[FairfieldLife] Mayan Prediction

[John]

To All:

Here's an interesting video about the status of the Mayan prediction 
for 2012.  If you don't know about it, you got to see this one.



http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/drunvalo.htm

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Which can't be proved or disproved either.
> 
> Let's not shift the burden of proof here. It isn't up to 
> me to disprove it. The person making the claim makes their 
> case and we can decide if we find their reasons compelling.  

Curtis, do you realize how much of the "TM
mindset" underlies what you are saying above?

Both you and Stu are going on and on about
the "burden of proof." That might be relevant
to New Jim, who is making some silly claims
about "proof" of reincarnation, but you are
extending it to anyone who happens to quietly
believe in reincarnation and doesn't really
give a rat's ass what you believe.

We don't owe you "proof." We don't owe you
jack shit.

With all due respect, I refer you back to an
earlier post in which I discussed the differ-
ence that we seem to have in determining the
"threshold" at which point we get in someone's
face about their beliefs. I think that you
may be barking up the wrong threshold.

Some of us aren't trying to proselytize. The
fact that you feel somehow challenged or 
threatened by us believing something that
you don't does NOT confer upon us some kind
of "burden of proof." YOU'RE the ones getting
all bent out of shape because someone believes
differently than you do, and demanding "proof."

With all respect, do that with the next person
who tries to sell you a car. Or who tries to
sell you membership in the Church of the Flying
Spaghetti Monster. But some of us haven't tried
to sell you jack shit, and so we "owe" you jack
shit when you react as if we had.

Parts of this discussion are reminding me of
interactions with Michael, who tended to take
my lack of belief in God as some kind of "affront"
to his strong belief in God. I kept trying to
tell him that I wasn't trying to sell him any-
thing, either, but he kept insisting that I was.

I believe what I believe, and I allow you to do
the same. "Proof" just doesn't enter into the
equation unless someone gets their buttons pushed
and demands it. And then IMO, if the other person
has anything going for them, they just laugh at
the person demanding "proof" and move on. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I just received an email from one of Robin Carlsen's oldest and  
> dearest friends stating that he did not commit suicide.
> 
> This was most likely a rumor being spread by TM zealots hellbent 
> on revenge.

In L.A., when I dropped out of the TM movement,
I heard a similar rumor being propagated about
me. I found out who was spreading it and the
next time that person had a party, I crashed it.
It was really fun being "back from the grave."
I gained a new appreciation for Jesus.  :-)

BTW, Vaj, I'm staying out of the Robin Carlsen
thing because, like Chopra, he's "after my time"
and a nonentity in my "TM life." I couldn't care
less. I'm sure it was a big drama and all, but
it's really not my drama.

[FairfieldLife] Re: What changes belief?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Now Barry, we have had many a discussion over these years - have I
> ever suggested my stand to be absolute.  I don't subscribe to an
> absolute. That is part of the point.  I am saying your position is
> highly unlikely.
> 
> And given I can't prove a negative I will have to wait for your
> supporting evidence.

What part of "I'm not trying to sell you anything
or convince you of anything" did you not understand?

[FairfieldLife] More enlightened wisdom from the Dalai Lama

[authfriend]

Dalai Lama says he loves Bush despite some disastrous policies

Mon Dec 1, 2:23 pm

(AFP) – The Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual
leader, said in Prague on Monday he loved
outgoing US President George W. Bush despite
some of his policies which he described as a
"disaster."

"To be honest, some of his policies have been
a disaster, but as a person, I love him, he is
open, very truthful," the Dalai Lama told a
press conference.

"At the first meeting, we were very close" from
the start, he added.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081201/ts_alt_afp/czechchinausatibetdipl
omacy_081201192331

http://tinyurl.com/6kumm3

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> My gut feeling on this is people who make specious
> claims of contacting the "unified field" or pure
> consciousness or the "clear light" are just by and
> large bullshitters.

What a surprise!

(If their claims are specious, BTW, they're bullshitters
by definition; you don't need your gut to tell you that,
just a dictionary.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  
wrote:
> > 
> > > > I only got a count of 50 for Judy with the program 
> > > > that runs on my desktop.  Alex may have received a
> > > > duplicate email on the account he uses. 
> > > 
> > > I now get my FFL email feed from a Gmail account, and
> > > my post count was the same as the official post count,
> > > which also uses a Gmail account. I looked at the
> > > time/date column for her week's worth of posts, and I
> > > didn't see any pairs posted at the same time.
> > 
> > Alex, Tuesday's post count had me at 48. I made only
> > two posts after that, but Wednesday's post count had
> > me at 51. So there's an error somewhere.
> 
> What I've noticed recently is that posts don't always
> arrive right away on Gmail. Today, for example, there
> were posts that were delayed by a few hours to as much
> as a whole day. My guess is that a post of yours from
> Tuesday didn't show up in the FFL PostCount Inbox until
> after Tuesday's 6:15 post count. You were led to believe
> you had two posts left instead of one because one was
> still in transit and uncounted at the time the FFL
> PostCount script tallied and posted Tuesday's post count.

I see, thanks.

But who gets left holding the bag? If the count is
unreliable but we're held responsible for posts 
that arrive at GMail late, there's no point in the
count in the first place. The count was supposed to
make it unnecessary to track our posts manually,
but if we can't depend on it, it's of no use.

I guess what I'd like is an official ruling that
if one goes by the count and it turns out to be wrong
and one goes over as a result, one won't be penalized
for it.

[FairfieldLife] U.S. Warned India

[bob_brigante]

"U.S. intelligence agencies warned their Indian counterparts in mid-
October of a potential attack "from the sea against hotels and business 
centers in Mumbai," a U.S. intelligence official tells ABCNews.com. A 
second government source says specific locations, including the Taj 
hotel, were listed in the U.S. warning.  

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6368013&page=1

[FairfieldLife] Re: Affidavit: Michael Grove, Mark Frost and Michael Herkel v . Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, etc.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Dec 1, 2008, at 10:38 PM, Peter wrote:
> 
> > Wow! WTF? I had only heard of this affidavit
> > before. More disturbing in full than the
> > rumors themselves.
> 
> 
> The reason I posted this affidavit

Was, as usual, to portray Maharishi and the TMO
in the worst possible light.





 because someone asked for the  
> particulars of  vs.  in order to search for more  
> particulars. I suspect this is only the tip of the iceberg, in 
this  
> one case.
> 
> We shouldn't be surprised, in an era of corporatism and W. Bush 
that  
> such forces can do great damage to beings. Most I'm talking to (in 
the  
> TMO vs. RWC scene) are so so world weary on the topic they shun 
any  
> discourse.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
>  wrote:

> > Why all the intrique?  Sounds like he still has
> > his devoted worshippers who will go to
> > extraordinary  lengths to protect his "holiness".
> 
> its just more of vaj's game here on ffl- "i know
> something you don't know". this is much more about
> vaj than rwc. or maybe they're the same person...

It's a twofer for Vaj. He gets to mock RWC for his
purportedly TM-generated nuttiness, AND he gets to
bemoan the terrible danger poor nutty RWC is
purportedly in from the Terrible TMO.

[FairfieldLife] prescribe vs. proscribe vs. subscribe to

[authfriend]

to prescribe means to dictate or recommend (like
a doctor's prescription)

to proscribe means to prohibit (mnemonic: both
start with "pro")

An important distinction, since the two words mean
exactly the opposite.

Neither takes "to." You don't "prescribe to" or
"proscribe to" something. But you might well
"subscribe to" something, meaning you accept or
believe or follow it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary and Barack - Then and Now

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > From my point of view, Obama is paying a political debt
> > > to Hillary by naming her as the Secretary of State in
> > > exchange for her solid support during the general
> > > election.  Hillary is just as happy to take the job
> > > since, since I would presume, Obama will pay all of the 
> > > campaign debts she incurred during the primaries.
> > 
> > Very unlikely, and that isn't why she's happy to
> > take the job. Nor is Obama paying a political
> > debt to her. I'm not an Obama fan, but I have
> > more respect for him than to think he'd install
> > her in one of the most important cabinet positions
> > simply to thank her for supporting him in the
> > election--not with the mess this country is in
> > after Bush.
> 
> It's a tacit rule in politics and government circles
> to reward your friends.  I'm sure you won't find any
> official records of gratitude from Obama to show this
> was the main reason for selecting Hillary. But one can
> read the obvious in between the lines.

I guess you have an even lower opinion of Obama than
I do, then.

[FairfieldLife] I haven't had a hamburger in about 20 years but...

[shempmcgurk]

...this advertising campaign is so good it makes me WANT to have one 
just to support the campaign:

http://www.whoppervirgins.com/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary and Barack - Then and Now

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > From my point of view, Obama is paying a political debt
> > to Hillary by naming her as the Secretary of State in
> > exchange for her solid support during the general
> > election.  Hillary is just as happy to take the job
> > since, since I would presume, Obama will pay all of the 
> > campaign debts she incurred during the primaries.
> 
> Very unlikely, and that isn't why she's happy to
> take the job. Nor is Obama paying a political
> debt to her. I'm not an Obama fan, but I have
> more respect for him than to think he'd install
> her in one of the most important cabinet positions
> simply to thank her for supporting him in the
> election--not with the mess this country is in
> after Bush.
>

It's a tacit rule in politics and government circles to reward your 
friends.  I'm sure you won't find any official records of gratitude 
from Obama to show this was the main reason for selecting Hillary.  
But one can read the obvious in between the lines.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation

[Stu]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" 
> 
> > wrote:
snip
> recognition of this finite life seems to drive two ways of being. 
> either we see that this life is it, and act accordingly, or we 
> believe in an afterlife, in clouds of either sunshine or sulfur, or 
> that we will be back, and also act accordingly.
> 
> which, then, drives the more beneficial behavior? do we recognize 
> that this is all we will have, and as a result act in positive ways 
> in order to leave a legacy of a better world for the next 
> generation? or do we adopt a cavalier attitude about life, realizing 
> that there is no judgment day, and so do whatever we please?
> 
> or option two, do we think we are coming back, and in fear of that, 
> act well? or recognize that we are coming back anyway, so what the 
> hell, we are here for countless lifetimes, might as well do what we 
> want when incarnated?
> 
> so there are four choices:
> 1. this is it, act good for future generations.
> 2. this is it, act bad because there will be no consequences.
> 3. there is afterlife or reincarnation, act good out of fear of 
> karma.
> 4. there is afterlife or reincarnation, act bad because the 
> treadmill of human lives is endless.
>

Thanks James for once again opening an interesting thread for discussion:

I personally come from the Aristotelian school of ethics.

This means I do not proscribe to a slave morality (Neitzche's term)
that dictates terms to live by.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality

Instead I recognize there are ideals, be it truth, fairness, love,
equality, etc. or as Buddha put it right speech, right action, etc...

Though these ideals are difficult to define they suggest templates of
excellence to strive towards to live a full and good life.

There is no option to act bad.  The project is about achieving a rich
life living close to common ideals.

This philosophy has the advantage of putting ethical issues in the
hands of man and society.  This is opposed to accepting lists of
taboos and rules handed down from supernatural beings or forced by
supernatural circumstances like the fear of hell, or samsara.

This does not mean that people who are of weaker disposition do not
need "slave morality" to guide them through a life with minimal
problems.  I understand why alcoholics in AA need lists of regulations
to live by.  But for me, master morality insures I live a life worth
living, with surrounded by associates, friends, lovers and family who
share mutual trust and admiration.

Incidentally, I believe my meditation practice brought me to this
path. Master morality requires the reduction of stress so that
decisions are not made viscerally. One is skillfully and consciously
aware of their actions.

s.
   

[FairfieldLife] Re: Blacks prefer being called 'coloured people'

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Peter 
> wrote:
> [OffWorld wrote:]
> > > >
> > > > (Curtis, Shemp, Lurk, Pete, and others... totally
> > > > OWNED by OffWorld here.  OWNED ! ! ! )
> 
> >
> > "Owned"? WTF? Off, you need to get laid or to do a
> > couple of extra sets of asanas. I've never seen such
> > self-aggrandizing nonsense.
>
> own
> verb
>
> to defeat someone severely in a verbal argument or
> in a competition. To "put someone in their place."
> Used frequently in online gaming. When used to
> describe a verbal argument, the term is generally
> used to describe a situation in which one person
> attempts to deal a closing blow in the argument,
> but is shot down by evidence that completely
> destroys the foundation of that person's argument.>>

Also, for old farts like Peter, it has morphed into 'pwned' on the
internet. Everyone and their dog knows what 'pwned' means.

OffWorld


>
> http://onlineslangdictionary.com/definition+of/own

>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Lay off the acid, Off.

Why?



OffWorld


>
> Sal
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Dec 1, 2008, at 9:39 PM, mainstream20016 wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >>
> >> I just received an email from one of Robin Carlsen's oldest and
> >> dearest friends stating that he did not commit suicide.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Is RWC dead, or alive ?
> > How about an update on his life since the early 80s ?
> 
> 
> That's very unlikely. My feeling is that privacy is meant to be  
> respected in this case. You might not really understand the  
> consequences of coming up against the meditational industrial complex  
> that sired you and the real life consequences of having opposed that  
> from the POV of an enlightened poseur.
> 
> I will attempt an interview (I'm an interviewer of radical elements on  
> independent radio). So if the opportunity presents itself and if the  
> subject allows some universal disclosure, I'll make sure you hear  
> about it here. But it's most likely that voice will not be heard  
> publicly IMO and IME. There is the potential of healing for anyone,  
> but only so much as the scars of life will allow.
> 
> I guess my point is, you need to be sensitive and compassionate, esp.  
> if you don't realize the amount of damage that new age orgs (like the  
> TMO) can wreak.
>


The RWC / MIU affair of 1980-84 was probably an embarrassment to many.The zero 
tolerance policy that prohibited MIU students from associating with RWC, and 
the resultant 
student expulsions, were bad publicity for an educational institution. I 
suppose it's now 
convenient for MIU and the TMO that many have heard and perhaps still believe 
the rumor 
that RWC committed suicide.  It's likely that MIU would rather let sleeping 
elephants lie, 
even if RWC were to re-emerge briefly in order to dispel the suicide rumor. 


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 1, 2008, at 9:39 PM, mainstream20016 wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  
wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I just received an email from one of Robin Carlsen's oldest 
and
> > > >> dearest friends stating that he did not commit suicide.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is RWC dead, or alive ?
> > > > How about an update on his life since the early 80s ?
> > >
> > >
> > > That's very unlikely. My feeling is that privacy is meant to be
> > > respected in this case. You might not really understand the
> > > consequences of coming up against the meditational industrial
> complex
> > > that sired you and the real life consequences of having 
opposed that
> > > from the POV of an enlightened poseur.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Again - Is RWC alive ?
> 
> Xactly.  What's the big f'n deal.  Is the go0fball deal or alive.  
Why
> all the intrique?  Sounds like he still has his devoted 
worshippers who
> will go to extraordinary  lengths to protect his "holiness".
> >

its just more of vaj's game here on ffl- "i know something you don't 
know". this is much more about vaj than rwc. or maybe they're the 
same person... 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Dec 1, 2008, at 10:44 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> 
> > > Again - Is RWC alive ?
> >
> > Xactly.  What's the big f'n deal.  Is the go0fball deal or alive.   
> > Why all the intrique?  Sounds like he still has his devoted  
> > worshippers who will go to extraordinary  lengths to protect his  
> > "holiness".
> > >
> >
> Nope, no followers any more. Nope, not dead, still alive. Just very  
> private.
>


So, RWC  IS alive, and living a very private life - according to whom ? Gemma 
Cowhig ?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[Marek Reavis]

It seems that all the arguments regarding reincarnation, both pro and
con, assume that Time is real and only flows in a single direction.

If reincarnation occurs, what's to prevent me (when I die) from
"coming back" as some other personality that existed in what I thought
of as the Past in the life I just surrendered?  What's to keep you
from coming back as your mother, or your guru, or anybody else or at
any time?  If any attenuated personality persists after the death of
the body, it would have left behind all the things that exist in time,
and consequently, time itself. 

If the attention is permitted to re-enter a conditional existence, it
seems it could re-enter in any organized, vital physical structure,
and in any time or era.

The issue of whether or not some intact personality remains is still
the fundamental one.

**



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> 
> > [snip]  For Reincarnation they are making specific
> > claims about having memories of what actually existed in the world
> > when they were alive before. So in principle they can be tested. We
> > may not know what happens after death, but if someone claims that they
> > DO know because they can remember specifics of having lived before it
> > can be tested.
> 
> To an extent - but there is something about Death that seems to leave
> us always *locked out*.
> 
> After all - let's say I claim I was Blackbeard the pirate in a
> previous life. When challenged by scoffers I say "I am so confident of
> my recollections that I can prove it. I *remember* the location of a
> small island where I (Blackbeard) buried my treasure. Let's go there
> and we'll dig it up!"
> 
> OK - suppose we put that to the test. We go to some remote island. I
> count six & half paces from the third palm tree from the north beach,
> start digging - and shiver me timbers - there be a treasure chest.
> 
> It has to be said that (as far as I know), tests like these never seem
> to work out for reincarnation. But even if they did, all we can say is
> this: Something very odd is going on. Reincarnation could explain it -
> but so could other equally challenging conjectures. For example this:-
> Perhaps I have some strong psychic abilities with which I can indeed
> do a remarkable thing (viz. divine the thoughts of a dead pirate that
> are somehow still "echoing" or "reverberating" in the ether today.).
> If true, that means that I am mistaken and confused in thinking I WAS
> Blackbeard. I have a special ability, but my understanding of my own
> ability is false. So the question is: How could you ever test between
> these two competing explanations?
> 
> There is a similar barrier to empirical experiment with "near-death"
> experience. I read a while back that they were setting up tests in a
> London hospital. I think the plan was to leave some odd objects in
> places that could not be seen by a patient under normal circumstances,
> but might be visible to someone *looking back at their body* after
> *death*. I don't know how they have got on, but interesting as it is,
> I don't see how it could ever establish anything about *life after
> death*. I think if someone could indeed correctly refer to these
> things after being resuscitated, we would reasonably conclude "that
> shows the person wasn't dead". But how could the patient have seen
> something hidden away on the top of a cupboard or some such? 
> 
> Well that would be remarkable - but to explain this as the astral
> travelling of a dead soul around the ceiling ignores other possible
> (but still extraordinary) possibilities. Isn't it easier to believe
> that minds may have psychic abilities and in this case the non-dead
> patient may have somehow read the mind of the experimenter? Perhaps
> brains slip easier in to weird mode when under stress and close to
death!
> 
> It just seems that death presents a knowledge barrier that we can
> never get past...
> 
> (I think the near death experiments were being organised by Peter
> Fenwick, one of the early researchers into TM)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Vaj, unless I'm reading the post incorrectly, I'm confused by your responses. 
> You know I 
like you and get a kick out of your posts, so don't see my questions as 
intended to "get" 
you or anything remotely like that. You seem on one hand to completely 
disparage RWC 
with a couple of absolutely brutal dismissals of his writings in your 
introduction of his 
writing you have posted. But then you defend his privacy, his need for 
receiving sensitivity 
and compassion from our side. I can't figure that out,unless you know something 
we 
don't.
> 
> Let me take a professional flyer here. I believe RWC has been 
> institutionalized for some 
time. He has all the symptoms of, at least initially, sub-clinical paranoid 
schizophrenia 
that latter became full blown paranoid schizophrenia. He also has an obsessive 
defense 
that anchors him in the midst of the psychotic disorganization. I believe that 
Robin had 
very legitimate spiritual experiences and that his writings can show true 
brilliance and 
insight at times. But his psyche was not ready for the infusion of being that 
destabilized 
him. He certainly is not the first Ru to have this happen. Perhaps his 
burn-out, though, 
was the most flamboyant.  


Institutionalization - or "Long - term Residency" is a thing of the distant
past, and reserved for only the most dangerous persons. I would be surprised 
greatly if
RWC were currently institutionalized. 
-Mainstream



 
> --- On Mon, 12/1/08, mainstream20016 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > From: mainstream20016 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 10:33 PM
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > On Dec 1, 2008, at 9:39 PM, mainstream20016 wrote:
> > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
> >  wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I just received an email from one of Robin
> > Carlsen's oldest and
> > > >> dearest friends stating that he did not
> > commit suicide.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is RWC dead, or alive ?
> > > > How about an update on his life since the early
> > 80s ?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > That's very unlikely. My feeling is that privacy
> > is meant to be  
> > > respected in this case. You might not really
> > understand the  
> > > consequences of coming up against the meditational
> > industrial complex  
> > > that sired you and the real life consequences of
> > having opposed that  
> > > from the POV of an enlightened poseur.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Again - Is RWC alive ?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > I will attempt an interview (I'm an interviewer of
> > radical elements on  
> > > independent radio). So if the opportunity presents
> > itself and if the  
> > > subject allows some universal disclosure, I'll
> > make sure you hear  
> > > about it here. But it's most likely that voice
> > will not be heard  
> > > publicly IMO and IME. There is the potential of
> > healing for anyone,  
> > > but only so much as the scars of life will allow.
> > > 
> > > I guess my point is, you need to be sensitive and
> > compassionate, esp.  
> > > if you don't realize the amount of damage that new
> > age orgs (like the  
> > > TMO) can wreak.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > To subscribe, send a message to:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > Or go to: 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Vaj, unless I'm reading the post incorrectly, I'm confused by your responses. 
> You know I 
like you and get a kick out of your posts, so don't see my questions as 
intended to "get" 
you or anything remotely like that. You seem on one hand to completely 
disparage RWC 
with a couple of absolutely brutal dismissals of his writings in your 
introduction of his 
writing you have posted. But then you defend his privacy, his need for 
receiving sensitivity 
and compassion from our side. I can't figure that out,unless you know something 
we 
don't.
> 
> Let me take a professional flyer here. I believe RWC has been 
> institutionalized for some 
>time.



Institutionalization - or "Long - term Residency" is a thing of the distant
past, and reserved for only the most dangerous persons. I would be surprised 
greatly if
RWC were currently institutionalized. (It has yet to be confirmed that RWC is 
even alive). 
-Mainstream



>He has all the symptoms of, at least initially, sub-clinical paranoid 
>schizophrenia that 
latter became full blown paranoid schizophrenia. He also has an obsessive 
defense that 
anchors him in the midst of the psychotic disorganization. I believe that Robin 
had very 
legitimate spiritual experiences and that his writings can show true brilliance 
and insight 
at times. But his psyche was not ready for the infusion of being that 
destabilized him. He 
certainly is not the first Ru to have this happen. Perhaps his burn-out, 
though, was the 
most flamboyant.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 12/1/08, mainstream20016 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > From: mainstream20016 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 10:33 PM
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > On Dec 1, 2008, at 9:39 PM, mainstream20016 wrote:
> > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
> >  wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I just received an email from one of Robin
> > Carlsen's oldest and
> > > >> dearest friends stating that he did not
> > commit suicide.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is RWC dead, or alive ?
> > > > How about an update on his life since the early
> > 80s ?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > That's very unlikely. My feeling is that privacy
> > is meant to be  
> > > respected in this case. You might not really
> > understand the  
> > > consequences of coming up against the meditational
> > industrial complex  
> > > that sired you and the real life consequences of
> > having opposed that  
> > > from the POV of an enlightened poseur.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Again - Is RWC alive ?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > I will attempt an interview (I'm an interviewer of
> > radical elements on  
> > > independent radio). So if the opportunity presents
> > itself and if the  
> > > subject allows some universal disclosure, I'll
> > make sure you hear  
> > > about it here. But it's most likely that voice
> > will not be heard  
> > > publicly IMO and IME. There is the potential of
> > healing for anyone,  
> > > but only so much as the scars of life will allow.
> > > 
> > > I guess my point is, you need to be sensitive and
> > compassionate, esp.  
> > > if you don't realize the amount of damage that new
> > age orgs (like the  
> > > TMO) can wreak.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > To subscribe, send a message to:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > Or go to: 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Vaj, unless I'm reading the post incorrectly, I'm confused by your responses. 
> You know I 
like you and get a kick out of your posts, so don't see my questions as 
intended to "get" 
you or anything remotely like that. You seem on one hand to completely 
disparage RWC 
with a couple of absolutely brutal dismissals of his writings in your 
introduction of his 
writing you have posted. But then you defend his privacy, his need for 
receiving sensitivity 
and compassion from our side. I can't figure that out,unless you know something 
we 
don't.
> 
> Let me take a professional flyer here. I believe RWC has been 
> institutionalized for some 
time. 


Institutionalization - or "Long - term Residency" is a thing of the distant 
past, and 
reserved for only the most dangerous persons.  I would be surprised greatly if 
RWC were 
currently institutionalized.  (It has yet to be confirmed that RWC is even 
alive).


He has all the symptoms of, at least initially, sub-clinical paranoid 
schizophrenia that 
latter became full blown paranoid schizophrenia. He also has an obsessive 
defense that 
anchors him in the midst of the psychotic disorganization. I believe that Robin 
had very 
legitimate spiritual experiences and that his writings can show true brilliance 
and insight 
at times. But his psyche was not ready for the infusion of being that 
destabilized him. He 
certainly is not the first Ru to have this happen. Perhaps his burn-out, 
though, was the 
most flamboyant.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 12/1/08, mainstream20016 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > From: mainstream20016 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 10:33 PM
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > On Dec 1, 2008, at 9:39 PM, mainstream20016 wrote:
> > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
> >  wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I just received an email from one of Robin
> > Carlsen's oldest and
> > > >> dearest friends stating that he did not
> > commit suicide.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is RWC dead, or alive ?
> > > > How about an update on his life since the early
> > 80s ?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > That's very unlikely. My feeling is that privacy
> > is meant to be  
> > > respected in this case. You might not really
> > understand the  
> > > consequences of coming up against the meditational
> > industrial complex  
> > > that sired you and the real life consequences of
> > having opposed that  
> > > from the POV of an enlightened poseur.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Again - Is RWC alive ?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > I will attempt an interview (I'm an interviewer of
> > radical elements on  
> > > independent radio). So if the opportunity presents
> > itself and if the  
> > > subject allows some universal disclosure, I'll
> > make sure you hear  
> > > about it here. But it's most likely that voice
> > will not be heard  
> > > publicly IMO and IME. There is the potential of
> > healing for anyone,  
> > > but only so much as the scars of life will allow.
> > > 
> > > I guess my point is, you need to be sensitive and
> > compassionate, esp.  
> > > if you don't realize the amount of damage that new
> > age orgs (like the  
> > > TMO) can wreak.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > To subscribe, send a message to:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > Or go to: 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > On Dec 1, 2008, at 8:41 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote:
> > > 
> > > > the fact that the question about reincarnation remains, 
invalidates
> > > > what the yogi may or may not know. you may be convinced, and 
have a
> > > > great story to convince others of the validity of the yogi. 
but all
> > > > that does is leave each of us with a choice. and that choice 
is, do
> > > > we believe it? yes or no. no proof at all of reincarnation.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > It all comes down to your own experience, to coin the lingo of 
TM- 
> > > speak, your own level of consciousness.
> > > 
> > > When was the last time you rebooted Dawn?
> > >
> > to coin the lingo of your Buddhist-speak, i don't buy into that 
View 
> > of yours vaj, so its kind of a nonsense question for me. anyway, 
with 
> > regard to a belief in reincarnation, my answer is the same as 
yours: 
> > it depends. in other words, not provable.
> >
>It looks like proof would be different for each person so some 
are
> content with some subtle event and, others remain left to be hit 
with
> a brick.

sounds like there are two kinds of people in yours and vaj's world. 
those in the know and everyone else. i'll joyfully and graciously 
place myself in the latter category. no offense, but you guys don't 
seem like any fun.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"

[Peter]

Vaj, unless I'm reading the post incorrectly, I'm confused by your responses. 
You know I like you and get a kick out of your posts, so don't see my questions 
as intended to "get" you or anything remotely like that. You seem on one hand 
to completely disparage RWC with a couple of absolutely brutal dismissals of 
his writings in your introduction of his writing you have posted. But then you 
defend his privacy, his need for receiving sensitivity and compassion from our 
side. I can't figure that out,unless you know something we don't.

Let me take a professional flyer here. I believe RWC has been institutionalized 
for some time. He has all the symptoms of, at least initially, sub-clinical 
paranoid schizophrenia that latter became full blown paranoid schizophrenia. He 
also has an obsessive defense that anchors him in the midst of the psychotic 
disorganization. I believe that Robin had very legitimate spiritual experiences 
and that his writings can show true brilliance and insight at times. But his 
psyche was not ready for the infusion of being that destabilized him. He 
certainly is not the first Ru to have this happen. Perhaps his burn-out, 
though, was the most flamboyant.  




--- On Mon, 12/1/08, mainstream20016 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: mainstream20016 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 10:33 PM
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > On Dec 1, 2008, at 9:39 PM, mainstream20016 wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
>  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I just received an email from one of Robin
> Carlsen's oldest and
> > >> dearest friends stating that he did not
> commit suicide.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Is RWC dead, or alive ?
> > > How about an update on his life since the early
> 80s ?
> > 
> > 
> > That's very unlikely. My feeling is that privacy
> is meant to be  
> > respected in this case. You might not really
> understand the  
> > consequences of coming up against the meditational
> industrial complex  
> > that sired you and the real life consequences of
> having opposed that  
> > from the POV of an enlightened poseur.
> > 
> 
> 
> Again - Is RWC alive ?
> 
> 
> 
> > I will attempt an interview (I'm an interviewer of
> radical elements on  
> > independent radio). So if the opportunity presents
> itself and if the  
> > subject allows some universal disclosure, I'll
> make sure you hear  
> > about it here. But it's most likely that voice
> will not be heard  
> > publicly IMO and IME. There is the potential of
> healing for anyone,  
> > but only so much as the scars of life will allow.
> > 
> > I guess my point is, you need to be sensitive and
> compassionate, esp.  
> > if you don't realize the amount of damage that new
> age orgs (like the  
> > TMO) can wreak.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Wouldn't it be a trip...

[Marek Reavis]

Turq, if any particularized point of view persists after death of the
body, it seems reasonable to me that it might follow the tracks of
attention that had already been laid down.  That is if there isn't
some other actual-factual metareality that has other plans and the
vaporous personality gets a load of something entirely novel and
wholly unexpected.

The idea that you get the afterlife that you expect doesn't seem
unlikely (or no more unlikely than any other speculation).  The fact
that the body persists in some sort of physical organization after
death, even without vitality and respiration, may support some vague
sense of personality and lingering identity with it, at least until
the physical integrity is entirely compromised.  I endorse the Tibetan
idea of leaving the body undisturbed for sometime after death (days,
right?, like what the Adi Da folks are doing with his body) and give
it some good readings that remind whatever personality that may
persist (and is paying attention) about where the attention should now
be placed.

If the bardo is anything like some of the "lost" experiences I've had
in meditation or in dreams, the opportunity to focus on some positive
vibes would be like a lifesaver.

Thanks.

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ...if what happened to you subjectively when you
> die was completely a result of what you believed
> would happen to you?
> 
> The Mormons would go to a Mormon heaven. (Which,
> if you've ever spent any time in Utah, might be
> the same thing that other people would call Hell.)
> The Christians would go to a Christian heaven, and
> be issued harps and wings at the door. At least 
> some of them would. Others, who really got off more
> on guilt than they did inspiration, might believe
> that they were going straight to Hell or Purgatory
> when they died. And so they would.
> 
> Those who believe that consciousness just blinks out
>and there is nothing but darkness would blink out. 
> End of story.
> 
> Those who believe in reincarnation would reincarnate.
> 
> And those who don't have any beliefs at all about 
> what happens to them when they die would be shit 
> out of luck. 
> 
> :-)
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"

[Vaj]

On Dec 1, 2008, at 10:44 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:


> Again - Is RWC alive ?

Xactly.  What's the big f'n deal.  Is the go0fball deal or alive.   
Why all the intrique?  Sounds like he still has his devoted  
worshippers who will go to extraordinary  lengths to protect his  
"holiness".

>

Nope, no followers any more. Nope, not dead, still alive. Just very  
private.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Affidavit: Michael Grove, Mark Frost and Michael Herkel v . Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, etc.

[Vaj]

On Dec 1, 2008, at 10:38 PM, Peter wrote:

> Wow! WTF? I had only heard of this affidavit before. More disturbing  
> in full than the rumors themselves.


The reason I posted this affidavit was because someone asked for the  
particulars of  vs.  in order to search for more  
particulars. I suspect this is only the tip of the iceberg, in this  
one case.

We shouldn't be surprised, in an era of corporatism and W. Bush that  
such forces can do great damage to beings. Most I'm talking to (in the  
TMO vs. RWC scene) are so so world weary on the topic they shun any  
discourse.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > On Dec 1, 2008, at 8:41 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote:
> > 
> > > the fact that the question about reincarnation remains, invalidates
> > > what the yogi may or may not know. you may be convinced, and have a
> > > great story to convince others of the validity of the yogi. but all
> > > that does is leave each of us with a choice. and that choice is, do
> > > we believe it? yes or no. no proof at all of reincarnation.
> > 
> > 
> > It all comes down to your own experience, to coin the lingo of TM- 
> > speak, your own level of consciousness.
> > 
> > When was the last time you rebooted Dawn?
> >
> to coin the lingo of your Buddhist-speak, i don't buy into that View 
> of yours vaj, so its kind of a nonsense question for me. anyway, with 
> regard to a belief in reincarnation, my answer is the same as yours: 
> it depends. in other words, not provable.
>
   It looks like proof would be different for each person so some are
content with some subtle event and, others remain left to be hit with
a brick.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Dec 1, 2008, at 9:39 PM, mainstream20016 wrote:
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I just received an email from one of Robin Carlsen's oldest and
> > >> dearest friends stating that he did not commit suicide.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Is RWC dead, or alive ?
> > > How about an update on his life since the early 80s ?
> >
> >
> > That's very unlikely. My feeling is that privacy is meant to be
> > respected in this case. You might not really understand the
> > consequences of coming up against the meditational industrial
complex
> > that sired you and the real life consequences of having opposed that
> > from the POV of an enlightened poseur.
> >
>
>
> Again - Is RWC alive ?

Xactly.  What's the big f'n deal.  Is the go0fball deal or alive.  Why
all the intrique?  Sounds like he still has his devoted worshippers who
will go to extraordinary  lengths to protect his "holiness".
>
>
>
> > I will attempt an interview (I'm an interviewer of radical elements
on
> > independent radio). So if the opportunity presents itself and if the
> > subject allows some universal disclosure, I'll make sure you hear
> > about it here. But it's most likely that voice will not be heard
> > publicly IMO and IME. There is the potential of healing for anyone,
> > but only so much as the scars of life will allow.
> >
> > I guess my point is, you need to be sensitive and compassionate,
esp.
> > if you don't realize the amount of damage that new age orgs (like
the
> > TMO) can wreak.
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"

[Vaj]

On Dec 1, 2008, at 10:33 PM, mainstream20016 wrote:

> Again - Is RWC alive ?


As Newton observed: energy is always preserved within any closed system.

I think I might've seen Elvis and Robin the other day at the town  
dock, watching the sun rise downeast.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Affidavit: Michael Grove, Mark Frost and Michael Herkel v . Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, etc.

[Peter]

Wow! WTF? I had only heard of this affidavit before. More disturbing in full 
than the rumors themselves. 


--- On Mon, 12/1/08, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Affidavit: Michael Grove, Mark Frost and Michael 
> Herkel v . Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, etc.
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 1:18 PM
> Affidavit
> 
> [This affidavit was used as part of a one lawsuit by the
> followers of  
> the controversial group leader Robin Carlson in their
> attempt to gain  
> reentry to MIU and for Civil Rights claims against MIU. ]
> Affidavit: Michael Grove, Mark Frost and Michael Herkel v .
> Maharishi  
> Mahesh Yogi, Maharishi International University, World Plan
> Executive  
> Council United States, Capital of the Age of Enlightenment,
> Gregory  
> Thatcher, Gregg Wilson and Bevan Morris.
> 
> I, T. Gemma Cowhig, being sworn upon my oath depose and
> state;
> 
> 1. I have been practicing the Transcendental Meditation
> Program for  
> 16 years. I have been an initiator of the Transcendental
> Meditation  
> Program since 1971 and worked as a full time employee of
> the  
> defendant World Plan Executive Council from 1971-1973. I am
> still an  
> initiator and since 1977 have been a Governor of the TM
> Program, also  
> a position within the defendant World Plan Executive
> Council centers  
> in Toronto, Ontario and London, Ontario.
> 
> 2 . My brother John Cowhig has been defendant Maharishi
> Mahesh Yogi's  
> secretary since 1974. On many occasions, including visits
> with our  
> parents, on my six month course, and recently when I was in
>  
> Switzerland, he has stated to me that Maharishi is
> concerned about  
> his security because he believes that the American CIA has 
> 
> infiltrated his organization and is constantly working to
> undermine  
> his image. My brother has stated, and it is well know
> within the TM  
> Movement, that Maharishi often states that the CIA is a
> threat to his  
> security and that Maharishi hates the CIA and feels that it
> is out to  
> get him. Last summer, in Switzerland, my brother said to me
> that  
> Maharishi has stated that I was also involved with the CIA.
> 
> 3. In late 1979 my brother John Cowhig said to me in a
> phone call  
> from Thailand that Maharishi had a message for Robin. The
> message was  
> for Robin to be careful that the CIA would begin to
> surround him and  
> begin to puff him up for their own purposes.
> 
> 4. After the Jim Jones Guyana Massacre my brother told me
> that  
> Maharishi Mahesh Yogi claimed that the CIA was responsible
> for an  
> article in the newspaper linking the TM Movement to that of
> Jim Jones.
> 
> 5. It is well known within the TM Movement that Maharishi
> Mahesh Yogi  
> has accused many former teachers of the Transcendental
> Meditation  
> Movement and employees of World Plan Executive Council such
> as  
> Charley Donahue and Billie Clayton, of being agents of the
> CIA who  
> were out to get him.
> 
> Sworn and Notarized on, January 30, 1984, by T. Gemma
> Cowhig~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Dec 1, 2008, at 9:39 PM, mainstream20016 wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >>
> >> I just received an email from one of Robin Carlsen's oldest and
> >> dearest friends stating that he did not commit suicide.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Is RWC dead, or alive ?
> > How about an update on his life since the early 80s ?
> 
> 
> That's very unlikely. My feeling is that privacy is meant to be  
> respected in this case. You might not really understand the  
> consequences of coming up against the meditational industrial complex  
> that sired you and the real life consequences of having opposed that  
> from the POV of an enlightened poseur.
> 


Again - Is RWC alive ?



> I will attempt an interview (I'm an interviewer of radical elements on  
> independent radio). So if the opportunity presents itself and if the  
> subject allows some universal disclosure, I'll make sure you hear  
> about it here. But it's most likely that voice will not be heard  
> publicly IMO and IME. There is the potential of healing for anyone,  
> but only so much as the scars of life will allow.
> 
> I guess my point is, you need to be sensitive and compassionate, esp.  
> if you don't realize the amount of damage that new age orgs (like the  
> TMO) can wreak.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Dec 1, 2008, at 8:41 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote:
> 
> > the fact that the question about reincarnation remains, invalidates
> > what the yogi may or may not know. you may be convinced, and have a
> > great story to convince others of the validity of the yogi. but all
> > that does is leave each of us with a choice. and that choice is, do
> > we believe it? yes or no. no proof at all of reincarnation.
> 
> 
> It all comes down to your own experience, to coin the lingo of TM- 
> speak, your own level of consciousness.
> 
> When was the last time you rebooted Dawn?
>
to coin the lingo of your Buddhist-speak, i don't buy into that View 
of yours vaj, so its kind of a nonsense question for me. anyway, with 
regard to a belief in reincarnation, my answer is the same as yours: 
it depends. in other words, not provable.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"

[Vaj]

On Dec 1, 2008, at 9:39 PM, mainstream20016 wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I just received an email from one of Robin Carlsen's oldest and
dearest friends stating that he did not commit suicide.




Is RWC dead, or alive ?
How about an update on his life since the early 80s ?



That's very unlikely. My feeling is that privacy is meant to be  
respected in this case. You might not really understand the  
consequences of coming up against the meditational industrial complex  
that sired you and the real life consequences of having opposed that  
from the POV of an enlightened poseur.


I will attempt an interview (I'm an interviewer of radical elements on  
independent radio). So if the opportunity presents itself and if the  
subject allows some universal disclosure, I'll make sure you hear  
about it here. But it's most likely that voice will not be heard  
publicly IMO and IME. There is the potential of healing for anyone,  
but only so much as the scars of life will allow.


I guess my point is, you need to be sensitive and compassionate, esp.  
if you don't realize the amount of damage that new age orgs (like the  
TMO) can wreak.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"

[Sal Sunshine]

On Dec 1, 2008, at 8:39 PM, mainstream20016 wrote:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I just received an email from one of Robin Carlsen's oldest and
dearest friends stating that he did not commit suicide.



Is RWC dead, or alive ?
How about an update on his life since the early 80s ?


Apparently, the rumors of his death have been
greatly exaggerated.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> 
> > > I only got a count of 50 for Judy with the program 
> > > that runs on my desktop.  Alex may have received a
> > > duplicate email on the account he uses. 
> > 
> > I now get my FFL email feed from a Gmail account, and
> > my post count was the same as the official post count,
> > which also uses a Gmail account. I looked at the
> > time/date column for her week's worth of posts, and I
> > didn't see any pairs posted at the same time.
> 
> Alex, Tuesday's post count had me at 48. I made only
> two posts after that, but Wednesday's post count had
> me at 51. So there's an error somewhere.

What I've noticed recently is that posts don't always arrive right
away on Gmail. Today, for example, there were posts that were delayed
by a few hours to as much as a whole day. My guess is that a post of
yours from Tuesday didn't show up in the FFL PostCount Inbox until
after Tuesday's 6:15 post count. You were led to believe you had two
posts left instead of one because one was still in transit and
uncounted at the time the FFL PostCount script tallied and posted
Tuesday's post count.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin Carlsen's "suicide"

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I just received an email from one of Robin Carlsen's oldest and  
> dearest friends stating that he did not commit suicide.
> 


Is RWC dead, or alive ?
How about an update on his life since the early 80s ?




> This was most likely a rumor being spread by TM zealots hellbent on  
> revenge.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Milarepa DVD

[Bhairitu]

I was slightly off as it was Indian Beach in Ecola State Park which is a 
little north of Haystack Rock at Cannon Beach.  According to this 
information they wanted to film at La Push but the other locations were 
around Oregon so they went to Cannon Beach instead:
*http://tinyurl.com/6b2chb

*Marek Reavis wrote:
> That could easily be Cannon Beach and not La Push in Twilight.   I've got no 
> recollection of what Cannon Beach looks like.  The fact that the spot was 
> presented as 
> La Push and my imperfect memories of it from the mid-80s could easily be an 
> explanation.  
>
> But it sure looked good in the part.
>
> **
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> The director is a Tibetan monk.  He apparently did one feature film 
>> before.  The interview with him was very interesting.  The 
>> cinematographer was from Australia.  Most of the cast and crew were 
>> amateurs and many were monks from his monastery.  I'm waiting for part 2.
>>
>> According to IMDB that was Cannon Beach not La Push.  And it looked like 
>> Cannon Beach the part south of Haystack Rock.  But IMDB can be wrong.
>>
>> Marek Reavis wrote:
>> 
>>> Just saw the DVD weekend last and I agree with you.  It's excellent.  
>>> Milarepa's 
>>>   
> story is 
>   
>>> really compelling; I first read his bio on some course in the 70s and it 
>>> totally took 
>>>   
> me 
>   
>>> in.  The director and cinematographer are fine; the actors are excellent 
>>>   
> (Milaprepa's 
>   
>>> mother is so intense); I'm looking forward to the next chapter.
>>>
>>> Saw Twilight in SF with my daughter and her boyfriend the night before 
>>>   
> thanksgiving.  
>   
>>> You were right, it's a teen girl's movie, entirely; but it was excellent to 
>>> see the 
>>> Olympic Peninsula on the big screen.  And particularly so, La Push.  I'd 
>>> heard that 
>>> folks surfed there but my memories of it are as a purely beautiful but 
>>> forbidding 
>>>   
> wild 
>   
>>> ocean beach.  If I ever make it up there again I'll bring my board.
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>>>   
>>>   
 I rented this on DVD and watched it last night.  I think many here would 
 enjoy it.  It is part one and part two according to the DVD will be out 
 next year:

 http://milarepamovie.com/

 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499238/

 
 
>>>
>>>   
>
>
>   

[FairfieldLife] Re: Saving Free Enterprise

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Nelson wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >   
> >> Since I have heard a number of interviews with people advocating 
> >> stipends due to the decreasing jobs market I went on a search for
some 
> >> of them.  Here's one proposal and the author has done his
homework on 
> >> the subject:
> >> http://marshallbrain.com/25000.htm
> >>
> >> More detailed information on the impact of technology on the
workforce:
> >> http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-freedom.htm
> >>
> >> 
> > snip,
> >Maybe, with the population reduction proponents working on it,
> > there wont be any problem after all.  N.
> Depends upon what you mean by "population reduction." ;-)
>
 + This would mean drastically reducing the population(which is in
progress) so in the end there will be more jobs than people although
that is not their main purpose.  N.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Let's not shift the burden of proof here.
> > 
> > I'm not. I'm saying they can't prove it and you
> > can't disprove it, so it's a draw. It doesn't make
> > sense to use the accounts of Jesus's miracles as
> > "evidence" of any kind, nor does it make any sense
> > to demand proof of these miracles.
> 
> But this is how Christians use the Bible's claims,
> as evidence that it gives special instructions for
> how the world actually operates.  Of course it all
> becomes moot when they default to faith after the
> evidence angle peters out.  But I don't think
> Christians are being honest about how they do
> attempt to use evidence to influence belief.

I think it's mostly fundamentalists you're
talking about. Nonfundamentalists tend to take
it all as a matter of faith (unless they've had
related mystical experience--see below for a
definition--in which case it's both, neither
subject to epistemological investigation or
proof).

> > But it's entirely mundane and can easily be
> > tested. I'm talking about mystical experience.
> 
> OK, then the topic has shifted from the specific
> claims of an "experience" of having had past lives.

No, I'm classing that as a mystical experience,
as opposed to the mundane experience of the OCD
person: "having a spiritual meaning or reality
that is neither apparent to the senses nor
obvious to the intelligence," per Mr. Dictionary.
That's what takes such experience out of the 
realm of epistemology and proof.

> > > The example he likes is that God gave us this
> > > real estate and you and your clan need to hit
> > > the road.
> > 
> > That isn't the product of an *experience*; it says
> > so in da Bible. It's externally acquired.
> 
> I don't know if there are mystical claims of God's
> messages about real estate among the Rabbis and
> Mullahs in the Mid East, or if it is all based on
> da book.  I think some of the factions of Islam are
> based on the prophetic visions of their founders
> aren't they?

Sure, but that's the founders, not the subsequent
practitioners. And while there may be rabbis who've
had some mystical experience about the Jews being
given the Land of Israel by God, that's just a
confirmation, for them, of what's in the book. For
most religious Jews it's *only* what's in the book.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation

[Vaj]

On Dec 1, 2008, at 8:41 PM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote:

> the fact that the question about reincarnation remains, invalidates
> what the yogi may or may not know. you may be convinced, and have a
> great story to convince others of the validity of the yogi. but all
> that does is leave each of us with a choice. and that choice is, do
> we believe it? yes or no. no proof at all of reincarnation.


It all comes down to your own experience, to coin the lingo of TM- 
speak, your own level of consciousness.

When was the last time you rebooted Dawn?

[FairfieldLife] 'The Animal/Demons of Pakastan'

[Robert]

Israeli hostages killed by Islamic terrorists during the attacks on Mumbai 
  (formerly Bombay) were tortured by their captors before they were bound 
  together and killed, according to officials in both countries. 





 



By Damien McElroy in Bombay 


Last Updated: 4:52PM GMT 01 Dec 2008





Jewish victims made up a disproportionate number of the foreigners
killed after 10 Muslim fanatics stormed a series of sites in the Indian
financial capital.Members of the beleaguered Jewish community in
Mumbai gathered at a crumbling synagogue for a memorial for Rabbi
Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife Rivka, who ran the cultural centre
targeted by the Deccan Mujahideen.The couple's son, Moshe
survived after his nanny, Sandra Samuel escaped with him in her arms 10
hours after the hostage incident started. The child cried "Ima" and
"Dada," or mummy and daddy, as the service began.Mosche's
grandparents have arrived from Israel to take the orphaned boy home and
there is intense pressure to grant Miss Samuel a visa by declaring her
righteous among the gentiles.Two countries have posted officials
at the JJ Hospital morgue but there are at least twice as many Israeli
disaster specialists as British consuls representing the former
colonial power.Israeli officials confirmed six Jews were dead
but the figure is likely to rise to eight. The total number of
foreigners killed in the attacks stands at 22.A forensic team
arrived on a specially chartered flight on Sunday night. "There are
still a few yet to be identified – not a lot, under five – and this is
why we need the forensic team," an Israeli diplomat said. "And there
are two or three Israelis unaccounted for and we have a couple of
bodies that could be them."Doctors expressed horror at the
condition of the bodies recovered from the Nariman Building, which
housed the Orthodox Chabad-Lubavitch retreat. "I have seen so
many dead bodies in my life, and was traumatised," a mortician said.
"It was apparent that most of the dead were tortured. What shocked me
were the telltale signs showing clearly how the hostages were executed
in cold blood."The group that stormed Bombay's most famous
institutions displayed unrestrained brutality throughout the mission.
The captain of a fishing trawler hijacked by the group in Arabian Sea
was found with his throat cut.Police said 17 victims were pushed against a wall 
in the corridor of the Oberoi hotel and executed in a line.One man who served a 
glass of water to a terrorist at Bombay's main railway station was shot in the 
forehead.


  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation

[Vaj]

On Dec 1, 2008, at 8:18 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:

>> But that's not meant to validate the projectors of thought constructs
>> and the mediums of mind, the channelers of think, the radios of
>> discursive babble. They are what, if you are honest with yourself,  
>> you
>> really already know. They are what they what really appear to be: bad
>> entertainment. And unfortunately they also give voice to the idea of
>> reincarnation--really meant to be the idea that consciousness, like
>> energy, within a closed system, is always conserved. It's really a
>> rather common sense idea. Till you listen to the babblers of the  
>> fine-
>> tuned channels of discursiveness.
>>
>
>
> I think I need to drop acid with you to follow this conversation Vaj!
> I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to invest the meditation time to
> reboot creation.  Sounds like a party though.


No drugs necessary--but if that's the way you wanted to go MDMA would  
be the preferred way, in the proper set and setting. It's more  
integrative: you keep what you get and you can bring it back.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
-snip- 
> It's the same with reincarnation. If you've rebooted creation so 
many  
> times, you just know. You also grok the fractal interpenetration 
of  
> these same patterns upon layer and layer of "living", of "death" 
and  
> "rebirth". In every moment of plain living.
> 
> But that's not meant to validate the projectors of thought 
constructs  
> and the mediums of mind, the channelers of think, the radios of  
> discursive babble. They are what, if you are honest with yourself, 
you  
> really already know. They are what they what really appear to be: 
bad  
> entertainment. And unfortunately they also give voice to the idea 
of  
> reincarnation--really meant to be the idea that consciousness, 
like  
> energy, within a closed system, is always conserved. It's really 
a  
> rather common sense idea. Till you listen to the babblers of the 
fine- 
> tuned channels of discursiveness.
>
the fact that the question about reincarnation remains, invalidates 
what the yogi may or may not know. you may be convinced, and have a 
great story to convince others of the validity of the yogi. but all 
that does is leave each of us with a choice. and that choice is, do 
we believe it? yes or no. no proof at all of reincarnation.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" 

> wrote:
> >
> > Stu,
> >
> > But if you are a responsible scientist, then you do have a
> > responsibility to try to disconfirm the theory with specifid 
data and
> > logic.
> 
> I don't consider myself a scientist or a materialist.
> 
> I do know there is no way to prove a negative.  As long as anyone 
wants
> to claim the fantastic, the burden of proof lies with them.
> 
> As far as I can tell we are born and we die.  If there is more to 
that I
> am open to the evidence.
> 
> As for disproving this specific "solid proof"  - I and others on 
this
> thread have questioned you on a number of points. Specifically I
> questioned your computer-like visual perception model and how it 
differs
> from the present scientific model,  and you have not responded.
> 
> s.
>
now that all of us have determined that there is no evidence proving 
reincarnation, i'd like to examine a different angle, and that is 
what death means to us.

death ensures that we have a finite life, and this has been baked 
into the DNA pretty solidly over the last million years or so. 

recognition of this finite life seems to drive two ways of being. 
either we see that this life is it, and act accordingly, or we 
believe in an afterlife, in clouds of either sunshine or sulfur, or 
that we will be back, and also act accordingly.

which, then, drives the more beneficial behavior? do we recognize 
that this is all we will have, and as a result act in positive ways 
in order to leave a legacy of a better world for the next 
generation? or do we adopt a cavalier attitude about life, realizing 
that there is no judgment day, and so do whatever we please?

or option two, do we think we are coming back, and in fear of that, 
act well? or recognize that we are coming back anyway, so what the 
hell, we are here for countless lifetimes, might as well do what we 
want when incarnated?

so there are four choices:
1. this is it, act good for future generations.
2. this is it, act bad because there will be no consequences.
3. there is afterlife or reincarnation, act good out of fear of 
karma.
4. there is afterlife or reincarnation, act bad because the 
treadmill of human lives is endless.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation

[curtisdeltablues]

> But that's not meant to validate the projectors of thought constructs  
> and the mediums of mind, the channelers of think, the radios of  
> discursive babble. They are what, if you are honest with yourself, you  
> really already know. They are what they what really appear to be: bad  
> entertainment. And unfortunately they also give voice to the idea of  
> reincarnation--really meant to be the idea that consciousness, like  
> energy, within a closed system, is always conserved. It's really a  
> rather common sense idea. Till you listen to the babblers of the fine- 
> tuned channels of discursiveness.
>


I think I need to drop acid with you to follow this conversation Vaj!
 I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to invest the meditation time to
reboot creation.  Sounds like a party though.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Dec 1, 2008, at 7:20 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell"
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> Stu,
> >>
> >> But if you are a responsible scientist, then you do have a
> >> responsibility to try to disconfirm the theory with specifid data
> > and> logic. That is the way science is supposed to work. One person
> > gives> his theory, with specific data and logic, not opinion, and then
> > other> people try to disconfirm it, using specific data and logic
> > relating to> the data and logic of the scientist who first proposed
> > the theory.
> >
> > And these scientist have unlimited time and resources to run after
> > every claim other people make too?
> >
> > I don't believe you are articulating how science works accurately.
> > Scientists work on the basis of what we already know about how nature
> > works. Everything is not equally probable.
> >
> > If someone is talking about subjective experiences like their past
> > lire memories, then it is up to them to show how this differs from
> > ordinary imagination. As a creative person, I imagine all sorts of
> > stuff.  But I'm not making a claim that this gives me special
> > knowledge about how the world works, i.e. when we die we come back to
> > life as another person and can sometimes remember the details of our
> > previous life.  Claims that are not put in a falsifiable form are not
> > interesting to science.
> 
> 
> My gut feeling on this is people who make specious claims of  
> contacting the "unified field" or pure consciousness or the "clear  
> light" are just by and large bullshitters. Well hey: it sounds good  
> and wild. Where do I sign up? How much?
> 
> The reason for this is pretty simple. If you are making the claim that  
> you're in contact with the very basis of the phenomenal world, the  
> 'silence before creation', "pure" consciousness (ever notice how no  
> one ever asks "how" pure but just accepts it?)--well, eventually you  
> come back to the world, your body, brain and consciousness, the same  
> world we all share. If (big "if") you've actually had this experience,  
> then you're basically just watching creation boot--and watching,  
> detachedly, the whole program come up on your "monitor". Do that again  
> and again and you recognize all the otherwise relatively mundane  
> elements of the phenomenal world in a new light; you've literally  
> "been there, done that", you've seen it all before, from the seed, to  
> the root and the eventual tree--and the tree dying, back to soil and  
> seed and new saplings once again.
> 
> Hang out with some real yogis and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> I remember one such yogi. He was visiting the caves of Lascaux in  
> France. Of course Anthropologists have their own ideas what their  
> megalithic graffiti means. But this dude was grooving on a different  
> wavelength altogether. Having, literally watched the world reboot so  
> many times, it has 'old hat' to him. Not only did he know, from his  
> own experience the exact time they were scrawled--he knew what they  
> were saying and conveying. Really.
> 
> It's the same with reincarnation. If you've rebooted creation so many  
> times, you just know. You also grok the fractal interpenetration of  
> these same patterns upon layer and layer of "living", of "death" and  
> "rebirth". In every moment of plain living.
> 
> But that's not meant to validate the projectors of thought constructs  
> and the mediums of mind, the channelers of think, the radios of  
> discursive babble. They are what, if you are honest with yourself, you  
> really already know. They are what they what really appear to be: bad  
> entertainment. And unfortunately they also give voice to the idea of  
> reincarnation--really meant to be the idea that consciousness, like  
> energy, within a closed system, is always conserved. It's really a  
> rather common sense idea. Till you listen to the babblers of the fine- 
> tuned channels of discursiveness.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[curtisdeltablues]

> > Let's not shift the burden of proof here.
> 
> I'm not. I'm saying they can't prove it and you
> can't disprove it, so it's a draw. It doesn't make
> sense to use the accounts of Jesus's miracles as
> "evidence" of any kind, nor does it make any sense
> to demand proof of these miracles.

But this is how Christians use the Bible's claims, as evidence that it
gives special instructions for how the world actually operates.  Of
course it all becomes moot when they default to faith after the
evidence angle peters out.  But I don't think Christians are being
honest about how they do attempt to use evidence to influence belief.

> But it's entirely mundane and can easily be
> tested. I'm talking about mystical experience.

OK, then the topic has shifted from the specific claims of an
"experience" of having had past lives.  I think I would have to have
some specific examples to understand what kind you are talking about.

> > The example he likes is that God gave us this
> > real estate and you and your clan need to hit
> > the road.
> 
> That isn't the product of an *experience*; it says
> so in da Bible. It's externally acquired.

I don't know if there are mystical claims of God's messages about real
estate among the Rabbis and Mullahs in the Mid East, or if it is all
based on da book.  I think some of the factions of Islam are based on
the prophetic visions of their founders aren't they?


 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure about that.  For Reincarnation they
> > > > are making specific claims about having memories
> > > > of what actually existed in the world when they
> > > > were alive before.
> > > 
> > > And how can you prove or disprove that they have
> > > such memories? You can't get inside their heads
> > > to see whether the memories are there. (Two
> > > different points here: whether they have the
> > > memory is one; whether it's a memory of what
> > > actually happened is another.)
> > 
> > I wasn't thinking that this question is the most
> > relevant to the claim.  I'm not trying to
> > distinguish someones memory from their imagination.
> 
> I know. I'm really just making a semantic quibble
> because sometimes this type of distinction gets lost
> and creates misunderstanding. "Specific claims that
> their memories are of what actually existed in the
> world" would be clearer.
> 
> 
> > > > So in principle they can be tested. We
> > > > may not know what happens after death, but if
> > > > someone claims that they DO know because they
> > > > can remember specifics of having lived before
> > > > it can be tested.
> > > 
> > > But you can't prove or disprove that this has
> > > anything to do with reincarnation.
> > 
> > I'm not so sure.  If a lot of people had these
> > experiences in compelling detail we might be able
> > to establish it.  At least we could up the
> > probability of it being true.
> 
> Probability, perhaps. But we couldn't rule out
> other possibilities.
> 
> > >   They are
> > > > going beyond describing a place after death.
> > > > So challenging their assertions with a request
> > > > for proof seems reasonable to me.  If you look
> > > > at Christian beliefs based on the New Testament's
> > > > claims, we do see an attempt for an evidence
> > > > system based on the Jesus miracles.
> > > 
> > > Which can't be proved or disproved either.
> > 
> > Let's not shift the burden of proof here.
> 
> I'm not. I'm saying they can't prove it and you
> can't disprove it, so it's a draw. It doesn't make
> sense to use the accounts of Jesus's miracles as
> "evidence" of any kind, nor does it make any sense
> to demand proof of these miracles.
> 
>   It isn't up to me to disprove it.  The person
> > making the claim makes their case and we can
> > decide if we find their reasons compelling.  We
> > have proven a lot of things about historical
> > figures with a pretty good degree of confidence.
> > The Jesus myth just isn't one of them for me.
> 
> Jesus is really only quasi-historical. There's
> almost nothing in the way of contemporary evidence
> even for his existence, let alone his deeds or what
> he said.
> 
> 
> > > > > So it seems to me there's an element operating
> > > > > in this situation that doesn't exist with
> > > > > externally acquired beliefs, one that isn't
> > > > > subject to examination or analysis, at least in
> > > > > anything like the same way as with externally
> > > > > acquired beliefs.
> > > > 
> > > > It seems the same to me.  Lets take the beliefs
> > > > of an OCD person who KNOWS that if they don't
> > > > turn the light off and on 3 times something bad
> > > > will happen.
> > > 
> > > Nah, that's a bogus example.
> > 
> > I don't see why,it is an internally created
> > reality for the person without any external
> > support.
> 
> But it's entirely mundane and can easily be
> tested. I'm talking

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation

[Vaj]

On Dec 1, 2008, at 7:20 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Stu,

But if you are a responsible scientist, then you do have a
responsibility to try to disconfirm the theory with specifid data

and> logic. That is the way science is supposed to work. One person
gives> his theory, with specific data and logic, not opinion, and then
other> people try to disconfirm it, using specific data and logic
relating to> the data and logic of the scientist who first proposed
the theory.

And these scientist have unlimited time and resources to run after
every claim other people make too?

I don't believe you are articulating how science works accurately.
Scientists work on the basis of what we already know about how nature
works. Everything is not equally probable.

If someone is talking about subjective experiences like their past
lire memories, then it is up to them to show how this differs from
ordinary imagination. As a creative person, I imagine all sorts of
stuff.  But I'm not making a claim that this gives me special
knowledge about how the world works, i.e. when we die we come back to
life as another person and can sometimes remember the details of our
previous life.  Claims that are not put in a falsifiable form are not
interesting to science.



My gut feeling on this is people who make specious claims of  
contacting the "unified field" or pure consciousness or the "clear  
light" are just by and large bullshitters. Well hey: it sounds good  
and wild. Where do I sign up? How much?


The reason for this is pretty simple. If you are making the claim that  
you're in contact with the very basis of the phenomenal world, the  
'silence before creation', "pure" consciousness (ever notice how no  
one ever asks "how" pure but just accepts it?)--well, eventually you  
come back to the world, your body, brain and consciousness, the same  
world we all share. If (big "if") you've actually had this experience,  
then you're basically just watching creation boot--and watching,  
detachedly, the whole program come up on your "monitor". Do that again  
and again and you recognize all the otherwise relatively mundane  
elements of the phenomenal world in a new light; you've literally  
"been there, done that", you've seen it all before, from the seed, to  
the root and the eventual tree--and the tree dying, back to soil and  
seed and new saplings once again.


Hang out with some real yogis and you'll see what I mean.

I remember one such yogi. He was visiting the caves of Lascaux in  
France. Of course Anthropologists have their own ideas what their  
megalithic graffiti means. But this dude was grooving on a different  
wavelength altogether. Having, literally watched the world reboot so  
many times, it has 'old hat' to him. Not only did he know, from his  
own experience the exact time they were scrawled--he knew what they  
were saying and conveying. Really.


It's the same with reincarnation. If you've rebooted creation so many  
times, you just know. You also grok the fractal interpenetration of  
these same patterns upon layer and layer of "living", of "death" and  
"rebirth". In every moment of plain living.


But that's not meant to validate the projectors of thought constructs  
and the mediums of mind, the channelers of think, the radios of  
discursive babble. They are what, if you are honest with yourself, you  
really already know. They are what they what really appear to be: bad  
entertainment. And unfortunately they also give voice to the idea of  
reincarnation--really meant to be the idea that consciousness, like  
energy, within a closed system, is always conserved. It's really a  
rather common sense idea. Till you listen to the babblers of the fine- 
tuned channels of discursiveness.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure about that.  For Reincarnation they
> > > are making specific claims about having memories
> > > of what actually existed in the world when they
> > > were alive before.
> > 
> > And how can you prove or disprove that they have
> > such memories? You can't get inside their heads
> > to see whether the memories are there. (Two
> > different points here: whether they have the
> > memory is one; whether it's a memory of what
> > actually happened is another.)
> 
> I wasn't thinking that this question is the most
> relevant to the claim.  I'm not trying to
> distinguish someones memory from their imagination.

I know. I'm really just making a semantic quibble
because sometimes this type of distinction gets lost
and creates misunderstanding. "Specific claims that
their memories are of what actually existed in the
world" would be clearer.


> > > So in principle they can be tested. We
> > > may not know what happens after death, but if
> > > someone claims that they DO know because they
> > > can remember specifics of having lived before
> > > it can be tested.
> > 
> > But you can't prove or disprove that this has
> > anything to do with reincarnation.
> 
> I'm not so sure.  If a lot of people had these
> experiences in compelling detail we might be able
> to establish it.  At least we could up the
> probability of it being true.

Probability, perhaps. But we couldn't rule out
other possibilities.

> >   They are
> > > going beyond describing a place after death.
> > > So challenging their assertions with a request
> > > for proof seems reasonable to me.  If you look
> > > at Christian beliefs based on the New Testament's
> > > claims, we do see an attempt for an evidence
> > > system based on the Jesus miracles.
> > 
> > Which can't be proved or disproved either.
> 
> Let's not shift the burden of proof here.

I'm not. I'm saying they can't prove it and you
can't disprove it, so it's a draw. It doesn't make
sense to use the accounts of Jesus's miracles as
"evidence" of any kind, nor does it make any sense
to demand proof of these miracles.

  It isn't up to me to disprove it.  The person
> making the claim makes their case and we can
> decide if we find their reasons compelling.  We
> have proven a lot of things about historical
> figures with a pretty good degree of confidence.
> The Jesus myth just isn't one of them for me.

Jesus is really only quasi-historical. There's
almost nothing in the way of contemporary evidence
even for his existence, let alone his deeds or what
he said.


> > > > So it seems to me there's an element operating
> > > > in this situation that doesn't exist with
> > > > externally acquired beliefs, one that isn't
> > > > subject to examination or analysis, at least in
> > > > anything like the same way as with externally
> > > > acquired beliefs.
> > > 
> > > It seems the same to me.  Lets take the beliefs
> > > of an OCD person who KNOWS that if they don't
> > > turn the light off and on 3 times something bad
> > > will happen.
> > 
> > Nah, that's a bogus example.
> 
> I don't see why,it is an internally created
> reality for the person without any external
> support.

But it's entirely mundane and can easily be
tested. I'm talking about mystical experience.


> > > I think this is Sam Harris's main point.  That we
> > > don't have to give a person a pass on claims just
> > > because they came from an inner source once they
> > > cross the threshold of talking about their meaning.
> > 
> > Depends on *what they say* about the experiences'
> > meaning. It isn't a one-size-fits-all situation.
> 
> The example he likes is that God gave us this
> real estate and you and your clan need to hit
> the road.

That isn't the product of an *experience*; it says
so in da Bible. It's externally acquired.

[FairfieldLife] 'Big Apple/Crab Apple'

[Robert]

NYC Bus Driver Stabbed To Death In Front Of Riders
Police: Argument Over $2 Transfer Slip Ends In Horror
 Reporting
Mary Calvi BROOKLYN (CBS) ― Police said a New York City bus driver was stabbed 
to death Monday afternoon by a rider apparently angry over not receiving a free 
transfer. 

The driver of the B-46 bus, identified as 46-year-old Edwin Thomas, was 
operating the bus in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn and picked up 
the suspect around 12:30 p.m. Monday at Malcolm X Boulevard near Gates Avenue.

Police said the man swiped an invalid fare card and sat down on the bus, then 
asked for a transfer slip usually available to riders. 

Police told CBS 2 HD that when the driver told the man that he didn't pay for 
the ride and couldn't get a transfer, the man punched the driver in the head 
and stabbed him to death while other riders looked on.

"It's crazy because, I mean, the bus driver was cool," witness Benjamin 
Stacking said. "He let me on. I was 50 cents short and he still let me on and 
gave me a transfer, so that's kind of crazy."

The suspect fled on foot. Police are looking for a black male between 18 and 20 
years old wearing black jeans and an Adidas jacket.

The incident marked the first time a NYC bus driver has been killed on the job 
in 25 years. Police are offering a $12,000 reward for any information on the 
suspect.


If you have any information, please call CrimeStoppers at 1-800-577-TIPS.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Stu,
> 
> But if you are a responsible scientist, then you do have a
> responsibility to try to disconfirm the theory with specifid data
and> logic. That is the way science is supposed to work. One person
gives> his theory, with specific data and logic, not opinion, and then
other> people try to disconfirm it, using specific data and logic
relating to> the data and logic of the scientist who first proposed
the theory.

And these scientist have unlimited time and resources to run after
every claim other people make too?

I don't believe you are articulating how science works accurately. 
Scientists work on the basis of what we already know about how nature
works. Everything is not equally probable. 

If someone is talking about subjective experiences like their past
lire memories, then it is up to them to show how this differs from
ordinary imagination. As a creative person, I imagine all sorts of
stuff.  But I'm not making a claim that this gives me special
knowledge about how the world works, i.e. when we die we come back to
life as another person and can sometimes remember the details of our
previous life.  Claims that are not put in a falsifiable form are not
interesting to science. 







> Either the theory can be disconfirmed or it can't, but the process of
> challenging a theory requires sincere, good quality work.
> 
> To just say that in your opinion, a theory with data and logic is not
> true, is to really say nothing at all.
> 
> I would be extremely happy if some people would sincerely try to
> disconfirm my theories. The word "sincerely" is key. If they didn't
> disconfirm the theory, then the theory would gain in strength. If the
> theory were disconfirmed, the process of coming to that conclusion
> would, as a side effect, produce additional scientific knowledge.
> 
> If you don't have the self-confidence to get into serious, sincere
> data and logic, well, don't be shy. I'm not going to think less of you
> if you fail to disconfirm the theory, as long as you do a good job. If
> you do disconfirm the theory, then you will have added to my knowledge.
> 
> Jim 
> 
> Jim
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" 
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > snip
> > snip
> > > > Don't you see?  At this point in our exchange the
> > > > only response can be about the why and hows of the
> > > > response.
> > > 
> > > No, actually we could have discussed the
> > > part you keep snipping:
> > > 
> > > I'm making one very straightforward point:
> > > your arguments aren't anywhere near strong
> > > enough to claim certainty (same point Barry's
> > > making).
> > >
> > I was not the one who claimed "solid proof" (the title of the thread).
> >  As you know the skeptical point of view always leaves room for any
> > possibility no matter how remote.  What I am claiming is that this
> > reincarnation stuff strikes me as highly remote.
> > 
> > Coming from that point of view I did notice a similarity between these
> > posts and the ones I had many years ago back at alt.m.t when I queried
> > an ex-TMer who found Jesus named Peter. The burden of proof for
> > fantastic claims lies with the claimant.
> > 
> > I am off the hook.  I have no obligation to prove a negative.  I
> > assume there are no unicorns - you gotta show me the horses with the
> > horns.
> > 
> > s.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Nov 29 00:00:00 2008
End Date (UTC): Sat Dec 06 00:00:00 2008
409 messages as of (UTC) Tue Dec 02 00:12:11 2008

35 authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
29 nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28 Stu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24 curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23 enlightened_dawn11 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21 TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21 "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20 sparaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20 Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19 shempmcgurk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19 Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14 "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12 bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12 Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 9 Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 8 off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 8 lurkernomore20002000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 8 I am the eternal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 7 Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 7 Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 6 raunchydog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 6 cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 6 Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 6 John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 5 Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 3 pranamoocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 3 Alex Stanley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 3 "min.pige" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 2 yifuxero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 2 gullible fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 2 Marek Reavis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 2 Janet Luise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 2 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 2 Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 2 Dick Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 1 shanti18411 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 1 satvadude108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 1 martyboi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 1 margovon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 1 mainstream20016 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 1 at_man_and_brahman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 1 amritasyaputra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 1 Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 1 Richard M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 1 Patrick Gillam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 1 Eustace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 1 "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Posters: 48
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: If There is a Social Security Emergency

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If the unemployment rate grows so high that the social security tax
> revenues are no longer enough to cover social security pensions, and
> the situation is so desperate that the federal government is unable 
to
> transfer money from the general fund, there is a possible solution 
for
> you guys to look at and consider:
> 
> A program could be instituted in which people could buy additional
> social security payments, at probably 200 dollars for an increase of
> one dollar per month. That would be a below private annuity rates, 
but
> the money would be adjusted for cost of living increases if there 
were
> future inflation, so it would work out. The payments would also give
> quarters in the usual way.
> 
> Mathematically, this would transfer money from savings, where it 
would
> be sitting not doing much, to the cash flow of the total economy.
> 
> In addition, foreign citizens could buy American social security at
> the same rates, as long as the total amount gave them 40 quarters.
> This would pull in some money from outside the country. It could 
bring
> in a fairly large amount if people in oil producing nations decided 
to
> hedge their bets by investing part of their money in an American
> social security pension, plus some other people in various 
situations
> in foreign nations.
> 
> If you guys like the idea, you could bring it to the attention of
> President elect Obama. That is to say, a group could get an idea 
past
> his secretaries where an unknown individual, like I am, could not 
get
> a hearing, as the secretaries would just toss my communication.
> 
> Jim
>


Here's what you do, Jim:

Write your wonderful idea on the back of a $100.00 bill and send it 
to me, Shemp McGurk, c/o Quick Getaway Motel, Nogales, Mexico, and 
I'll be sure to bring it to the President's attention.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[curtisdeltablues]

> > 
> > I'm not sure about that.  For Reincarnation they
> > are making specific claims about having memories
> > of what actually existed in the world when they
> > were alive before.
> 
> And how can you prove or disprove that they have
> such memories? You can't get inside their heads
> to see whether the memories are there. (Two
> different points here: whether they have the
> memory is one; whether it's a memory of what
> actually happened is another.)

I wasn't thinking that this question is the most relevant to the
claim.  I'm not trying to distinguish someones memory from their
imagination.  I'm only interested in what can be tested against our
consensus reality outside.  For example a songwriter writes a moving
song set in the Civil War.  I'm only interested in how good the song
is, not if they really remember living then or are imagining it all. 
  But if they go the route of " I was IN the Civil War and that
inspired me", I might decline to join them in this belief unless they
can make their case in detail.
> 
> > So in principle they can be tested. We
> > may not know what happens after death, but if
> > someone claims that they DO know because they
> > can remember specifics of having lived before
> > it can be tested.
> 
> But you can't prove or disprove that this has
> anything to do with reincarnation.

I'm not so sure.  If a lot of people had these experiences in
compelling detail we might be able to establish it.  At least we could
up the probability of it being true.

> 
> > Sam Harris makes the point about the God belief
> > that religious people are actually making claims
> > about how the world actually is.
> 
> Depends on the religious person and the specific
> claims they're making.

OK

> 
>   They are
> > going beyond describing a place after death.
> > So challenging their assertions with a request
> > for proof seems reasonable to me.  If you look
> > at Christian beliefs based on the New Testament's
> > claims, we do see an attempt for an evidence
> > system based on the Jesus miracles.
> 
> Which can't be proved or disproved either.

Let's not shift the burden of proof here.  It isn't up to me to
disprove it.  The person making the claim makes their case and we can
decide if we find their reasons compelling.  We have proven a lot of
things about historical figures with a pretty good degree of
confidence.  The Jesus myth just isn't one of them for me.

> 
> 
> > 
> > I think he would pretty much have to be raised
> > by wolves for this to be true.
> 
> Most likely the kid would give up the beliefs
> and block out the memory of the experience. But
> I've read accounts of people who have not done
> so. They shut up about the experience but they
> don't forget it or decide it was an illusion.
> 
> 
> > > There's no way to trace the origins of those
> > > beliefs because what generated them was a
> > > purely internal, private occurrence. If the
> > > kid holds on to the beliefs, it isn't because
> > > of parental pressure; if there's any pressure,
> > > it's to drop the beliefs.
> > > 
> > > So it seems to me there's an element operating
> > > in this situation that doesn't exist with
> > > externally acquired beliefs, one that isn't
> > > subject to examination or analysis, at least in
> > > anything like the same way as with externally
> > > acquired beliefs.
> > 
> > It seems the same to me.  Lets take the beliefs
> > of an OCD person who KNOWS that if they don't
> > turn the light off and on 3 times something bad
> > will happen.
> 
> Nah, that's a bogus example.

I don't see why,it is an internally created reality for the person
without any external support. 

> 
> > > It's pretty well established that there's a
> > > psychological component to accepting external
> > > beliefs, but that isn't necessarily the case
> > > with beliefs arising from profound mystical
> > > experience. Psychology may influence how the
> > > experience is interpreted, but we don't know
> > > what the role of psychology is in the
> > > experience itself.
> > 
> > I agree that we don't know how beliefs shape
> > ineffable experiences.
> 
> Or how ineffable experiences shape beliefs.

Right.

> 
> 
 
> Again, it depends on the nature of the claims they're
> making. We didn't get enough information from Joerge
> about his own experience and his interpretation
> thereof to know whether he was making any claims that
> could be subject to epistemological questioning.

I started to disagree with you, but on reflection, I agree.

> 
> > I think this is Sam Harris's main point.  That we
> > don't have to give a person a pass on claims just
> > because they came from an inner source once they
> > cross the threshold of talking about their meaning.
> 
> Depends on *what they say* about the experiences'
> meaning. It isn't a one-size-fits-all situation.

The example he likes is that God gave us this real estate and you and
your clan need to hit the road.




>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Don't smoke the tomatoes!

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "martyboi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Actually, a friend told me they hang little plastic
> tomatoes on their plants with Christmas tree hooks
> to make the bushes look innocent from a distance. I
> suppose law enforcement isn't fooled by that.

Oh, no kidding!

Well, these particular police seemed to have been
fooled in the opposite direction. Maybe it made
sense for them to have a closeup look to make sure
the tomatoes were real ones that were actually 
growing out of the plant, but you'd think that would
have been pretty straightforward.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Wouldn't it be a trip...

[Stu]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > ...if what happened to you subjectively when you
> > die was completely a result of what you believed
> > would happen to you?
> > 
> > The Mormons would go to a Mormon heaven. (Which,
> > if you've ever spent any time in Utah, might be
> > the same thing that other people would call Hell.)
> > The Christians would go to a Christian heaven, and
> > be issued harps and wings at the door. At least 
> > some of them would. Others, who really got off more
> > on guilt than they did inspiration, might believe
> > that they were going straight to Hell or Purgatory
> > when they died. And so they would.
> > 
> > Those who believe that consciousness just blinks out
> > and there is nothing but darkness would blink out. 
> > End of story.
> > 
> > Those who believe in reincarnation would reincarnate.
> > 
> > And those who don't have any beliefs at all about 
> > what happens to them when they die would be shit 
> > out of luck. 
> > 
> > :-)
> >
> 
> Eh, such theories abound in reincarnation circles, I think: you get
> the heaven you expect which is just another illusion, according to 
> some.
> 
> L
>
Thanks Lawson.  Very well put.  My point exactly.

Prolly better off quelling the illusions than adopting them and
identifying with them.

s.

[FairfieldLife] Robin Carlsen's "suicide"

[Vaj]

I just received an email from one of Robin Carlsen's oldest and  
dearest friends stating that he did not commit suicide.

This was most likely a rumor being spread by TM zealots hellbent on  
revenge.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation

[Stu]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Stu,
>
> But if you are a responsible scientist, then you do have a
> responsibility to try to disconfirm the theory with specifid data and
> logic.

I don't consider myself a scientist or a materialist.

I do know there is no way to prove a negative.  As long as anyone wants
to claim the fantastic, the burden of proof lies with them.

As far as I can tell we are born and we die.  If there is more to that I
am open to the evidence.

As for disproving this specific "solid proof"  - I and others on this
thread have questioned you on a number of points. Specifically I
questioned your computer-like visual perception model and how it differs
from the present scientific model,  and you have not responded.

s.

[FairfieldLife] If There is a Social Security Emergency

[James F. Newell]

If the unemployment rate grows so high that the social security tax
revenues are no longer enough to cover social security pensions, and
the situation is so desperate that the federal government is unable to
transfer money from the general fund, there is a possible solution for
you guys to look at and consider:

A program could be instituted in which people could buy additional
social security payments, at probably 200 dollars for an increase of
one dollar per month. That would be a below private annuity rates, but
the money would be adjusted for cost of living increases if there were
future inflation, so it would work out. The payments would also give
quarters in the usual way.

Mathematically, this would transfer money from savings, where it would
be sitting not doing much, to the cash flow of the total economy.

In addition, foreign citizens could buy American social security at
the same rates, as long as the total amount gave them 40 quarters.
This would pull in some money from outside the country. It could bring
in a fairly large amount if people in oil producing nations decided to
hedge their bets by investing part of their money in an American
social security pension, plus some other people in various situations
in foreign nations.

If you guys like the idea, you could bring it to the attention of
President elect Obama. That is to say, a group could get an idea past
his secretaries where an unknown individual, like I am, could not get
a hearing, as the secretaries would just toss my communication.

Jim 

[FairfieldLife] Re: What changes belief?

[Stu]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB 
wrote:

> 
> Exactly as I suggested, "My dick is longer than 
> yours." It's just that your variant is "My dick 
> is more grounded than yours."

Its not exactly that.  I am saying, I can look in my pants see my
dick, here.  now.

Your telling me your dick defies nature.  You can't show me but I
should take your word for it. In fact years ago a medicine man allowed
you to see amazing things about your dick.  Then he killed himself and
you wrote a story about what great feats your dick did in the company
of the medicine man.

I have to admit your dick story is longer than mine.
 
> And you're absolutely, 100% certain of this, right?
> There is no other possibility. 
> 
Now Barry, we have had many a discussion over these years - have I
ever suggested my stand to be absolute.  I don't subscribe to an
absolute. That is part of the point.  I am saying your position is
highly unlikely.

And given I can't prove a negative I will have to wait for your
supporting evidence.

s.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation

[James F. Newell]

Stu,

But if you are a responsible scientist, then you do have a
responsibility to try to disconfirm the theory with specifid data and
logic. That is the way science is supposed to work. One person gives
his theory, with specific data and logic, not opinion, and then other
people try to disconfirm it, using specific data and logic relating to
the data and logic of the scientist who first proposed the theory.
Either the theory can be disconfirmed or it can't, but the process of
challenging a theory requires sincere, good quality work.

To just say that in your opinion, a theory with data and logic is not
true, is to really say nothing at all.

I would be extremely happy if some people would sincerely try to
disconfirm my theories. The word "sincerely" is key. If they didn't
disconfirm the theory, then the theory would gain in strength. If the
theory were disconfirmed, the process of coming to that conclusion
would, as a side effect, produce additional scientific knowledge.

If you don't have the self-confidence to get into serious, sincere
data and logic, well, don't be shy. I'm not going to think less of you
if you fail to disconfirm the theory, as long as you do a good job. If
you do disconfirm the theory, then you will have added to my knowledge.

Jim 

Jim

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > snip
> snip
> > > Don't you see?  At this point in our exchange the
> > > only response can be about the why and hows of the
> > > response.
> > 
> > No, actually we could have discussed the
> > part you keep snipping:
> > 
> > I'm making one very straightforward point:
> > your arguments aren't anywhere near strong
> > enough to claim certainty (same point Barry's
> > making).
> >
> I was not the one who claimed "solid proof" (the title of the thread).
>  As you know the skeptical point of view always leaves room for any
> possibility no matter how remote.  What I am claiming is that this
> reincarnation stuff strikes me as highly remote.
> 
> Coming from that point of view I did notice a similarity between these
> posts and the ones I had many years ago back at alt.m.t when I queried
> an ex-TMer who found Jesus named Peter. The burden of proof for
> fantastic claims lies with the claimant.
> 
> I am off the hook.  I have no obligation to prove a negative.  I
> assume there are no unicorns - you gotta show me the horses with the
> horns.
> 
> s.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 2,700-year-old pot stash

[satvadude108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "I am the eternal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> >
> > Bummer. Get seeds here: http://tinyurl.com/yp5zsd
> >
> 
> 20 of this company's Big Bud seeds were mistakenly delivered to me two
> years ago.  Had the wrong address (mine) and no name on the envelope
> so I could not have the seeds delivered to the rightful recipient.
>

 Naturally you did the right thing and went and bought
some grow-lights? 

You, of course, helped numerous cancer and glaucoma
patients.  The world is a better place because of it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Don't smoke the tomatoes!

[martyboi]

Actually, a friend told me they hang little plastic tomatoes on their
plants with Christmas tree hooks to make the bushes look innocent from
a distance. I suppose law enforcement isn't fooled by that.

Re: [FairfieldLife] What changes belief?

[Vaj]

On Dec 1, 2008, at 4:11 PM, Bhairitu wrote:

>> Ah yes, the "empty" piano falls on your "empty" head--but you still
>> die. Why? :-)
> Are you sure about that?  Maybe it just happens to the other  
> "beings" in
> the illusion.  But I'm not going to test the thesis. :-D

And I ain't lending you my piano in case you change your mind! :-(

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation

[Stu]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> > > > 
> > snip
snip
> > Don't you see?  At this point in our exchange the
> > only response can be about the why and hows of the
> > response.
> 
> No, actually we could have discussed the
> part you keep snipping:
> 
> I'm making one very straightforward point:
> your arguments aren't anywhere near strong
> enough to claim certainty (same point Barry's
> making).
>
I was not the one who claimed "solid proof" (the title of the thread).
 As you know the skeptical point of view always leaves room for any
possibility no matter how remote.  What I am claiming is that this
reincarnation stuff strikes me as highly remote.

Coming from that point of view I did notice a similarity between these
posts and the ones I had many years ago back at alt.m.t when I queried
an ex-TMer who found Jesus named Peter. The burden of proof for
fantastic claims lies with the claimant.

I am off the hook.  I have no obligation to prove a negative.  I
assume there are no unicorns - you gotta show me the horses with the
horns.

s.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for keeping this ball in play.
> 
> 
> > > > 
> > > > I think you really have to make a distinction
> > > > between a belief adopted from external sources
> > > > and one generated by powerful subjective
> > > > experience. Not that the latter is necessarily
> > > > any more valid than the former, but you can't
> > > > use the same kind of epistemological analysis
> > > > that you do for externally acquired beliefs to
> > > > evaluate them.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure that the source matters for proving
> > > something.
> > 
> > Well, in the first place, the demand for
> > proof of such beliefs as reincarnation or
> > the existence of God is a category error.
> > I'm talking about epistemological analysis,
> > not "proof" per se.
> 
> I'm not sure about that.  For Reincarnation they
> are making specific claims about having memories
> of what actually existed in the world when they
> were alive before.

And how can you prove or disprove that they have
such memories? You can't get inside their heads
to see whether the memories are there. (Two
different points here: whether they have the
memory is one; whether it's a memory of what
actually happened is another.)

> So in principle they can be tested. We
> may not know what happens after death, but if
> someone claims that they DO know because they
> can remember specifics of having lived before
> it can be tested.

But you can't prove or disprove that this has
anything to do with reincarnation.

> Sam Harris makes the point about the God belief
> that religious people are actually making claims
> about how the world actually is.

Depends on the religious person and the specific
claims they're making.

  They are
> going beyond describing a place after death.
> So challenging their assertions with a request
> for proof seems reasonable to me.  If you look
> at Christian beliefs based on the New Testament's
> claims, we do see an attempt for an evidence
> system based on the Jesus miracles.

Which can't be proved or disproved either.


> > In terms of externally acquired beliefs, 
> > they're pretty well defined as to their
> > specifics and provenance. Any externally 
> > acquired belief is by definition one that is
> > shared by multiple individuals, and we can
> > gather empirical data about the circumstances
> > of its acceptance by any given individual. We
> > can know much more about its nature and
> > grounds than we can with beliefs arising from
> > subjective experience.
> > 
> > As an example, take the kid who grows up in a
> > fundamentalist household. We know where the kid
> > acquired his/her beliefs and what they are; we
> > know the social imperatives influencing the kid
> > to accept the beliefs.
> 
> > Now take a kid who grows up in an atheist,
> > materialist household who has a profound mystical
> > experience at a very young age. Nobody around him
> > is going to validate the experience or validate
> > any beliefs the kid may develop as a result.
> 
> I think he would pretty much have to be raised
> by wolves for this to be true.

Most likely the kid would give up the beliefs
and block out the memory of the experience. But
I've read accounts of people who have not done
so. They shut up about the experience but they
don't forget it or decide it was an illusion.


> > There's no way to trace the origins of those
> > beliefs because what generated them was a
> > purely internal, private occurrence. If the
> > kid holds on to the beliefs, it isn't because
> > of parental pressure; if there's any pressure,
> > it's to drop the beliefs.
> > 
> > So it seems to me there's an element operating
> > in this situation that doesn't exist with
> > externally acquired beliefs, one that isn't
> > subject to examination or analysis, at least in
> > anything like the same way as with externally
> > acquired beliefs.
> 
> It seems the same to me.  Lets take the beliefs
> of an OCD person who KNOWS that if they don't
> turn the light off and on 3 times something bad
> will happen.

Nah, that's a bogus example.

> > It's pretty well established that there's a
> > psychological component to accepting external
> > beliefs, but that isn't necessarily the case
> > with beliefs arising from profound mystical
> > experience. Psychology may influence how the
> > experience is interpreted, but we don't know
> > what the role of psychology is in the
> > experience itself.
> 
> I agree that we don't know how beliefs shape
> ineffable experiences.

Or how ineffable experiences shape beliefs.


> > Subjective experience of this sort is really
> > an epistemological black box. That's why I
> > think making a distinction is important.
> 
> I think you have a knack for isolating a pretty
> clean version of experience sans belief.  It took
> me quite a few years to understand it.  (assuming
> that I actually do!) But for most people who have
> these experiences, they quickly do make 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What changes belief?

[Sal Sunshine]

On Dec 1, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Stu wrote:

> So why do only a smattering of people have this delusion?  Why am I
> not privy to voices in my head, past lives, alien probing and other
> plot contrivances from the X files?

Because you didn't take enough acid when you were younger?
Hey, it's just  a thought...

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Software recommendation needed

[Rick Archer]

I've been using TimeSlice (http://timeslice.us/) on Vista to keep track of
client billing. The program just went bananas on me and I haven't been able
to fix it, despite restarting, uninstalling, reinstalling, etc. Can someone
recommend a similar program? I don't need anything fancy like Timeslips. I
simply want to track the time I work for each client, with a simple
Start/Stop button, and automatic calculation of my hourly fee times time
spent so I can see a running total. I don't even need to print invoices. My
wife does that. Can anyone recommend something?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
wrote:
> > > 
> snip
> > 
> > > There is not enough time in the day for this.
> > 
> > You dragged me into this, and now you want
> > out. Don't pretend it's because what I'm
> > saying is "post-modern blah-de-blah." You
> > pulled those words out of a hat for all the
> > relevance they have.
> >
> Don't you see?  At this point in our exchange the
> only response can be about the why and hows of the
> response.

No, actually we could have discussed the
part you keep snipping:

I'm making one very straightforward point:
your arguments aren't anywhere near strong
enough to claim certainty (same point Barry's
making).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary and Barack - Then and Now

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From my point of view, Obama is paying a political debt
> to Hillary by naming her as the Secretary of State in
> exchange for her solid support during the general
> election.  Hillary is just as happy to take the job
> since, since I would presume, Obama will pay all of the 
> campaign debts she incurred during the primaries.

Very unlikely, and that isn't why she's happy to
take the job. Nor is Obama paying a political
debt to her. I'm not an Obama fan, but I have
more respect for him than to think he'd install
her in one of the most important cabinet positions
simply to thank her for supporting him in the
election--not with the mess this country is in
after Bush.

[FairfieldLife] Conservative David Horowitz on Obama's cabinet appointments

[shempmcgurk]

David Horowitz addressing conservatives who are complaining about 
Obama's cabinet picks:

Obama was elected in large part by a leftist crusade for hope 
and "change." Now, as president-elect, he has just formed the most 
conservative Democratic foreign policy team since John F. Kennedy, 
one well to the right of Bill Clinton. Where is your gratitude for 
that? What is more relevant in his Hillary Clinton pick: her prickly 
past or the fact that, except for Joe Lieberman, she is the Democrat 
most identified with support for the Iraq War? 

Perhaps I should repeat that. Hillary Clinton is the Democrat MOST 
IDENTIFIED WITH REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN BY FORCE. She lost a 
presidency over it. So, whatever low opinion you may have about 
Hillary, on foreign policy she is the very best choice for that 
position that conservatives could expect to get. Even better, because 
the ONLY issue that really divided Hillary and Obama was the Iraq 
War. This is President Obama's way of saying, "Okay, now that I'm in 
office, I'm going to put my anti-war commitments aside and put the 
defense of the country first. And in case you didn't get that, I'm 
going to keep George Bush's Secretary of Defense in place, and I'm 
going to appoint a conservative Marine general as my National 
Security Advisor." 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ha ha ha! Idiot Bongo Brazil contradicts his hero Obama!

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > 1) During the campaign, Barack Obama supported the
> > > idea of going after Osamb Bin Laden in SOVEREIGN
> > > Pakistani territory...WITHOUT the permission of
> > > Pakistan!
> > > 
> > > 2) Just today, the above statement came back to
> > > haunt Obama when he was asked at a press conference
> > > whether India had that same right to invade a 
> > > sovereign nation like Pakistan without their
> > > permission
> > 
> > (BTW, that's the definition of invasion, going
> > into a country without its permission.)
> > 
> > > vis a vis the recent terrorist attacks in India.
> > > Obama reiterated his campaign statement by saying:
> > > I think sovereign nations have the right to defend
> > > themselves...and I'll limit my comment to that.
> > > 
> > > Wow.  Did Obama just give India the green light to
> > > invade Pakistan? Or at least bomb terrorist targets
> > > within the borders of Pakistan? H
> > 
> > You nitwit. Nobody believes sovereign nations don't
> > have the right to defend themselves. That light is
> > always green.
> > 
> > He was making a minimalist generic statement, not
> > addressing the India/Pakistan situation
> 
> Actually, he was.

No, he was sidestepping it.

> His comment was, according to what Wolf Blitzer of CNN
> said, in response to a direct question about Pakistan
> and the India terrorist attacks in light of his previous
> statement from the campaign...and he chose to answer the
> way he did.

I.e., by not addressing the India/Pakistan situation
or his previous campaign statement.

See, "responding to" a question and "addressing" the
substance of the question can be two different things
(and frequently are in politics).

He made an utterly noncontroversial statement, which
he did not relate to India/Pakistan or to his earlier
campaign statement.

> He could have chosen a much wiser "generic statement"
> as a response instead.

Maybe, but that's a different issue.


> > (or his
> > earlier campaign statement, for that matter).
> 
> Well, no, he wasn't addressing the India/Pakistan
> situation in his earlier statement

I didn't say he was. I said he wasn't addressing his
earlier statement in his statement today.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ha ha ha! Idiot Bongo Brazil contradicts his hero Obama!

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > 
> > This is another clear example of Magoo's social pathology. Here he
> > tries to compare working to stop polluting the earth to prevent
> > massive deaths resulting from drastic climate changes in a globally
> > agreed consensus that it's imperiative to address it - to invading a
> > sovereign nation that has resulted in the deaths and injuries of
> > millions of human beings. What a sick fuck.
> >
> 
> Putting aside the "millions of human beings" part of that (no more 
> than 80,000 Iraqi civilians have died; 


Putting aside Magoo's pathological comparison of invading a country
and massively killing its people to preventing massive deaths by
addressing climate change:

NOTE: The following is just violent deaths. Maimings and injuries are
multiples of the number of deaths.


ORB survey of Iraq War casualties

--On Friday, September 14, 2007, ORB (Opinion Research Business), an
independent polling agency located in London, published estimates of
the total war casualties in Iraq since the US-led invasion of Iraq in
2003.[1] 

At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest
number published so far, outnumbering even the death toll of the
recent Rwandan genocide.[2] From the poll margin of error of +/-2.5%
ORB calculated a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths. The ORB
estimate was performed by a random survey of 1,720 adults aged 18+,
out of which 1,499 responded, in fifteen of the eighteen governorates
within Iraq, between August 12 and August 19, 2007.[3][4] 

In comparison, the 2006 Lancet survey suggested almost half this
number (654,965 deaths) through the end of June 2006. The Lancet
authors calculated a range of 392,979 to 942,636 deaths.

On 28 January 2008, ORB published an update based on additional work
carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews
were undertaken and as a result of this the death estimate was revised
to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties




about 4,000 American troops), 
> let's zero in on his "invading a sovereign nation" comment:
> 
> 1) During the campaign, Barack Obama supported the idea of going 
> after Osamb Bin Laden in SOVEREIGN Pakistani territory...WITHOUT the 
> permission of Pakistan!


Besides being a sociopath, what an idiot Magoo is. Surgical strikes
are -totally different- from invading a country to affect regime
change resulting in massive deaths and injuries and nationwide
population displacement of millions of its citizens - while destroying
the country's infrastructure.


> 
> 2) Just today, the above statement came back to haunt Obama when he 
> was asked at a press conference whether India had that same right to 
> invade a sovereign nation like Pakistan without their permission vis 
> a vis the recent terrorist attacks in India.  Obama reiterated his 
> campaign statement by saying: I think sovereign nations have the 
> right to defend themselves...and I'll limit my comment to that.
> 
> Wow.  Did Obama just give India the green light to invade Pakistan?  
> Or at least bomb terrorist targets within the borders of Pakistan?  
> H


Obama made no commitment, idiot.

[FairfieldLife] Britain on top in casual sex league

[bob_brigante]

"The study was conducted by asking more than 14,000 people in 48 
countries to fill in anonymous questionnaires. Respondents were asked 
about numbers of partners and one-night stands, and their attitudes 
were assessed by asking them how many people they expected to sleep 
with over the next five years and how comfortable they were with the 
idea of casual sex. 

The results were combined into an index of so-
called "sociosexuality", the term used by evolutionary psychologists 
as a measure of how sexually liberal people are in thought and 
behaviour. Most individuals scored between 4 and 65. 

The country with the highest rating was Finland, with an average of 
51. Taiwan came lowest, with 19. 

Britain scored 40, placing it 11th overall, behind countries such as 
Latvia, Croatia and Slovenia - but it was highest among the major 
western industrial nations. The first tranche of research was 
published in 2005 but analyses have continued and Schmitt described 
the latest in this week's edition of New Scientist. 

http://snipurl.com/7098t  [women_timesonline_co_uk] 

[FairfieldLife] Our new conservative president-elect

[shempmcgurk]

Obama is a smart guy.

He knows that the USA is a right-of-center country and, from the 
looks of his new cabinet, will govern at least from the center if not 
from the right-of-center.

Hillary Clinton -- a Hawk if ever there was one -- is now Secretary 
of State.

Bush appointee Gates as Secretary of Defense.

Our Arizona governor (who knows how to be a conservative Democrat in 
this South Western state which revers Barry Goldwater as a god) as 
Secretary of Homeland Security (Janet made her name inspecting 
complaints about controversial Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's 
treatment of our so-called "tent city" prison inmates -- and promptly 
cleared him of any wrong-doing!).

And on and on...

Ha ha!  Jokes on you radical left-wing Democrats...

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'India's Security at 'War Level'...

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "I am the eternal" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:14 AM, bob_brigante 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > India has been at war, hot or cold, with Pakistan since the 
partition 61
> > years ago -- http://snipurl.com/6zgzb  [en_wikipedia_org]. Graphic 
pics of
> > the Mumbai attacks:
> >
> 



> Volatile India-Pakistan Standoff Enters 11,680th Day
> 
> http://www.theonion.com/content/video/volatile_india_pakistan_standoff
>


***

It's pathetic yeah, but you might as well laugh at the stupid human 
tricks (which my own country is good at too, obviously).

[FairfieldLife] Tough talk on Pakistan from Obama

[shempmcgurk]

(I put my emphasis' in bold type -- Shemp)
Tough talk on Pakistan from Obama Wed Aug 1, 2007 7:26pm EDT

  [Photo][Video Thumbnail] 

  

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack
Obama   said on
Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets
inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him
of naivete in foreign policy.

Obama's stance comes amid debate in Washington over what to do about a
resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of northwest Pakistan that
President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control, and concerns that
new recruits are being trained there for a September 11-style attack
against the United States.

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack
inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government,
a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets
and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

The Illinois Democrat is trying to convince Americans he has the foreign
policy heft to be president after a rival candidate, New York Democratic
Sen. Hillary Clinton, questioned his readiness to be commander in chief.

Clinton last week labeled Obama naive for saying he would be willing to
meet the leaders of Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela without
preconditions in his first year in office.

A poll by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News said Clinton has widened
her lead over Obama, going up to 43 percent in July from 39 percent in
June. Obama tallied 22 percent, down from 25 percent in June.

Those polled cited Clinton's experience and competence highest among her
positive attributes.

Obama said he would make hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S.
military aid to Pakistan conditional on Pakistan making substantial
progress in closing down training camps, evicting foreign fighters and
preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks
on Afghanistan.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Pakistan was working hard to fight
al Qaeda and the Taliban, and Washington was doing what it could in
support.

"At the same time, we recognize the sovereignty of the Pakistani
government and realize that they're putting on a serious push ...
They're taking the fight to al Qaeda," Snow said.

IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, stressed
the importance of the Pakistanis "taking the actions that only they can
take within their own country."

But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the
missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered
against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.

"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other
high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were
targeted and killed or captured," she said.

Another Democratic candidate, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards,
said he would not hesitate to use force against extremists but said, "I
believe we must first use maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on
states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to take all necessary actions to
stop al Qaeda."

Obama criticized President George W. Bush's emphasis on al Qaeda in Iraq
and said as president he would end the war there and refocus efforts on
the al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan by sending at least two
additional U.S. brigades to Afghanistan.

He said that "because of a war in Iraq that should never have been
authorized and should never have been waged, we are now less safe than
we were before 9/11."

(Additional reporting by Missy Ryan)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ha ha ha! Idiot Bongo Brazil contradicts his hero Obama!

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  
> wrote:
> 
> > 1) During the campaign, Barack Obama supported the
> > idea of going after Osamb Bin Laden in SOVEREIGN
> > Pakistani territory...WITHOUT the permission of
> > Pakistan!
> > 
> > 2) Just today, the above statement came back to
> > haunt Obama when he was asked at a press conference
> > whether India had that same right to invade a 
> > sovereign nation like Pakistan without their
> > permission
> 
> (BTW, that's the definition of invasion, going
> into a country without its permission.)
> 
> > vis a vis the recent terrorist attacks in India.
> > Obama reiterated his campaign statement by saying:
> > I think sovereign nations have the right to defend
> > themselves...and I'll limit my comment to that.
> > 
> > Wow.  Did Obama just give India the green light to
> > invade Pakistan? Or at least bomb terrorist targets
> > within the borders of Pakistan? H
> 
> You nitwit. Nobody believes sovereign nations don't
> have the right to defend themselves. That light is
> always green.
> 
> He was making a minimalist generic statement, not
> addressing the India/Pakistan situation


Actually, he was.

His comment was, according to what Wolf Blitzer of CNN said, in 
response to a direct question about Pakistan and the India terrorist 
attacks in light of his previous statement from the campaign...and he 
chose to answer the way he did.

He could have chosen a much wiser "generic statement" as a response 
instead.  He could have said something to the effect that it was not 
the United States' business what India and Pakistan do but that he 
hopes they both demonstrate restraint (can't get more generic than 
that).  But he must have felt he was trapped because of his prior 
statement, made during the campaign, and felt that he had to address 
the question in light of that.






> (or his
> earlier campaign statement, for that matter).


Well, no, he wasn't addressing the India/Pakistan situation in his 
earlier statement because the Bombay attack hadn't happened yet; if 
memory serves me correctly, he was addressing going after Osama Bin 
Laden in Pakistan.

[FairfieldLife] Re: What changes belief?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I guess all I'm saying is that the fundamentalists who
> > > > declare that only their theory is correct may simply not
> > > > have had the breadth of experience that the people they
> > > > consider fools have had. If I had not had the kinds of
> > > > experiences I've had, a belief in reincarnation might
> > > > be for me a Purely Intellectual Belief, the way it 
> > > > appears to be for them. But that's not the case. 
> > > > Reincarnation makes sense to me because it is 
> > > > consistent with experiences that long predated 
> > > > ever hearing about it as a theory.
> > >
> > > So why do only a smattering of people have this delusion? Why 
> > > am I not privy to voices in my head, past lives, alien probing 
> > > and other plot contrivances from the X files?
> > 
> > Dude, you just didn't pay the right dues in 
> > your past lives.
> > 
> > (-: Kidding, really. :-)
> > 
> > My real answer is, "Beats the shit outa me, 
> > man." I have no fucking clue.
> > 
> > Why do you insist that it's a "delusion."
> > You don't know *what* it is. You just have
> > theories.
> 
> Yea theories, but mine far more reasonable theories because they are
> grounded.

Exactly as I suggested, "My dick is longer than 
yours." It's just that your variant is "My dick 
is more grounded than yours."

> In other words, reincarnation is a random fantasy.

And you're absolutely, 100% certain of this, right?
There is no other possibility. 

Humble, dude.

> Of all the after death fantasies, reincarnation is but one route.  
> Why choose the reincarnation fantasy over the pearly gates 
> fantasy?  

Uh, because that one isn't anything like my 
experiences?

> And among the reincarnation fantasy is yours the one were your karma
> effects how you come back or is the your the one were things just
> cycle?  Don't the Hindu's have an elaborate story where your next 
> life is related to your own clan?

You're ranting, dude, and ascribing to me things
that I've never suggested and don't believe. 

> Because there is no ground to this myth it can go anywhere and it 
> has.

And that affects your life exactly how? Why is
it that you're so angry that I believe in some-
thing that you don't?

> On the other hand the "Ashes to ashes and dust to dust" speculation 
> is grounded in rules we are familiar with. 

And that's important to you -- Rules? Familiarity?

> Our ego/personality is a
> construct developed as a survival necessity.  

That's a theory. And it's *only* a theory. 

> Memories are collected in body tissue.  

Another theory. *Only* a theory.

> Why wouldn't this stuff go away when the plug is
> pulled? We can observe occurrences of people in accidents or with
> sever pathologies who loose memory and personality. Why shouldn't
> death have the same effect as an injury on the personality of the
> individual?

It might. I don't know.

But I'm honest enough to say that I don't know.

You are claiming to know. And I'm sorry, but 
you're acting like the same kind of fundamentalist
dick as anyone else who claims to "know" something
that others don't.
 
> Sure - you claim to have these deep memories of a past life - but
> there is plenty of psychological evidence to explain this as the
> result of a healthy psyche.

And because you can think of another theory to
"explain" my memories that makes your theory 
*right*?

> It may not be a delusion.  Same goes for UFO's and sightings of the
> Virgin Mary - But I remain skeptical of the supernatural.

Cool. Have I ever suggested that I want to 
change that? You're acting as if I had.

> I have had psychic experiences myself. Seen auras, read minds, saw 
> a ghost, even witness weird coincidences. But all can be explained 
> as the workings of a normal, healthy, creative mind.  

Or they might have actually happened. The
fact that you're not comfortable living with
your own experiences without finding a way
to "explain them away" does not make that 
behavior inherently "better" or "more grounded."
It just makes you someone who goes for "safe."

> Sure they're fun
> experiences - and in one case spooked the shit out of some hotel
> employees - But really, how can I put credence in this stuff.  

Who is asking you to? 

> For every delusion I have there is someone else with an equal 
> and opposite delusion.  

What I hear is someone afraid that maybe his own
experiences that he's "explained away" might have 
been real after all.

> Your reincarnation is another's judgement day. Who is correct?

Why does someone have to be "correct?" Do you 
actually believe that there is something called
Truth that is "correct" and all other theories
are "incorrect?" Dude, that doesn't make you
"grounded," it makes you exactly the same k

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi introducing Guru Dev

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > no reason the magic money making box couldn't have existed. 
> 
> Sure there is.  It violates many laws of how shit works that we 
have
> discovered.
> 
> just as 
> > we are talking about other subjects that can't be proven, this 
one 
> > can't either.
> 
> An accountant would be able to eliminate most of the obvious 
sources
> for the funds that ran the Math and locate the actual accounts the
> money came from.  This is the kind of rumor that exists because we
> don't have access to the Math's financial records.
> 
>  but rather than declare the lack of proof as the 
> > reason the magic money making box couldn't have existed, i'd 
rather 
> > turn that reasoning on its head, and say that is the reason the 
> > money making box could've existed. there is a 50-50 probability.
> 
> Then you are taking an extreme skeptical position on our ability to
> know things within probabilities.  All options are not equally 
likely
> or we would never be able to advance out knowledge. It isn't just a
> lack of proof that makes this claim unlikely.  It is our 
confidence in
> how the world works from our collective experiences.  Just because 
we
> can be wrong or have incomplete knowledge about reality doesn't 
mean
> we can't ever be confident in our probability choices for 
knowledge. 
> And in this case extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
> because it violates all sorts of well founded beliefs on how the 
world
> functions from our experience.
> 
> Now if many of us had experienced boxes that could generate 
currency
> that was magically valid in the banking system of a country (I 
believe
> it was coins or bills rather than raw gold that the box was 
supposed
> to produce)then the odds of Guru Dev having his very own would go 
up.
>  But I sure haven't seen one or heard about one except in this
> movement rumor so the odds for me go way, way down.
> 
yeah, i shouldn't have tied it to odds-- 50-50. 

i do enjoy the process of keeping an open mind though, even when i 
don't want a particular story to be true. this reincarnation 
discussion is a perfect example-- i'd love to side with the 
reincarnation folks, but keeping an open mind means that there are 
more discoveries in the direction away from reincarnation. 

this is why i like the story of the money box- it is too cool to 
ignore, and i can think of several ways in which it could be 
possible. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[curtisdeltablues]

> So now I am one of you guys and only Curtis is left with no
afterlife.>  No wonder he sings the blues.

I'm not sweating it because I'm counting on being invited to join
someone else's afterlife party.  There is always room for a guy who
can bang the devil's sting box!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > [Margovan wrote:]
> > > > > Curtis, Joerg's sanctimonious tone is certainly
> > > > > irritating but comparing him to the Mumbai terrorists
> > > > > is a little harsh.
> > > 
> > > Boy, I'll say. The notion of reincarnation seems
> > > to really upset the skeptics for some reason.
> > 
> I'm not upset.  I was mostly reacting to a thread that used the words
> "solid proof".  WTF?
> 
> Since discussing this I am will to revise my life after death fantasy.
> In the middle ages xtians were afraid of being hit by lightening
> because they knew that they would die instantly and would not have
> time for proper contrition with a priest.  This meant purgatory for
> eternity.  It was this experience that led Luther to react against the
> church.
> 
> I have decided I am going with this delusion.  Seems as reasonable as
> the versions of reincarnation.
> 
> So now I am one of you guys and only Curtis is left with no afterlife.
>  No wonder he sings the blues.
> 
> s.
> How can a person who meditates twice a day along with a regular yoga
> practice be upset at anything?  I pretty much go with the flow.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ha ha ha! Idiot Bongo Brazil contradicts his hero Obama!

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> 1) During the campaign, Barack Obama supported the
> idea of going after Osamb Bin Laden in SOVEREIGN
> Pakistani territory...WITHOUT the permission of
> Pakistan!
> 
> 2) Just today, the above statement came back to
> haunt Obama when he was asked at a press conference
> whether India had that same right to invade a 
> sovereign nation like Pakistan without their
> permission

(BTW, that's the definition of invasion, going
into a country without its permission.)

> vis a vis the recent terrorist attacks in India.
> Obama reiterated his campaign statement by saying:
> I think sovereign nations have the right to defend
> themselves...and I'll limit my comment to that.
> 
> Wow.  Did Obama just give India the green light to
> invade Pakistan? Or at least bomb terrorist targets
> within the borders of Pakistan? H

You nitwit. Nobody believes sovereign nations don't
have the right to defend themselves. That light is
always green.

He was making a minimalist generic statement, not
addressing the India/Pakistan situation (or his
earlier campaign statement, for that matter).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi introducing Guru Dev

[curtisdeltablues]

> no reason the magic money making box couldn't have existed. 

Sure there is.  It violates many laws of how shit works that we have
discovered.

just as 
> we are talking about other subjects that can't be proven, this one 
> can't either.

An accountant would be able to eliminate most of the obvious sources
for the funds that ran the Math and locate the actual accounts the
money came from.  This is the kind of rumor that exists because we
don't have access to the Math's financial records.

 but rather than declare the lack of proof as the 
> reason the magic money making box couldn't have existed, i'd rather 
> turn that reasoning on its head, and say that is the reason the 
> money making box could've existed. there is a 50-50 probability.

Then you are taking an extreme skeptical position on our ability to
know things within probabilities.  All options are not equally likely
or we would never be able to advance out knowledge. It isn't just a
lack of proof that makes this claim unlikely.  It is our confidence in
how the world works from our collective experiences.  Just because we
can be wrong or have incomplete knowledge about reality doesn't mean
we can't ever be confident in our probability choices for knowledge. 
And in this case extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
because it violates all sorts of well founded beliefs on how the world
functions from our experience.

Now if many of us had experienced boxes that could generate currency
that was magically valid in the banking system of a country (I believe
it was coins or bills rather than raw gold that the box was supposed
to produce)then the odds of Guru Dev having his very own would go up.
 But I sure haven't seen one or heard about one except in this
movement rumor so the odds for me go way, way down.





>



> > > The movement story is that Guru Dev had a magic box and that 
> whenever he
> > > needed money, he opened it and found what he needed in there.
> > Haven't you
> > > heard that story?
> > 
> > I had heard this.  Probably generated by the very imaginative Dr.
> > Varma.  I was just trying to make sense out of what Maharishi was
> > claiming without resorting to that explanation.  I was trying to go
> > the route of good will intentions rather than my usual assumption 
> of
> > bamboozlement.  In that case there could coexist a separate 
> material
> > source of funds but Maharishi was just letting the individual 
> devotee
> > off the hook for contributions.  I would like this version to be 
> true. 
> > 
> no reason the magic money making box couldn't have existed. just as 
> we are talking about other subjects that can't be proven, this one 
> can't either. but rather than declare the lack of proof as the 
> reason the magic money making box couldn't have existed, i'd rather 
> turn that reasoning on its head, and say that is the reason the 
> money making box could've existed. there is a 50-50 probability.
>

[FairfieldLife] Ha ha ha! Idiot Bongo Brazil contradicts his hero Obama!

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


[snip]

> 
> This is another clear example of Magoo's social pathology. Here he
> tries to compare working to stop polluting the earth to prevent
> massive deaths resulting from drastic climate changes in a globally
> agreed consensus that it's imperiative to address it - to invading a
> sovereign nation that has resulted in the deaths and injuries of
> millions of human beings. What a sick fuck.
>

Putting aside the "millions of human beings" part of that (no more 
than 80,000 Iraqi civilians have died; about 4,000 American troops), 
let's zero in on his "invading a sovereign nation" comment:

1) During the campaign, Barack Obama supported the idea of going 
after Osamb Bin Laden in SOVEREIGN Pakistani territory...WITHOUT the 
permission of Pakistan!

2) Just today, the above statement came back to haunt Obama when he 
was asked at a press conference whether India had that same right to 
invade a sovereign nation like Pakistan without their permission vis 
a vis the recent terrorist attacks in India.  Obama reiterated his 
campaign statement by saying: I think sovereign nations have the 
right to defend themselves...and I'll limit my comment to that.

Wow.  Did Obama just give India the green light to invade Pakistan?  
Or at least bomb terrorist targets within the borders of Pakistan?  
H

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[Stu]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > [Margovan wrote:]
> > > > Curtis, Joerg's sanctimonious tone is certainly
> > > > irritating but comparing him to the Mumbai terrorists
> > > > is a little harsh.
> > 
> > Boy, I'll say. The notion of reincarnation seems
> > to really upset the skeptics for some reason.
> 
I'm not upset.  I was mostly reacting to a thread that used the words
"solid proof".  WTF?

Since discussing this I am will to revise my life after death fantasy.
In the middle ages xtians were afraid of being hit by lightening
because they knew that they would die instantly and would not have
time for proper contrition with a priest.  This meant purgatory for
eternity.  It was this experience that led Luther to react against the
church.

I have decided I am going with this delusion.  Seems as reasonable as
the versions of reincarnation.

So now I am one of you guys and only Curtis is left with no afterlife.
 No wonder he sings the blues.

s.
How can a person who meditates twice a day along with a regular yoga
practice be upset at anything?  I pretty much go with the flow.

[FairfieldLife] Is "decider" a legitimate word?

[shempmcgurk]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decider

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi introducing Guru Dev

[enlightened_dawn11]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues
> > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 12:29 PM
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi introducing Guru Dev
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > In the movement mindset, I always assumed that this claim meant 
that
> > Guru Dev was using magic to support the place without cash. Now I
> > think this is unlikely at best. Of course he might have had an
> > inheritance that he could direct to the math so outside money 
was not
> > needed.
> > 
> > The movement story is that Guru Dev had a magic box and that 
whenever he
> > needed money, he opened it and found what he needed in there.
> Haven't you
> > heard that story?
> 
> I had heard this.  Probably generated by the very imaginative Dr.
> Varma.  I was just trying to make sense out of what Maharishi was
> claiming without resorting to that explanation.  I was trying to go
> the route of good will intentions rather than my usual assumption 
of
> bamboozlement.  In that case there could coexist a separate 
material
> source of funds but Maharishi was just letting the individual 
devotee
> off the hook for contributions.  I would like this version to be 
true. 
> 
no reason the magic money making box couldn't have existed. just as 
we are talking about other subjects that can't be proven, this one 
can't either. but rather than declare the lack of proof as the 
reason the magic money making box couldn't have existed, i'd rather 
turn that reasoning on its head, and say that is the reason the 
money making box could've existed. there is a 50-50 probability.

[FairfieldLife] Re: What changes belief?

[Stu]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > I guess all I'm saying is that the fundamentalists who
> > > declare that only their theory is correct may simply not
> > > have had the breadth of experience that the people they
> > > consider fools have had. If I had not had the kinds of
> > > experiences I've had, a belief in reincarnation might
> > > be for me a Purely Intellectual Belief, the way it 
> > > appears to be for them. But that's not the case. 
> > > Reincarnation makes sense to me because it is 
> > > consistent with experiences that long predated 
> > > ever hearing about it as a theory.
> >
> > So why do only a smattering of people have this delusion? Why 
> > am I not privy to voices in my head, past lives, alien probing 
> > and other plot contrivances from the X files?
> 
> Dude, you just didn't pay the right dues in 
> your past lives.
> 
> (-: Kidding, really. :-)
> 
> My real answer is, "Beats the shit outa me, 
> man." I have no fucking clue.
> 
> Why do you insist that it's a "delusion."
> You don't know *what* it is. You just have
> theories.
>
Yea theories, but mine far more reasonable theories because they are
grounded.

In other words, reincarnation is a random fantasy.

Of all the after death fantasies, reincarnation is but one route.  Why
choose the reincarnation fantasy over the pearly gates fantasy?  And
among the reincarnation fantasy is yours the one were your karma
effects how you come back or is the your the one were things just
cycle?  Don't the Hindu's have an elaborate story where your next life
is related to your own clan?

Because there is no ground to this myth it can go anywhere and it has.

On the other hand the "Ashes to ashes and dust to dust" speculation is
grounded in rules we are familiar with. Our ego/personality is a
construct developed as a survival necessity.  Memories are collected
in body tissue.  Why wouldn't this stuff go away when the plug is
pulled?  We can observe occurrences of people in accidents or with
sever pathologies who loose memory and personality.  Why shouldn't
death have the same effect as an injury on the personality of the
individual?

Sure - you claim to have these deep memories of a past life - but
there is plenty of psychological evidence to explain this as the
result of a healthy psyche.

It may not be a delusion.  Same goes for UFO's and sightings of the
Virgin Mary - But I remain skeptical of the supernatural.

I have had psychic experiences myself.  Seen auras, read minds, saw a
ghost, even witness weird coincidences.   But all can be explained as
the workings of a normal, healthy, creative mind.  Sure they're fun
experiences - and in one case spooked the shit out of some hotel
employees - But really, how can I put credence in this stuff.  For
every delusion I have there is someone else with an equal and opposite
delusion.  Your reincarnation is another's judgement day. Who is correct?

Start collecting delusions and eventually your not going to have a
footing in this dear world of ours.

s.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security

[enlightened_dawn11]

remember *The*National*Guard*??? as i recall, they were supposed to 
do stuff like this...oh, right, they're all overseas fighting wars. 

this sounds like an excuse to expand the military and that is all. 
probably because the politicians can't convince us any other way, 
since the current wars are unpopular, they are reinventing the natl 
guard.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do we need this?  I don't think so.
> 
> Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security
> 
> By Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott Tyson
> Washington Post Staff Writers
> Monday, December 1, 2008; A01
> 
> The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside 
the 
> United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials 
respond 
> to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, 
according 
> to Pentagon officials.
> 
> The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in 
homeland 
> security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments 
after 
> years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense 
analysts said.
> 
> There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil 
> liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new 
> homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly 
> undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law 
> restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.
> 
> More here:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217_pf.html
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> 
> (do.rflex speaking about Shemp:)
> 
> > What a sick fuck.
> 
> 
> And you, Bongo Brazil, exemplify perfect mental health.
> 
> It's always so much fun dialoging with you.


I'm sure. Here's the key part of what Magoo snipped:

> In our never-ending discussions on global warming on this forum, it
> is inevitably brought up by those who believe in catastrophic man-
> made global warming that "it is better to be safe than sorry"; that
> we may not be 100% sure that global warming is going to cause the
> destruction in the future that people like Al Gore are predicting but
> when so much is at stake it's better to err on the side of safety.
>
> Well, is that not what Bush did with Iraq? No one could say with
> 100% certainty that Iraq had WMD but why not err on the side of
> safety? What we DID know was that Saddam had used them before, had
> attempted to build a nuclear facility -- which the Israelis bombed
> in '81 (and which I flew over on the very same day on return from my
> Kashmir TM course) -- and was an all-out nasty character...and if he
> wasn't letting people in and he did NOT have WMD, isn't Saddam to
> shoulder SOME of the blame?
>
> So why is it okay to be safe than sorry with global warming but not
> with Saddam Hussein?


This is another clear example of Magoo's social pathology. Here he
tries to compare working to stop polluting the earth to prevent
massive deaths resulting from drastic climate changes in a globally
agreed consensus that it's imperiative to address it - to invading a
sovereign nation that has resulted in the deaths and injuries of
millions of human beings. What a sick fuck.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I think you pointed out some valid points about the difficulty testing
these theories.  But I think that could be worked out if you had the
kind of numbers of people willing to be tested that the reality of
reincarnation would be expected (by me) to provide.  If ALL of us have
had many lives I would expect many many more examples of people coming
up with the kind of details that could corroborate the claim.

And if truth was created by consensus vote, I would vote for
reincarnation to be true.  I'm having a blast in my life, and am very
pissed off that death has taken away people I love and care about. I
would like this myth to be true.  But I have to be honest with myself
that I put a low probability on it.

I do believe that we have only scratched the surface of understanding
what our minds are capable of.  We don't even know how most birds find
their direction across large areas of flight paths.  But I would like
to see a bit more willingness for rigorous research on the part of
believers.  I often get the sense that they are too invested with the
physiological benifits of such beliefs to be committed to a
falsifiable testing standard.

I guess we all make choices about what basket we are gunna put our
eggs (this analogy has taken a weird turn).  This is true of so called
skeptics and believers both.  No one believes everything from the many
beliefs available to us from man's history.  We are all skeptics and
believers both.



>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> 
> > [snip]  For Reincarnation they are making specific
> > claims about having memories of what actually existed in the world
> > when they were alive before. So in principle they can be tested. We
> > may not know what happens after death, but if someone claims that they
> > DO know because they can remember specifics of having lived before it
> > can be tested.
> 
> To an extent - but there is something about Death that seems to leave
> us always *locked out*.
> 
> After all - let's say I claim I was Blackbeard the pirate in a
> previous life. When challenged by scoffers I say "I am so confident of
> my recollections that I can prove it. I *remember* the location of a
> small island where I (Blackbeard) buried my treasure. Let's go there
> and we'll dig it up!"
> 
> OK - suppose we put that to the test. We go to some remote island. I
> count six & half paces from the third palm tree from the north beach,
> start digging - and shiver me timbers - there be a treasure chest.
> 
> It has to be said that (as far as I know), tests like these never seem
> to work out for reincarnation. But even if they did, all we can say is
> this: Something very odd is going on. Reincarnation could explain it -
> but so could other equally challenging conjectures. For example this:-
> Perhaps I have some strong psychic abilities with which I can indeed
> do a remarkable thing (viz. divine the thoughts of a dead pirate that
> are somehow still "echoing" or "reverberating" in the ether today.).
> If true, that means that I am mistaken and confused in thinking I WAS
> Blackbeard. I have a special ability, but my understanding of my own
> ability is false. So the question is: How could you ever test between
> these two competing explanations?
> 
> There is a similar barrier to empirical experiment with "near-death"
> experience. I read a while back that they were setting up tests in a
> London hospital. I think the plan was to leave some odd objects in
> places that could not be seen by a patient under normal circumstances,
> but might be visible to someone *looking back at their body* after
> *death*. I don't know how they have got on, but interesting as it is,
> I don't see how it could ever establish anything about *life after
> death*. I think if someone could indeed correctly refer to these
> things after being resuscitated, we would reasonably conclude "that
> shows the person wasn't dead". But how could the patient have seen
> something hidden away on the top of a cupboard or some such? 
> 
> Well that would be remarkable - but to explain this as the astral
> travelling of a dead soul around the ceiling ignores other possible
> (but still extraordinary) possibilities. Isn't it easier to believe
> that minds may have psychic abilities and in this case the non-dead
> patient may have somehow read the mind of the experimenter? Perhaps
> brains slip easier in to weird mode when under stress and close to
death!
> 
> It just seems that death presents a knowledge barrier that we can
> never get past...
> 
> (I think the near death experiments were being organised by Peter
> Fenwick, one of the early researchers into TM)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Saving Free Enterprise

[Patrick Gillam]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote:
>
> Similarly we have people in impoverished nations who 
> believe they have to have lots of children so some 
> will survive to take care of them in old age.  
> Education and some retirement programs would 
> solve the problem there.

I recently heard the oceanographer Robert 
Ballard say that the way to manage overpopulation 
would be to empower women worldwide. He said the 
average age at which a female becomes a mother, 
worldwide, is 14.

Let me say that again. Take the age at which 
all the mothers in the world first became mothers, 
and calculate the average age at which they bear 
their first child. Turns out that age is 14 years old.

Ballard observed that if you could raise that 
age to 20-something, you could flatten the 
population curve pretty quickly.

Re: [FairfieldLife] What changes belief?

[Bhairitu]

Vaj wrote:
>
> On Dec 1, 2008, at 3:09 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
>
>> TurquoiseB wrote:
>>> I guess all I'm saying is that the fundamentalists who
>>> declare that only their theory is correct may simply not
>>> have had the breadth of experience that the people they
>>> consider fools have had. If I had not had the kinds of
>>> experiences I've had, a belief in reincarnation might
>>> be for me a Purely Intellectual Belief, the way it
>>> appears to be for them. But that's not the case.
>>> Reincarnation makes sense to me because it is
>>> consistent with experiences that long predated
>>> ever hearing about it as a theory.
>> Fundamentalists are mostly literalists.   They understand things only at
>> a very basic level.  OTOH, if you want to go deep enough there really
>> isn't any proof that anything exists.  This existence can be and may be
>> nothing more than an illusion.   How can you prove otherwise?
>
>
> Ah yes, the "empty" piano falls on your "empty" head--but you still 
> die. Why? :-)
Are you sure about that?  Maybe it just happens to the other "beings" in 
the illusion.  But I'm not going to test the thesis. :-D

>
> The paradox of emptiness and form; form and emptiness. The witness has 
> to be dissolved to where we grok the two as coemergent properties in 
> our own (unconventional) experience. It cannot be resolved via the 
> intellect alone.

[FairfieldLife] Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security

[Bhairitu]

Do we need this?  I don't think so.

Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security

By Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, December 1, 2008; A01

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the 
United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond 
to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according 
to Pentagon officials.

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland 
security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after 
years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil 
liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new 
homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly 
undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law 
restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.

More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217_pf.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > I think you have a knack for isolating a pretty clean version of
> > experience sans belief. It took me quite a few years to understand
> > it. (assuming that I actually do!) But for most people who have 
> > these experiences, they quickly do make statements about what it 
> > means and then they are subject to the "WTF" line of 
> > epistemological questioning just like everybody else.
> 
> The thing is, Curtis, I don't see the skeptics 
> merely criticizing the "what I think this exper-
> ience means" thing in people who believe things 
> they don't. I see a lot of them trying to chal-
> lenge the experiences *themselves*.\

Stu is taking a challenging position by referring to these beliefs as
delusions.  I am not on board with that.  I'm more Sam Harris to his
Christopher Hitchins in the non saints of this POV.

> 
> They seem almost compelled to come up with ration-
> alizations to "explain away" the person's exper-
> iences. And those rationalizations may be valid.
> Then again, they might not be. To claim that a 
> person's experiences aren't what he thinks they
> are just because you can think of a theory that
> paints them in a different light strikes me as
> the height of hubris. 

Or it could be a sincere attempt to understand the phenomenon. I don't
have an apriori stake in these experiences meaning that a person had
past lives.  I just haven't been convinced by the evidence yet.  That
doesn't give me a license to be a dick about it. (Not that that always
stops me.)

> 
> Why is the skeptic's theory any more "valid" than
> the believer's theory? It seems to me that what's
> going on is just a dick-size contest: "My theory
> has a longer dick than yours." 

The discussion with Stu has taken on some of that character but it
doesn't have to.  And I have appreciated the point that no one has the
definitive answer on this topic.  A true skeptic should be just as
skeptical of his own theories. I haven't found that to be a problem in
our discussions even when I believe that my POV is righter than yours.
 I am not against a person expressing their convictions that are
different from mine and I don't always assume they are trying to alpha
chimp me using beliefs as a bone to bludgeon my furry ape head. 

> 
> > I think this is Sam Harris's main point.  That we don't have to 
> > give a person a pass on claims just because they came from an 
> > inner source once they cross the threshold of talking about 
> > their meaning.  
> 
> And I don't perceive the "threshold" the same way
> you do. I don't think that a person *talking about*
> their experience and saying, "This was just my
> experience; make what you want of it" has crossed
> any "threshold" that demands that you must challenge
> it. 

Well we are on an online forum for such discussions, so I think it is
a fair assumption that anything we post is up for grabs.

> 
> The "threshold," for me, is when the believer talks
> about his beliefs and casts them as Truth, as The
> Way Things Are, You Betcha. Or when the believer 
> tries to sell you his beliefs. When a person does this,
> then you might have the right to come after them with
> a stiff dick. But if they just say, "Hey...this is
> what my experience is, and what I make of it, YMMV,"
> I don't see what the big issue is.

I don't have any issues with the beliefs and experiences you posted. 
I enjoy them.  You seem willing to discuss them and have already
looked at alternate explanations, so I think we are on the same page
of respect for your personal perspective.  But Stu being an
enthusiastic advocate of his position creates the kind of discussion
that brings out interesting points on this topic.  The choice of tone
is a personal matter that I only address when it is aimed at me!  Or
if I just want to jump in and comment on someone's post just to be a
dick.  Yeah. I'm deep like that!



>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Wouldn't it be a trip...

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ...if what happened to you subjectively when you
> die was completely a result of what you believed
> would happen to you?
> 
> The Mormons would go to a Mormon heaven. (Which,
> if you've ever spent any time in Utah, might be
> the same thing that other people would call Hell.)
> The Christians would go to a Christian heaven, and
> be issued harps and wings at the door. At least 
> some of them would. Others, who really got off more
> on guilt than they did inspiration, might believe
> that they were going straight to Hell or Purgatory
> when they died. And so they would.
> 
> Those who believe that consciousness just blinks out
> and there is nothing but darkness would blink out. 
> End of story.
> 
> Those who believe in reincarnation would reincarnate.
> 
> And those who don't have any beliefs at all about 
> what happens to them when they die would be shit 
> out of luck. 
> 
> :-)
>

Eh, such theories abound in reincarnation circles, I think: you get
the heaven you expect which is just another illusion, according to 
some.

L

[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[snip]



(do.rflex speaking about Shemp:)

> What a sick fuck.


And you, Bongo Brazil, exemplify perfect mental health.

It's always so much fun dialoging with you.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi introducing Guru Dev

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 12:29 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi introducing Guru Dev
> 
>  
> 
> In the movement mindset, I always assumed that this claim meant that
> Guru Dev was using magic to support the place without cash. Now I
> think this is unlikely at best. Of course he might have had an
> inheritance that he could direct to the math so outside money was not
> needed.
> 
> The movement story is that Guru Dev had a magic box and that whenever he
> needed money, he opened it and found what he needed in there.
Haven't you
> heard that story?

I had heard this.  Probably generated by the very imaginative Dr.
Varma.  I was just trying to make sense out of what Maharishi was
claiming without resorting to that explanation.  I was trying to go
the route of good will intentions rather than my usual assumption of
bamboozlement.  In that case there could coexist a separate material
source of funds but Maharishi was just letting the individual devotee
off the hook for contributions.  I would like this version to be true. 





>