--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sun...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@> wrote: > > > > > > Your meta-talk sounds like scientific empiricism. > > Is that what it is? I was wondering. Seems like an awful lot of energy > put into..........this meta talk, or scientific empiricism, or > something.
Thinking is effortless. Typing takes almost no energy. Expressing my ideas gives me energy. YMMV > > > > So is this how you define your music when pressed i.e. it's > > just some neurons firing? Or rather for you is it a bunch of primate > > rhythms reified into "art" by cave-dwelling anthro-s? > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > curtisdeltablues@ wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > Remember what this is about: your interest in > > > > > > portraying me as just as extreme in my positive view > > > > > > of MMY as you are in your negative view. And you're > > > > > > having to do some very elaborate stretches in the > > > > > > attempt. > > > > > > > > > > We will have to agree to disagree here. If you see > > > > > Maharishi's role as an instrument of nature reviving > > > > > the knowledge like Jesus or Buddha then you are at > > > > > least as positive about him as I am "negative" > > > > > > > > You come to this conclusion, IMHO, via a big bag of > > > > debating tricks designed to distort and distract > > > > attention from a very straightforward comparison. > > > > Anyone can see the comparison is valid simply by > > > > reading what you and I say we think of Maharishi. > > > > > > > > I played along with your tactics for probably longer > > > > than I should have, but at this point I'll just trust > > > > the good sense of anybody who happens to be reading > > > > the exchange to see through the obfuscation. (Or not, > > > > as the case may be.) > > > > > > Well then well have to also agree to disagree with your excessively > > negative assessment of this discussion. But after getting you to > clarify > > what you were actually saying about your beliefs I feel more confident > > that people have more information to judge our differing points if > they > > chose to follow them. > > > > > > Asking a person to clarify what they mean is not a debating trick, > it > > is a means to come to a better understanding, which it accomplished > for > > me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
