curtisdeltablues wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, P Duff <pduff@...> wrote: > >> Sorry if what I wrote came across as negative. I don't think your >> request is the slightest bit ridiculous. My point there was that bias >> is just another belief system, and can be as blinding as any other. > > > I really enjoyed your response and did not take it as negative in any way, but as an invitation to think more deeply about such a test. I couldn't agree more with your point concerning bias. We are flawed cognitive monkeys and is sometimes amazes me that we ever get anything right!
The monkeys, given enough time and enough typewriters, may write Hamlet. But there's a chance that they'll not need a lot of time; they might get it correct right out of the chute. And, by golly, they do! Clearly, the monkeys are acting in accord w/ nature and thereby have its demonstrably full support. Break out dem crowns and robes already. This is why it is so hard for me to accept the claim of anyone who claims to have gotten EVERYTHING right! (Yeah, I'm calling you out Holy Tradition.) I dunno, the monkeys feel that they have a lock on it, and their experience backs that feeling up. But, mind you, the monkeys don't think they got it right on the first attempt; they don't know that this was one attempt of a gazillion envisioned, nothing about the bigger picture. Thy don't know that somebody staged this as an experiment , borrowed the monkeys, rented the typewriters and lab space, etc. All the monkeys know is that they sat quietly at the typewriters, quietly putting their attention on typing Hamlet. And out it came, everything correct, just as they expected. "Silly monkeys, You don't get the big picture at all. You don't even have the neurons to support a big picture. You're just a troupe of damn monkeys being used in an experiment, and you act like you invented air or something. And where did you get those robes?", asks the scientist, sitting in a mock-up office in God's lab. And on it goes. Upward, downward, every which-a-way. P Duff > > > >> curtisdeltablues wrote: >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, P Duff <pduff@> wrote: >>>> Hi, Curtis, it has been a long time. >>>> >>>> A couple points, if you will. >>>> >>>> First, I agree wholeheartedly that your ability to express yourself in >>>> writing has improved tremendously. When I first started lurking here I >>>> read bits of posts of almost everybody and thought to myself, "Oh, this >>>> must be some other Curtis." But it wasn't some other Curtis. Kudos and >>>> thanks for the wonderful surprise. >>> That was nice of you, thanks. I use FFL as a means to keep me writing >> regularly, it is a great resource. Good to have you back. >> >>>> Second point. >>>> You write, "[You are] up for any demo of master of any other level than >>>> what I am currently perceiving. I suspect if these connections are real >>>> there should be some testable predictions possible." >>>> >>>> But are you also up for conceding that the testable predictions being >>>> met that the connections are indeed real as claimed? Or might you be >>>> likely to say that your senses are unreliable, that a little thing >>>> affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheat. The >>>> master's seeming powerful abilities may be an undigested bit of beef, a >>>> blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. >>> Well the whole field of epistemology is devoted to helping us fill in >> our cognitive gaps, so everyone is subject to the flaws you mention, not >> just me. And it goes a lot deeper than stomach disorders, we have >> genuine brain flaws that interfere with our ability to sort out good and >> bad conclusions from our experience. >> >> I couldn't help myself. I ripped the stomach disorders schtick from >> Dickens' "A Christmas Carol." The lines are from the part where Scrooge >> tries to justify to himself why the apparition of his former partner >> cannot be real. It seemed to fit the discussion. :) >> >> I would actually hope that a person >> who claimed to be functioning in a higher state would know the limits of >> my abilities and be the first to help me design a convincing demo. >> Wouldn't it be nice if it was a collaboration rather than an >> antagonistic relationship? Wouldn't such a person be a champion of all >> the things that would help a waking state person be confident? They >> should be the first to mention experimental flaws that go way beyond >> what you have brought up. >> >> Absolutely. >>>> IOW, I hold that it's not meaningful to ask for proof unless you: >>>> >>>> 1) are able to recognize it when you see it. >>>> 2) are willing to accept it when you recognize it. >>> I guess we would have to be more specific about what I was thinking of. >> I mean the kind of physical manifestation mentioned in the siddhis as >> abilities of people in higher states. So for your first point, I should >> be able to recognize it as a pre-condition of any proposed demo. I am >> not looking for someone to make the clouds we are watching disappear. I >> want some real master of the universe shit! Extraordinary claims require >> extraordinary proof and all. If there is some question of my ability to >> perceive it, then we have the wrong demo. I am standing in for everyman >> in this imagined demo. >> >> You are correct. We need the right demo. And I want to see the real >> shit as well. I think, read, believe, that there are elements on what >> we are calling "more powerful levels" that cannot be brought out to what >> the average person could see, e.g., angels helping somebody out of their >> dying body. I think such things indeed require a >> super-sized-face-East-when-you-meditate nervous system. Of course, >> there's the argument to be made that the angels thang is naught but an >> artifact of the turbo nervous system at 110% rated power. In the realm >> where the phenomenon of subject and object of experience no longer map >> to waking state, then the rules of waking state no longer apply. >> >> But there are many claimed abilities that are declared to happen on this >> gross level, such as levitation. I think pics are great and >> descriptions wonderful, but that's because I'm a parlor trick junkie. I >> love things that hint at being way cool. And that's my bias. But at >> the end of the day I, too, gotta see the motherfucker up in the air. >>> I don't limit any demonstration to just me. If someone had such an >> ability they should be able to prove it under the kind of conditions >> Randi imposes on his challenge. I am aware that my ability to evaluate >> somethings might be flawed and I would need some expertise. But if >> someone could actually fly, for example. With the right transparency (I >> can walk where I want) I would be impressed with such a demo. It would >> rock my world. If someone was going to demonstrate that they could >> telepathically pick a greater than random number of cards viewed by a >> person in another room, then I would need a little help to construct a >> reliable test. >> >>> But the heart of your challenge is reasonable. Am I a good witness >>> for >> such a test at all? Would my bias be too strong to change my mind even >> when faced with evidence? I can't answer that to your satisfaction I'm >> sure, but I know what my answer for myself would be. I have changed my >> mind a lot in my life about the most fundamental beliefs I held due to >> what I considered to be adequate evidence or reasons. I hope to have >> that experience many more times in my life. >>> But was my whole request ridiculous and unachievable? You may be >> right. Perhaps it is to much to ask for a person claiming that they have >> mastered the laws of nature to actually do something really interesting >> with that level of mind. So far that seems to be the case. >> >> Sorry if what I wrote came across as negative. I don't think your >> request is the slightest bit ridiculous. My point there was that bias >> is just another belief system, and can be as blinding as any other. >> >>> >>>> Can you give me an example of what, short of a roll of duct tape and a >>>> .44 mag, would compel you to say, "Wow! TM [tantra, really good >>>> tequila, et al.] may not have done it for me, but it sure can deliver on >>>> its promise"? >>>> >>>> P Duff >>> In many ways TM for an example did deliver on its promises. The siddhis >> fell wildly short but the whole package of shifting my state of mind >> worked famously for me. I got glimpses of everything Maharishi talked >> about to my own satisfaction. It wasn't for lack of experience that I >> bailed, it was the interpretation of what the experience means that lead >> me to reconsider the whole belief system. On another level the whole >> program fell short on all the promises in the intro lecture. It is not >> my experience that long term meditators siddhas have more of any quality >> that I think hits the special mark. They seem like an ordinary group of >> super religious people and I have known enough people fired up by their >> beliefs to achieve that siddha glow and intensity from all sorts of >> beliefs. >> >> >> I worked with the top people and they were not more moral, >> nicer, less prone to ego bullshit or even more interesting as people. In >> general the more a person is into TM the less interesting they appear >> with the top people becoming the worst sorts of robot parrots I have >> come across. >> >> And the parrot squawking trickled, or rather, flushed its way down. >> Being surrounded by parrots was one of the reasons I started distancing >> myself from the movement. Worse yet was the attitude. IMHO Maharishi >> was spot-on when he said that we were but loudspeakers of this >> knowledge; that's all we good enough to be. But it wasn't long before >> many of that lot presented as if they had somehow been elevated to >> mix-down panel status. And that's when I walked away. But I may >> return! Not to the movement, of course; I can neither afford a >> ridiculous gold crown nor can I scrape up the hubris to wear it. My >> wife wants to learn, and if I can manage to cram all that info back into >> my transcender, we're on. >> >> P Duff >> > > > -- Dirt kicked to the curb goes into the gutter. Professionals kicked to the curb go into retail.
