--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > <snip> > > > > the environment. It is a way to mask the hubris of his > > > > true beliefs. He almost sounds like he has some common > > > > sense about the limits of his personal power. > > > > > > Actually, I think he was mocking people like you, Curtis, > > > right down to your propensity to make something sinister > > > out of a self-deprecating gag. > > > > Yeah Judy he was mocking people who call him on his > > fantasy that his state of mind affects the world. > > Really got me! > > Here you are huffing and puffing, and he's chortling.
My opinions are "huffing and puffing?" What an odd characterization. Is that what you are doing here by communicating your opinions, huffing and puffing? Or were you trying to characterize opinions this way to diminish them? > > > > If he says he believes he can cause an earthquake by > > > meditating, that's hubris. > > > > > > If he says he *doesn't* believe he can cause an earthquake > > > by meditating--why, that's hubris too! > > > > The reason the joke works is because part of his teaching > > actually states that his state of mind affects the world. > > It isn't hubris to make the joke, it is hubris to believe > > that your state of mind affects the world. > > It would be hubris if he believed he could cause an > earthquake with his meditation. You are welcome to your opinion. I think people believing their meditation causes world peace also qualifies. > > But he doesn't believe that, you see. Hhe has some > common sense about the limits of his personal power. Pretty low bar. Some limits. Amazing, I'm so proud of him. > > > Do you share this belief about yourself,is that why you > > are so quick to defend him? > > BREAKING NEWS: You don't have to share a person's beliefs > to defend them from unfair attack. BREAKING NEWS: I know that. But you aren't defending any "unfair" attack here you and we both know it. > > That said, I don't know whether one's state of mind can > affect "the world" (depending on what you mean by "world"), > and *neither do you*. Yeah well I'll give it a very low probability OK? We know quite a bit about how powerful thoughts are on the outside of our skulls because we can measure the electrical energy of our brains. BREAKING NEWS: It doesn't go into the environment. So unless you are proposing that the mechanism of what affects the world is some new thing, we know it doesn't with as much scientific confidence as we have supporting most of the modern scientific perspective. (one that Chopra rejects in favor of his brand of special knowledge.) > > But like Chopra, I don't believe one person's meditation > can bring about an earthquake. Straw man and you know it. But how about a whole bunch of people? Maharishi believes that groups of humans do cause these events. Chopra has said the same thing. > > > Now if he wants to retract all his statements about his > > power over the world with the state of his mind I will > > happily retract my accusation of hubris. > > And I don't think you should be making accusations when > you can't tell the difference between what he believes > and what he doesn't believe. My whole post started with this distinction. You are trying to create your own straw man out of the earthquake thing and missing my whole point intentionally or unintentionally. > > > > And how *dare* he have a sense of humor about himself? > > > That's the *ultimate* in hubris. > > > > If he didn't actually believe that his state of mind > > affects the world you might have a point. > > He doesn't actually believe his meditation caused the > earthquake. That's why his tweets were funny. I started with this distinction why do you think this is news? It is a straw man that is being used to make him look less fringy. > > > But the fact is he does. I wasn't saying how dare he > > anything. I was just showing how people with wacky > > beliefs about their place in the world sometimes mask > > them with humor about a straw man wacky belief. > > You were asserting that this is what he was doing. You > were, in other words, mind-reading. You get *really* > upset when folks do that to you, but you have no > problem doing it to others. Not at all but you are getting a bit desperate here. It is my opinion about how he is using a straw man that is not dependent on his intentions. It is how his story appears to me. And with public figures we just guess at motivations. When we are posting here and can state them I object to someone claiming to know what my thoughts are better than I do myself. If he wants to log on I'll listen to his inner thoughts if he cares to share them. > > > It seems to have worked on you among many others. That > > old Chopra is so full of common sense wisdom how could > > we doubt his claim that his mind is working on the > > "quantum mechanical" level! > > We can certainly doubt it, but it's probably not real > smart to rule it out. "Ruling things out" doesn't have much of a use in my world of beliefs but assigning low or high probability does. > > > I point my finger at him as a charlatan because I paid > > $700 in his doctor's office to get the magic word > > "amrita" to repeat to cure physical conditions. Medical > > conditions. Health related issues that he discussed > > with me in his doctor's office before "prescribing" me a > > magical word to repeat to cure medical physical, health > > conditions. > > > > So when I view him as a con man it is after having him > > con out of actual money me a long time ago. > > Charlatan, maybe, in the sense of being deluded about > the validity of his claims. But not a con man. Then you would have to be able to read his mind wouldn't you? Having seen his actions with JAMA I have a very good idea which it is. How about this Judy. let's not rule out that he is a predator con man because that wouldn't be smart, OK? >
