---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :
salyavin, I think the key phrase in your response is what you say about inferred knowledge, that it lacks the data to demonstrate. I'd agree that it lacks the data to demonstrate that it's more than just a meaning given by humans. But I think I've driveled something similar before. (-: Yep, that is indeed the point. We must be careful what definitions we ascribe to experiences. to the world as revealed by our eyes and ears, it's really hard to know what is going on just from looking at something as we see so little of it. It takes clever experiment to work things out that aren't immediately available and the more data we get about everything the more the explanations have to grow to encompass it all. A decent model of consciousness will have to include spiritual experiences and why they impress us so much, but will it include a link to particle physics? I think the mystics are in dreamland on that one. I don't mind dry and dusty at all. From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote : hi salyavin, glad you're still here. And now I'm really wishing you were here in Fairfield. Because you'd find many folks who like you find dinosaurs spiritual. Or birds or trees or even plastic bags! This is what I've been trying to convey to you and Curtis too. That many people here have grown beyond a bounded view of human development. Based on their own experiences. Now, the other topic I'd like to address, and this is my response to your post about evolution and science and at a deeper level, what is real. Isn't the determination of what is "real" dependent upon when one takes the photo? IOW, considering the process during which a caterpillar becomes a butterfly, if we take the photo at a certain point in that process, we could say the caterpillar is gone. But is that real? Or said another way, is that the whole picture? The trick is you have to be sure that you get as much of the picture before making statements about accuracy. In the case of a butterfly it would be impossible to fathom it's life until you know all the stages but once you do it's impossible to think there is something else hiding undiscovered. Most aspects of life are the same, what else could there be to mankind in a real sense as opposed to us just making stuff up about funny trips we've had? Spiritual is what things mean to us, not a reflection of any intrinsic value in nature. We infer that an inner experience is a profound understanding of nature but you can't have inferred knowledge, there is no such thing. It's just a guess based on what we want to be true, or lack the objectivity or data to demonstrate otherwise. Science is how we've learned not to fool ourselves. So I'm very wary of spiritual claims of knowledge gained through revelation. With any experience I have, whether during TM or outside of it, I wonder, "Is this the whole picture?" And I think many of us long term TMers have come to realize that there is no static whole picture, that it is an ever unfolding experience of what it means to be a ever unfolding human in an ever unfolding universe. Excellent. Rejecting the guru's teaching is a good first step. Just don't replace it with your own drivel ;-) This experience makes one a scientist, but one who is full of wonder and joy about what is being observed. This is what I sense in you too and what makes me think you'd enjoy a visit to Fairfield. You say "but" I would say that science starts with a sense of wonder and more importantly, a desire to explain what we experience. The idea of the scientist as a dry and dusty individual with no sense of romance is way wide of the mark. Just don't multiply entities unnecessarily (Occam's razor) From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.coma To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 12:13 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My two cents ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote : But it's the Funny Farm Lounge. We should expect knee-jerk abusive and often obscene ranting from the inmates. I just don't want to see discussion narrowed to some "sheltered view of spirituality." Yup. "Spiritual" means different things to different people, it isn't just a term for airy-fairy daydreams about awakening into a sea of bliss. I find dinosaurs very spiritual because thinking about the deep past and the sense of time passing and the unpredictable future of life gives me a sense of perspective in my day. A sense of place in the universe, and it's real. On 07/07/2015 01:17 PM, feste37 wrote: I'm mystified as to why you think that the alternative to having a moderated group as it is evolving here on FFL is a "bliss ninny" group. That's absurd. I am all for vigorous discussion, opposing points of view, and honest dialogue. I am against the kind of knee-jerk abusive and often obscene ranting against all things spiritual that went on here up until the last few weeks. And for all the abuse Doug has taken, one would hardly realize that he has been a good exponent of exactly what you are calling for in your post: a discussion of "where things have gone" in the TMO and where they are going. Many of his comments and insights over the last few years have been very astute. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> mailto:noozguru@... wrote : As far as I'm concerned Rick set the "community standards" as he defines it on the header for the group. If you don't like them then start yet another bliss ninny group. Those seem to be extremely popular and long lived. :-D I've been online since the early 1980s. I've seen many a BBS come and go. I've seen heavy handed moderators come and go too. Seems that late comers have a creepy idea of what moderation is about. TM is just dime store yoga taught at Neumann-Marcus prices. it was better when it wasn't so pretentious but then most people didn't know that much about yoga back then. We've come a long ways. This is a good forum to discuss where things have gone even if it riles TBs. On 07/07/2015 11:38 AM, feste37 wrote: I think it's part of what moderating is about. For example, I often read the comments section in articles in the Guardian. One recent comment got deleted, with the following message: "This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted." This is very common and I have no objection to something like it being implemented at FFL. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> mailto:noozguru@... wrote : And that's not what "moderating" is about. It's for extreme circumstances which are usually rare. You should never give moderation over to a tech illiterate. It just makes them a laughing stock. Perhaps it's time to create an FFL-Ex Yahoo Group. ;-) On 07/07/2015 11:13 AM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : It's very simple, Duv. There are now some community standards to be observed when posting to this group. There is nothing remarkable about that. It is long overdue. Rubbish, MJ got kicked for nothing that hasn't been said a million times before, so what if Buck decides it's suddenly beyond the pale to have an opinion he doesn't like? That's all it is. Sheer opportunism and hide behind the guidelines. We aren't children for god's sake. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : It's on you RICK ARCHER. You have not even once come here and explained why you are okay with what Doug is doing here. It's as if you said, "Let's fuck up the place and see what comes out of the ashes." Did you say that? We don't know, and that's on you. Why? We deserve YOUR ANSWER. We've supported your ownership here for over a decade. We've always honored your forbearance and wisdom, but now, when we're all adrift, you don't show up. WHAT IN THE FUCKY FUCK FUCK are you thinking, Rick? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> mailto:curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Just as Maharishi said, "the movement belongs to those who move" (slave labor of course) FFL belongs to those who post. Today I see two valuable contributors, Michael and Xeno ! have been canned following Barry's "first shoe dropped." I want to weigh in that I oppose the way content is being examined, evaluated, judged here, and believe sincerely that the power to ban posters is in the wrong hands. First of all the Yahoo "guidelines" are just that. They cover Yahoo's back side and are not meant to be Vedic laws to be enforced. Obviously if they cared about these enough to enforce them it would have happened long ago when things were really riled up on FFL during the infamous reign of the 3 Rs. The idea that this place has become much worse is a fabrication. FFL has lightened up considerably in the last few years. There was no problem to be solved that needed this kind of crackdown. And they are too vague to be guidelines, it basically says, do what you want on your sites because defining limits is too hard. They have used airy platitudes and these are not objective rules in any sense of the word. It is a moot point, Yahoo does not care, it is up to us. Concerning Feste's point about Xeno trying to hurt that guy in the real world, I believe this is an important point to consider. This is the only level where I believe banning is appropriate. So I reread the post a few times and noticed that there are no names mentioned. This means that you would have to be a regular reader of this site to even understand what he is referring to. And if someone is that far up FFL's butt, they already know about his activities. I even knew about his trip and I don't give a S. More importantly he did not repeat linking his name to the offense so it could be picked up by search engines as a connections so it was unsearchable. This is important because when people came after me and got canned for it, it was after repeated offenses. One or two would have slipped by the radar but they insisted on making it a big deal through relentless repe! tition. In all the hoopla and over reaction we seem to miss Xeno's point. This behavior is exactly what he nailed it as, hypocrisy. It shows an amazing degree of lack of self awareness not to realize that this moderator is perpetuating the exact thing he fears from the movement: judging adult behavior and free will by subjective standards and then meting out the punishment of exclusion from the group for the contrived "offenses." Xeno was putting his finger in the eye of hypocrisy and did it without using names or jacking up the search engines. It was a noble act IMO and losing him from this forum is a huge content loss for a thoughtful perspective. I would challenge anyone to match me post for post of contributions he has made intellectually to this forum and you can show me equally thoughtful posts from that other guy with his finger on the trigger. Michael is also a loss to the site. Stephen mentioned that he doesn't like posters with an "agenda." The important aspect of agenda is that the motive is a hidden one, not that it expresses a strong personal POV. Michael was transparent about his motives for posting here. He represented a strong POV and I valued it. I wish there was a person who represented the movement's side as passionately. That would make for some great conversations. The only person who used to fill in for that role was N. But he was so far from mainstream movement thinking and English was a second language so he was left only with personal attacks of which I was the target of many for years. I never thought he should be banned for that. I thought the freedom to express himself damned him just fine. FFL is only as good as it's contributor's content. Losing Barry, Xeno and Michael is a loss to the site whether you agree with them or not. If the ban had been for Judy, I could have written everything just the same. Generative people, willing to put time into t! his site and create content makes this a valuable place to read. Many of the people, who are behind this change have been very light on detailed, thoughtful content over the years. Provocative people inspire us to write here. It PROVOKES us. It often takes that kind of provocation to decide to take time from our busy lives to share ideas with a bunch of strangers. Our moderator is reacting as if this is his own intellectual fiefdom and the bannings so far have represented his personal offense at posts that he should have taken care of by offering his own clearly stated opposing opinion on. He cut the conversation short because he has never shown any ability or interest in this area of detailed back and forth discussions here. So he is taking out those who do contribute one by one. I do not share the values represented by the current moderator and believe that this is already having a chilling affect on content here. It is limiting the value of this site as an intellectual resource for me. I am going to send this post in an email to Rick in hopes that he will rescue this valuable resource from the direction it is going. How many contributors have to go before we all realized this is no longer FFL as Rick intended it anymore?
