That's a neat experience. But you know, there is probably an explanation for such an experience, but I don't really care to figure it out. But probably there is an explanation if one is so inclined. I mean thoughts are waves, and the human brain is both a transmmitter, and receiver, so maybe you just picked up the signal.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > To follow up yet again :-), Lurk, here is an event > that happened to me that -- to me -- is far more > interesting and inexplicable than having witnessed > levitation. And, as with the witnessing of levitation > and other siddhis, I have *no* explanation for it. I > don't even need one; it just happened. HOW or WHY it > happened is not something I will ever lose sleep over. > > It's an event I wrote up in one of the stories in my > book about my experiences with Rama, "Road Trip Mind." > http://www.ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/rtm26.html > Best to read the whole story before replying to this > email, because it contains details I will leave out > here. > > Basically, though, one night I was driving home from > Westwood and found myself with an uncontrollable urge > to go to a bar that was Not My Kinda Place. It was so > uncontrollable that I drove there, parked my car, and > before I ever got to the bar ran into a woman leaving > that bar whom I did not know but who was in some dis- > tress. I gallantly offered to help her out by driving > her to her car (many miles away in another part of L.A.). > When we got there, she found that her car was locked > such that we could not break into it and retrieve the > spare set of keys she thought were inside. > > In a fit of desperation, I tried one of those gestures > that guys do when they can't think of anything else. I > put my Subaru key into the door lock of her Honda. And > it opened. She searched for the mythical spare set of > keys, did not find them, so was still SOL about getting > home. Figuring, "Hey...it worked once, right?" I tried > my Subaru key in her Honda's ignition. The car started > the first time. > > Being a "Be Prepared" former Boy Scout, I always carry > a spare set of keys hidden on the outside of my car. I > gave her the spare key and she was able to get home. > > So how does THAT work, eh? > > Got any "quantum mechanical" "explanation" for it? > > I sure don't. It just happened. > > I can *theorize* about it, and come up with some Woo Woo > stuff about how she beamed out a psychic distress call > that I somehow picked up on, but that's just speculation. > So is any other "explanation" I could come up with. > > It just happened. HOW and WHY it happened do not overly > concern me. > > Same with having witnessed Rama levitating, turning > invisible, or performing any number of other siddhis. > It just happened. The ONLY thing I can "do with that" > with any validity is to tell what happened, as I saw > and experienced it. If someone wants to ponder the > HOW and WHY of such experiences, that is their busi- > ness, and none of my concern. > > I think, based on your earlier reply to my first reply, > that you have mistaken me for someone who GIVES A SHIT > what other people think of the experiences I relate. > That would be a mistake. In "Road Trip Mind," and here, > I just say what happened, as I saw and experienced it. > I do *NOT* try to convince anyone that it happened, or > try to come up with any bogus theories about HOW or WHY > it happened. It just happened. Live with it. I do. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > 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_reply@> 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. > > > > > >
