Judy, my test was to see if I was getting the person I was responding to's name when it got posted if I put everything at the very top. It worked but did not explain my onset of posting idiocy. Oh well your solution works for now.
Remarks below. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: <snip> > > > I get you point about higher states and am open to the idea > > that there are many states of mind we know little about. I > > haven't seen anything from guys like Maharishi that would > > make me have to extend my model yet however. He talked > > about the ability to know things that others were unable to > > understand in lower states but didn't demonstrate anything > > that proved that. > > How would you recognize such a demonstration if you were in > a lower state and were unable to understand what was being > demonstrated? me: Wouldn't that be on them rather than on me? Most people who put themselves out there in this way just sort of blather about a lot of stuff that we all nailed down along time ago as a POV. Isn't it setting the bar a bit low to believe that they could do NOTHING special other than proclaim how they see the world in a more special way than the rest of us? And this was certainly not Maharishi's model since he piled on the relative areas that would be radically improved. I think it is more in line with commons sense to just accept that for all the hype the higher states model has not delivered that much yet. I think we have to ditch the ancient hype traditions to explore them more honestly today since I do believe you can shift the style of your mental functions. But the term enlightenment seems waaaay to Liberace for what is displayed so far for me. > > > I mean I could run his rap back in the day. It was a rap > > after all with a set of phrases and its own internal logic > > and anyone could learn to do it. > > > > And even though I am not trained in the proper application > > of such terms, for me it is a tool of compassion. It > > helped me get off some of my blame toward Maharishi. (how > > much I succeeded in this is another area of disagreement > > for us not doubt.) But for me seeing the old guy as having > > this kind of programming that he couldn't stop softens my > > view of him and that works for me. > > OK, but I don't see why any of this requires applying a > formal diagnostic label. And I think slapping a label on > one's analysis has a tendency to make one think the > analysis is more definitive than it may actually be. I don't see it as a formal diagnosis coming from any of us. We are just doing the best we can to use the information we have. We can't be experts in everything but that doesn't mean we can't have opinions about things especially when there isn't some super high bar for understanding like higher math is to physics. > > Putting people in boxes is necessary for the kind of > health-care/insurance setup we have, but it may > rigidify and limit understanding of the individual. I > don't think any human being really *fits* in a box. Of course ultimately I agree. My discussion was meant to diffuse the box-like nature of identifying Maharishi with this disorder a bit. I really don't know how well it fits. But just like the information about psychopaths provides a good self defense against their predatory behavior, it is really useful to know that some people are not working with the society assumptions of reciprocity most of us are. In fact our habit of believing in that and trusting that people are like us is a huge danger if one gets you in their sights. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > I think I know what is happening, this is a test. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > All this "you're an narcissist" "No you're a narcissist" talk > > > > > flying around does dilute the value of the term a bit. > > > > > > > > (Curtis, you just did it again--began your response *under* > > > > the attribution line.) > > > > > > > > I think the whole narcissism business applied to electronic > > > > forum participants is quite silly; you're only seeing one > > > > small "slice" of the whole personality. > <snip> >
