--- 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.
Unless its ALL One, man. And besides. She SAID the earth moved! And I am going with that. > 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. >
