanics itself before comparing them > you need specific training or you might as well be calling human > consciousness a fuel injected carburetor. Actually that comparison would be > more legit because we have the possibility of direct experience with that > unlike subatomic levels. > > Of course if the goal is to make it sound as if you understand human > consciousness with the same precision of the hard sciences by comparing them > as Maharishi did, you would be indulging in flim-flamery. Presenting a field > of knowledge which was really traditional assertions as if they were > connected to the knowledge gained in science is slippery at best. They are > not connected either in methods or criteria for confidence in the knowledge. > > > > 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. > > I've seen many people levitate through hidden mechanical means. Especially > in a setting where people where not expecting a magic show this would be my > first assumption. Now if he did it at a magic convention and blew everyone's > mind I would be more impressed because they have the training to spot the > possible techniques. But in any case we have no evidence of the mechanism at > all so why go to a field that we really don't understand and use it outside > its range of description, the subatomic world? We jump to those terms > because we got used to hearing guys like Maharishi use them casually as if he > understood them. > > > > I have had experiences that make sense to me when I describe them as > > operating at a quantum mechanical level of awareness. > > I don't know your physics background so I don't know how much you understand > these terms. Not a lot of people really do understand it the way it is > intended because it takes specialized training. Part of that training is to > separate our intuitions about reality from the level being discussed because > this level is often counter intuitive. Physicists have told me that this is > one of the hardest things to do in physics study, to get beyond our natural > misapplication of our sensory intuition to this level. Using our natural > intuition at this level is very misleading. > > The phrase, "a quantum mechanical level of awareness" is a fanciful one that > combines the terms from completely different disciplines inappropriately. We > got used to doing it in the movement but it is an imprecise mental habit IMO. > Why not just say that you were operating at the heart valve level of > awareness. or the chemical bonding and sealant level of awareness, or the > semitone pentatonic scale level...you get the picture. > > One of my great interests is rooting out my cognitive flaws. One of the > biggest ones I have found is the human tendency to believe that we understand > terms that refer to non-sensory areas of science in an intuitive way. We are > not only bad at intuiting statistics but we actually have a predisposition to > believe that we are actually good at it. We are fanciful creatures whose > greatest asset, imagination, can be one of our biggest downfalls if our goal > is to understand the world. We form beliefs based on poor evidence and then > actively seek out only experiences that would support our beliefs and shield > ourselves from counter-evidence, reinterpreting the feedback in a way that > keeps it from challenging our assumptions. > > And I am just as prone to this as anyone. I am trying to adjust the way I > think to include my own "I am probably full of shit" loop in all my thinking. > I believe that using technical science terms about a level of life I don't > experience directly feeds into the exact mental weakness I am trying to > minimize. I think that when people use these terms in support of spiritual > beliefs they don't actually lend any credibility to the assertions, they > diminish it. > > For me, we more effectively communicate these concepts through the arts if we > want others to feel what we feel. I would much rather read Rumi or Kabir > than listen to Hagelin if I want to appreciate someone's subtle appreciation > of life's mystery and the shear beauty of being alive. > > > > > I'd love to get some feedback. > > > You open mind is a virtue brother, glad you are here. > > > > > >
