TurquoiseB: > 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... > This post of Turq's is a classic case of metaphysical obsfucation! I wonder if Turq told the scientist on the flight that he was a 'TM Teacher' or that he once observed the Zen Master Rama 'levitate' and fill a whole room full of 'golden' light? LOL!
Turq sure likes to give himself a lot of wiggle room to explain his own metaphysical notions! Now that's fun to watch! > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > Why should they? Because you'd like them to? > > 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. > > 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 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. >
