--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <steve.sun...@...> wrote:
That was a great rap Lurk. I consider the fact that you are willing to take a position and then start a discussion with zero defensiveness a model for discussions here. I don't know if anyone has performed sidhis and I certainly wouldn't say I know that no one has. I think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof on one hand, while realizing that plenty of amazing cool stuff might happen privately. For me we have so far to go to understand how we shape experience and belief I think we all suck as direct witnesses of amazing events. We even suck in reporting ordinary ones. I don't believe that the spiritual advocacy pieces from the past are very credible. Sometimes I wonder if some of the authors of them would be surprised to hear we were taking them literally. And sometimes I think the reports of miracles are a con. I put Sai Baba's "miracles" in that camp among others. I'm glad Maharishi just used innuendo and hope for the future mostly in the miracles department. I would be seriously pissed at myself if I had fallen for slight of hand vibhuti manifestations! It is hard enough to live with having believed I would fly by foam hopping! I wasn't thinking that you were using quantum mechanic's terms to lend creditability to your argument the way Maharishi did. And I get that you aren't pushing a belief agenda of any kind. I accept your quantum mechanics musings the way I hope you accept my attempts to express my POV here. This is a great place to work out our thinking on these topics and I appreciate your starting and continuing the discussion. Me:> > 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. Lurk: That's a nice point to end on. Thanks Lurk, I figured I might as well end on it twice! > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > 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. > > I have heard different mystery schools refer to this notion of the > higher development of consciousness in different ways. QM doesn't seem > such a bad way to compare the two things. I am not trying to be super > rigourous in my terms. Perhaps that is weak on my part, but I am not > trying hard to make any one believe what I am saying either. > > > > < 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. > > > Fine, but do you believe there has never been a case, even a single > case of a siddhi being performed? It is fine to say, that "I haven't > seen one", or "I can't prove it", but are you saying that it is > impossible, that it has never happened. And then what in the hell do > you do, it it has happened even once? > > < 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. > Boy, am I agreement with you on this point. > > > > < 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 I > > I certainly can't make a positive connection I just happen to believe > that at some point we will find an intimate connection. But I am > willing to wait until something more definitive comes out. > > > > <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. I try to stick close to > just what I experience. Most of my experiences are pretty mundane. > Every once in a while something unique pops up. Probably just like most > of us. > > > > 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. I'll have to go back and see if I was > doing this. Don't think I was > > > > > > 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. My knowledge of physics is pretty limited. I am not > trying to be terribly rigorous in my descriptions. Then again, I don't > believe I am trying to build a big case about something. I am just > using a phrase that sounds right to me. If you feel it is being > misapplied, then I certainly am fine with that, and I do appreciate your > pointing it out. > > > > 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. So advised. I certainly don't wish to use a term in the way > that offends you. I will consider your suggestion. > > > > 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. Good point. Perhaps I am falling into > this trap. It wouldn't be the first time I would have been deluding > myself. But then again this is one of the better things about getting > older, that often it is accomponied by more wisdom. But I could be > deluding myself in this regard as well. > > > > 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. Good to people a little leeway in > describing their experiences i think. But if we don't get challenged, > then that doesn't count for much either. > > > > 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. That's a nice point to end on. > > > > > > > > I'd love to get some feedback. Thanks! > > > > > > You open mind is a virtue brother, glad you are here. > > > > > > > > > > > >
