--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > snip > > > > > > 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. > > Oh, I don't think so. > > > Is that what you are doing here by communicating your > > opinions, huffing and puffing? > > Sometimes I huff and puff, sure. > > > Or were you trying to characterize opinions this way > > to diminish them? > > Just pointing out the contrast. He made a joke, and > you're having a tizzy *because he made a joke*.
I used it as a platform to express my views. The term "tizzy" is another mischaractorization mean to diminish my post. The intent of my post seems to have been missed by you but concerns a technique of cold readers to make their other outrageously unsupported statements seem more plausible. I find those techniques fascinating as I do your inability to even get the point. It worked on you. > > > > > > 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. > > Yeah, seems to me there's a pretty gigantic difference > between somebody thinking their meditation causes > earthquakes and thinking a lot of people meditating > together might facilitate world peace. Not at all. None in fact. A whole group of people with no effect is no more anything than one person with no effect. This is a common mental fallacy that draws on our natural tendency to believe that more of something will produce a bigger effect. The problem here is that there is no proven mechanism that is being multiplied, it was just asserted by an authority figure. One whom you claim you do not take at face value, and yet here you have. You have fallen for his routine as effectively as any Purusha. More of nothing is still nothing. You might want to write that down. > > > > 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. > > Those were your words, toots. > > > > > 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. > > If I hadn't thought it was unfair, I wouldn't have > spoken up. And if you'd known that one doesn't have to > share a person's beliefs to defend them from unfair > attack, you wouldn't have suggested I was defending > him because I thought he could cause an earthquake > with his meditation. This twist wont work. I never asked you if you believed he could cause an earthquake with his mind and you know it. I was asking yo to clarify your own position on his teaching about the influence of our minds on the world and you dodged it. But you answered that you wouldn't rule it out (it wouldn't be smart) showing me that you did actually understand the question even though you are mischaractorizing it now to make it seem as if I was suggesting that I thought you believed in his ability to cause earhquakes which I have never done. It is your straw man, your pretending I don't understand his joke. But is is s silly ruse because my understanding it lies at the basis of my point. One you have either missed or are pretending to miss. > > > > 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. > > Low probability is fine, but I wouldn't make up > idiotic reasons for it. > > > BREAKING NEWS: It doesn't go into the environment. > > We don't know that. We do know that it has no measurable effect on the environment. You are buying into woo woo speculation and I am not. And framing my stating the current level of measurement of our personal effect on the environment as idiotic is just your unpleasant habit rearing its ugly head again. You think you have special knowledge because you have read a bunch of analogies in Ken Wilbur books. I do not share that delusion that I know what quantum mechanics is really saying and how it might apply to the physical world because I can follow a description of Schrodinger's Cat outside its proper mathematical context. So far we have no proof that we effect the whole world by the state of our mind. Maharishi and Chopra assert it, I deny it as being a reasonable conclusion from what we know about how things work. And quantum mechanics has added nothing to this discussion on a macro level. > > > So unless you are proposing that the mechanism of what > > affects the world is some new thing > > If it affects the world, *of course* it's some new thing. You and Chopra, masters of the innuendo. So what might that be? Maharishi thinks it is the impersonal aspect of God. > > <snip> > > > But like Chopra, I don't believe one person's meditation > > > can bring about an earthquake. > > > > Straw man and you know it. > > Funny, it's the same straw man you were using. You have missed my point of know that this is not how I was using it. Chopra does believe in his personal effect on the world. He joked about him not causing an earthquake so we would think he was not a complete nutter. You fell for 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. > > He probably does believe that. (I'm agnostic.) But that's > a whole different order of belief than that a single > person can cause earthquakes. Your hyper-focus on something that was not going to work is not going to work Judy. > > > > > 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. > > No, your post started--and has continued--by *conflating* > the two. Not true. I showed how he was using an obviously absurd belief to make his other beliefs look more plausible. And you fell for it stating that a whole bunch of people with no effect is completely different than one person with no effect. You are demonstrating my point about his technique perfectly. You say you are agnostic but you have already bought in to the biggest bogus jump, the fallacy that a lot of people will have a bigger effect of nothing than one person. > > > You are trying to create your own straw man out of the > > earthquake thing and missing my whole point intentionally > > or unintentionally. > > I'm *criticizing* your point. > > > > > > 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. > > This is the point I've been criticizing. > > > > 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 > > You freak out, Curtis. > > 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. > > You were using intentional language. If you now want to > back off on that, fine. > > <snip> > > > 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. > > No problem with low probability. But you don't use that > language unless you get called on not using it. It is a silly desperate distinction. We have no thoery, no mechanism to support the claim. The probability is practically zero. > > > > > 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? > > Very low probability. Vanishingly low probability. > > > Having seen his actions with JAMA I have a very good idea > > which it is. > > Oh, please. What happened with JAMA is not at all clear. It was to me. Plus I have the added information about his duplicitous statements about his first book which was written by Purusha. He worked their PR machine like a rented mule and then skipped off when his career took off using reworked Maharishi terms like "field of possibilities" instead of "field of all possibilities." He is a slippery con who can't hold his own in debates with people wise to his moves. One of his moves is to use statements like "my meditation caused an earthquake" to mask his actual belief that lots of people with no measurable effect on the environment is of of a completely different class of belief than his earthquake joke. It is a confusion you share. > > > How about this Judy. let's not rule out that he is a > > predator con man because that wouldn't be smart, OK? > > Very, VERY low probability. Vanishingly low. >
