[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > wrote: > > > > After reading the op-ed piece I must admit that his > > interview on NPR was more impressive than this piece. > > Either I'm missing his point or his point is rather > > banal. He seems to need to take a good philosophy of > > science course. To me he appears to be reifying the > > "laws of physics". That is he's separating the > > physical universe from the laws that describe these > > relationships. The "laws of physics" are not things, > > they are higher-order explanations of ontological > > facts. Since we never have all the facts, the "laws" > > evolve over time as more and more facts are > > discovered. Judy, or anyone, what's your take on > > this? Am I, or Judy, missing something here? I just > > don't get his point. I don't think he has a point, just a misunderstanding about how we know what is from what isn't, "laws" are explanations of observations no-one ever said they were immutable, they change as the evidence changes. > As I understand his point, he's asking why there should > be higher-order explanations of ontological facts in > the first place. (That the explanations evolve as we > learn more is beside the point.) > > Or to put it another way, why *don't* we reify the > laws of physics? > > It's similar to the old question, Why is there something > rather than nothing? except that Davies's question is, > Why is there something orderly rather than something > random? > Already answered that, if there wasn't we wouldn't be here to comment on it. There may have been billions of universes before this one that were almost but not quite right for our sort of life, and maybe trillions that never got beyond the first nano-second. We are here because this place is just right, it may seem weird but thats only becaause we are here to comment on it. > We take the fact that the universe is apparently orderly > as a given; but how is that different from taking the > existence of God as a given? It's obvious the universe is orderly, not obvious that a god is responsible. As all the evidence isn't in it's an open question, but the clever money goes to the natural and understood (lets not forget testable) progression of increasing complexity due to electrons cooling after big bang. molecules forming inside supernovae, finally the earth, 4 billion years later us, then comes consciousness and the wondering whether laws are immutable, this Davies guy needs to see the big picture. > The only real difference is that religionists label the > big question mark "God," whereas science doesn't put a > label on it. > > But that doesn't make the question disappear. Davies > finds it odd that all of science rests on that > unanswered question. > When we have exactly the right label it will be put on, until then I think accepting uncertainty is the way to go, it's not like we have loads more to understand (as far as we know!) just a bit of tinckering with relativity and quantum physics and Mr Davies question really does disappear.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh, goodie. Story time. Tell us the one again about the infinitely > radiant Pride. Ot the ones where particlees collide in this big > chamber and go "boom boom"! Or one about dragons. I love the ones > about dragons! LOL. The one about bombarding all us other "particles" with His grace to fulfill all our desires and align our demonic impulses with His angelic harmony is one of my personal favorites. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" wrote: > > > What an interesting statement, that of Dark being faster than > > > light...that certainly rings true when evaluating the Dark Night > > > experience, but how then do we integrate such an experience? > > Perhaps > > > the Dark Night experience is that of having transcended space time > > > intuitively, recognizing that transcendence as Reality, yet still > > > hanging on to the now empty husk of false identity? Then after a > > > long time of trying to miserably reanimate the false identity of > > > concepts and stories, we give up, and gracefully, magically > > > integrate ourselves into the Dark, now recognizing how to function > > > again in space time, while being true to our Selves. > > > > Yes, nicely put (if I do say so mySelf *lol*); the omnipresent gold- > > light/angels/deities/etc. would be the subjective (and by that I > > mean "real") equivalent of attaining lightspeed and essential > > identity with the laws of nature; with further acceleration the > > inevitable onset of the Dark if resisted (and it usually is *lol*) > > with belief in stories, concepts, etc. brings suffering, as all > > resistance = suffering. Kind of like trying to crawl back into the > > spacetime womb, resisting one's own birth. But afterwards, we > > can "program" the particles and superimpose whatever story of duality > > they/we like on the emptiful-indescribable, but without that bind of > > identifying belief and consequent resistance, there is no suffering. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: my message to you
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Janet Luise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnDrbagYm24 I love Marley, and *on one level* agree that "every little thing is gonna be all right." However, that level is theorhetical, and to get to it you seem to have to be smokin' the same stuff that Bob was smokin' or buy into the stuff that Jim and Rory believe. Me, I'm gonna stick with here and now and keep to the "don't worry" part of the song, while not confusing the theo- rhetic with the actual. "All is one and perfect as it is" is a valid point of view IMO, but only IF that is really one's daily perception. And even then, it is valid only for the being whose perception is on that level, and only during the moments in which it is at that level. At all other times and for all other beings, to perceive difference and claim Unity is just moodmaking. My biggest gripe with philosophies and relig- ions that posit a "highest truth" is that their followers tend to actually *believe* the "highest" thing and moodmake it into what they believe is happening, even when their own senses tell them otherwise. I'm not convinced this is a good thing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mao and MMY Managment Methods
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 25, 2007, at 2:14 PM, new.morning wrote: > > > MMY uses a parallel management and organization change method, > > similar to Mao (and perhaps some western businesses). > > (snip) > > Mao's famous saying, could also easily be Mahesh's: > > "A lie repeated a hundred times becomes the truth." > -Chairman Mao I'm not as hard on Maharishi as you are, Vaj. I'd say it more like, "If I say that I believe something enough times, other people will believe that I believe it, and will start to believe it themselves." In other words, like his proteges here, I don't think that "lie" is the operative word here. They all actually *believe* the things they're saying, at the time. Whether they have anything to do with reality or whether the Grand Plans ever see the light of day never enters into the equation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > It's been a kind of revelation, realizing that > > random violence is *not* an ever-present possi- > > bility. I walk where I want, when I want, in all > > types of neighborhoods and at all hours of the > > night and day, and have never in 4-1/2 years felt > > as if there was the possibility of violence. > > > > After a lifetime of living in US cities where that > > awareness was rarely far away, especially at night, > > it's been really fascinating living in a place > > where it's just not a part of the environment. > > > > Oh, sure, there is the occasional violence and > > mugging in Europe, but I've never run into even > > a *hint* of it personally. The contrast has been > > quite interesting to try to get used to. > > I've never run into even > a *hint* of it personally. In the US. In Asia. Or Europe. You are fortunate. During many of my years in Santa Fe I "commuted" to Detroit for consulting work. Not paying attention to where you're walk- ing in Detroit can earn you a new incarnation tout de suite. :-) Murder capital of the US at the time...more per year in that one city than France and Spain combined IIRC.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > wrote: > > > THIS IS SHOTOKAN (that I learned, and these are just people > > trying to qualify for black belt or 2nd dan) > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZlAFJHEu8go > > Boy, to the utterly untrained eye, that's pretty > darned impressive stuff. Exactly. Well said. This is "fighting" the way you like to "debate," "playing by the rules" (especially if you get to make up the rules). In a real fight there are none. Please don't get me wrong...I *loved* Shotokan- style karate. But I found that there were more "reality-based" styles out there that taught what to do if you found yourself in a situation in which there is no referee and no rules and the other person really wants to do you harm. One is more applicable for theorhetical situa- tions; the other for (sadly, occasionally) real life. There are *definitely* some Shotokan karatekas who could kick ass in a real-life situation. But my five years in that study convinced me that for every one of them there are 20 who only believe that they could kick ass in a real-life situation. Kinda like TMers and their assessment of where they stand "importance-wise" in the cosmic scheme of things. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The videos on your tape were students in point matches and highly > choreographed demos with people playing the part of an attacker but > then giving no resistance and rolling out of the way when the > "master" > touched them. Ever try to flip someone using one hand who doesn't > want to flip over? > > We are exactly 15 years too late for any argument about traditional > karate styles, the issue has been settled in the ring by guys > willing > to put their traditions on the line to really find out what works. > Any dojo that isn't cross training now is running an aerobics class. > Not that there is anything wrong with that. Any attention on any > martial art is great IMO. So high five for that. But comparing > choreographed demos to challenge matches is not realistic. What he said. Especially the part about, "Have you ever tried to flip someone who doesn't want to be flipped?" Some strong lessons there for the Rajas who find the audiences they're speaking to less receptive than they expect them to be.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 3 Million Wariors Ready to Pounce
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > wrote: > > > > Tell that to Arjunalol !3 million people drawn up on the > > battlefield ready for COMPLETE anihilation, and he is in the > > middle of it prayin' to jesus for help. > > If 3 million warriors had come bent on anihilating me, it may > cause me to ponder what i did to piss so many people off so much. LOL. Also, I might suggest that Off's "count" of "3 million" people drawn up on the battlefield of the Bhagavad-Gita should give people a clue as to the reality of his "one punch and you're out" theory of fighting. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shotokan dominates Martial Arts_______wasMannounces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Those are some violent fantasies you have there. You might want to > get that checked. In the meantime I'll put you down for a "no" for > any evidence in your corner other than shop worn claims from 1960's > editions of "I'm a Badass Karate Guy" magazine. And I'm gunna put > you down for a "no" about ever sparring with a boxer also. > > You believe in magic and I don't. Pretty simple really. > > > READ MY LIPS: > > If you are watching a fight where the fight is NOT stopped after > > one strike (at least for a second or two), then you are not > > watching a legitimate martial art > > Read mine: One video of your claim, or even a convincing first > person account. All the bluff and bluster doesn't hide your lack > of evidence for your claim. Meanwhile I have provided actual > videos of a karate guy's inability to do what you claim, and > there are many, many more. > > I do enjoy how riled up you get though. Must be all that: transcendental consiousness.> As I've suggested before in this thread, I think that it's a *perfect* analog of the way that TMers believe that their technique is "the best," and that the ME creates "invincibility." It's all CLAIMS, with nothing to back them up. You really can't argue with those who *believe* the claims, because they believe them so thoroughly. They'll repeat the claims over and over and over and over, without ever offering a shred of real proof, and at the end of the exchange, they'll declare that they "won" the argument. But all they're doing is repeating a buncha claims that got claimed to them. Pussy martial artists, pussy spiritual seekers. Parallel? You decide.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SaaMkhya-suutras: any takers?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > This verse is often quoted by Samkhya philosophers. Here, it seems, the > first part of the Tativa-samasa is ended, containing a list of the > twentyfive Tattvas, in the three divisions of Prakritis, Vikaras, and > Purusha. > As I recall it, the suutra in question goes like this (can't guarantee it's correct): sattva-rajas-tamasaaM saamyaavasthaa prakRtiH prakRter mahaan mahato 'haMkaaro 'hamkaarat pañca tanmaatraany ubhayam indriyam indriyebhyaH sthuula-bhuutaani puruSa iti pañca- viMshatir (five-twenty) gaNaH. I wonder why puruSa is mentioned as the last tattva, or whatever?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > The videos on your tape were students in point matches and highly
> > choreographed demos with people playing the part of an attacker
> > but then giving no resistance and rolling out of the way when the
> > "master" touched them. Ever try to flip someone using one hand
> > who doesn't want to flip over?
> >
> > We are exactly 15 years too late for any argument about
> > traditional karate styles, the issue has been settled in the ring
> > by guys willing to put their traditions on the line to really
> > find out what works. Any dojo that isn't cross training now is
> > running an aerobics class.
> > Not that there is anything wrong with that. Any attention on any
> > martial art is great IMO. So high five for that. But comparing
> > choreographed demos to challenge matches is not realistic.
>
> What he said. Especially the part about, "Have
> you ever tried to flip someone who doesn't want
> to be flipped?"
>
> Some strong lessons there for the Rajas who find
> the audiences they're speaking to less receptive
> than they expect them to be.
I'll follow up on this because the more I think
about it, the more parallels I see to the "TM
approach" to meditation and self-discovery.
Not only is the tradition not willing to "put itself
on the line" with regard to proving its claims (except
with arguably bogus "science"), it actively discourages
any of its followers from ever *trying* any other tech-
nique to do comparisons of their relative effectiveness
themselves.
Try another "style" of meditation as a TMer and you're
out on your ass. And the remaining TB followers are
actively discouraged from having anything to do with
you. You hear things like, "You can't believe anything
they say -- they're Off The Program and thus obviously
unstressing, and thus nothing they say can be believed."
Or, "They never really learned TM 'correctly' in the
first place."
The last buzzphrase really amuses me. The whole TM
"schtick" is the effectiveness of its teaching method.
Everyone gets the same perfect quality of instruction;
the very "purity of the teaching" concept "insures"
it. But it seems that whenever anyone who once learned
TM expresses a preference for another style of medi-
tation on this forum, several people pop out of the
woodwork and claim that either these people never
learned TM in the first place or (even more hilarious)
that they learned "incorrectly."
The people who say this never seem to realize that if
they really *believe* what they're saying, they are
stating that they *don't* believe the TM claim that
its teaching method is universally effective because
of the "purity of the teaching."
In my case, whenever someone says that I "never learned
TM properly" or never understood its dogma "correctly,"
what they are saying is that my initiator (Jerry Jarvis)
was a fuckup, and the person whose lectures I attended
literally hundreds of hours of (Maharishi) was a fuckup.
:-)
Curtis' one-liner about "Have you ever tried to throw
someone who isn't willing to be thrown?" is just *perfect*
to describe the TMO environment. Almost all lectures are
given to "believers" -- preaching to the converted. We've
heard reports of the automaton-like applause given to
almost anyone who says what the audience wants to hear.
True Believers *want* to be thrown. It's like watching
a public demonstration of Aikido, in which the teacher
seemingly tosses his students around the mat effortlessly,
without ever breaking a sweat. The truth about those demos
is (having studied Aikido and participated in the charade
myself) is that the students are *cooperating* with the
throw. They are *anticipating* the throw and "going with
it," whether consciously or unconsciously.
But I've seen what happens when my Aikido "master" tried
his throws on a Jiu-Jitsu guy who *wasn't* cooperating.
The Jiu-Jitsu guy just stood there, unmoved by the "ki"
that the Aikido master was using. Now, since both of
the guys in question were really *good* at what they did,
the Jiu-Jitsu guy couldn't throw the Aikido guy EITHER,
so they just danced around each other for awhile. But
that's a stalemate, not a "victory" for either side.
I'm just rappin' about this particular 'tude in the
martial arts ("My kung-fu is better than your kung-fu.")
because I think it's an accurate parallel to the claims
of "best" and "highest path" that come out of the TMO
(or any other tradition that claims its path to be "the
best"). In almost every case, when you look into it,
there have never been anything BUT claims, by those
who make them.
And often, those who MAKE the claims go out of their
way to make sure that their students never have any
opportunity to validate the claims themselves. Making
sure that anyone who tries is thrown out of the tradition
and demonized to people still within it is a grand
[FairfieldLife] Re: SaaMkhya-suutras: any takers?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" > wrote: > > > > > > > > This verse is often quoted by Samkhya philosophers. Here, it seems, > the > > first part of the Tativa-samasa is ended, containing a list of the > > twentyfive Tattvas, in the three divisions of Prakritis, Vikaras, and > > Purusha. > > > > As I recall it, the suutra in question goes like this > (can't guarantee it's correct): > Addenda et corrigenda: > sattva-rajas-tamasaaM saamyaavasthaa prakRtiH prakRter > mahaan mahato 'haMkaaro *'haMkaaraat* pañca *tanmaatraaNy* ubhayam > indriyam indriyebhyaH sthuula-bhuutaani puruSa iti pañca- > viMshatir (five-twenty) gaNaH. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
Nice story. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > wrote: > > > > > Actually, as I recall, perhaps incorrectly, that you wished I would > > never use your name again. > > I replied to your post in which you had said I and others are making > claims to enlightenment, or higher states of consciousness, or some > such sweeping inaccuracy. (Again, even several years ago when I had > said, "I am enlightened," I also added, "and so are you." This has > always been my thrust here; I have not claimed "enlightenment" as a > better-than-thou state, as you appeared to imply.) When I responded > to your "defamation," asking you to leave me out of it -- I can make > no claims to anything but to having "Died," I believe you replied to > the effect that I bored you and you didn't particularly wish to > converse. I said that we were in agreement then, and if you could > refrain from bringing my name up here again, I could probably refrain > from boring you further. > > >I have tried to honor your wish. I did not > > realize you perhaps meant I could not post on things that strike my > > fancy. > > I perhaps incorrectly assumed that your not wishing to converse with > me would actually include your not responding to my posts. > > >Particulary since they are non-created by a non-doer. > > Do you know how snide this sounds? This is a category error, > an "advaita shuffle." Within the movie, I exist, I create, I destroy, > I feel, and I am (sometimes) deadly serious about those who resist > me, particularly with this type of evasive and snarky dishonesty. > > > > Have you changed your policy, > > > > Diapers, policies and POVs are meant to be changed. > > Feel free to re-open the lines of conversation if and when you decide > to "get real" about your feelings, instead of using Monist > slipperiness as an excuse for snide remarks, which are in turn AFAI > can see apparently an excuse for denied rage. Not too surprising in > view of your past-stated belief that "Brahman" despite its wholeness > must somehow exclude the quality of rage :-) > > And yes, I *do* realize I am as always only talking to mySelf! > > At the moment, I am playing St. George, lovingly spearing a > particularly slippery dragon-coil of my DNA, a piece that has > fearfully and hatefully eluded my attention until Now. There's > the "dragon-story" you asked for! > > Nailing me and loving it! :-) > > *lol* >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mao and MMY Managment Methods
On Nov 26, 2007, at 3:58 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 25, 2007, at 2:14 PM, new.morning wrote: > > > MMY uses a parallel management and organization change method, > > similar to Mao (and perhaps some western businesses). > > (snip) > > Mao's famous saying, could also easily be Mahesh's: > > "A lie repeated a hundred times becomes the truth." > -Chairman Mao I'm not as hard on Maharishi as you are, Vaj. I'd say it more like, "If I say that I believe something enough times, other people will believe that I believe it, and will start to believe it themselves." In other words, like his proteges here, I don't think that "lie" is the operative word here. They all actually *believe* the things they're saying, at the time. Whether they have anything to do with reality or whether the Grand Plans ever see the light of day never enters into the equation. I was thinking of older lies like "TM is Vedic", TM research is "science", TM mantras are meaningless sounds, etc. etc. etc. Too many to mention, but all have been so indoctrinated, unless those who believe these things ever take the time to gain some independent perspective, they just believe what they're told. Think of it as the Milgram Mantra Experiment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > wrote: > > > > > Actually, as I recall, perhaps incorrectly, that you wished I would > > never use your name again. > > I replied to your post in which you had said I and others are making > claims to enlightenment, or higher states of consciousness, or some > such sweeping inaccuracy. (Again, even several years ago when I had > said, "I am enlightened," I also added, "and so are you." This has > always been my thrust here; I have not claimed "enlightenment" as a > better-than-thou state, as you appeared to imply.) When I responded > to your "defamation," asking you to leave me out of it -- I can make > no claims to anything but to having "Died," I believe you replied to > the effect that I bored you and you didn't particularly wish to > converse. I said that we were in agreement then, and if you could > refrain from bringing my name up here again, I could probably refrain > from boring you further. > > >I have tried to honor your wish. I did not > > realize you perhaps meant I could not post on things that strike my > > fancy. > > I perhaps incorrectly assumed that your not wishing to converse with > me would actually include your not responding to my posts. > > >Particulary since they are non-created by a non-doer. > > Do you know how snide this sounds? This is a category error, > an "advaita shuffle." Within the movie, I exist, I create, I destroy, > I feel, and I am (sometimes) deadly serious about those who resist > me, particularly with this type of evasive and snarky dishonesty. > > > > Have you changed your policy, > > > > Diapers, policies and POVs are meant to be changed. > > Feel free to re-open the lines of conversation if and when you decide > to "get real" about your feelings, instead of using Monist > slipperiness as an excuse for snide remarks, which are in turn AFAI > can see apparently an excuse for denied rage. Not too surprising in > view of your past-stated belief that "Brahman" despite its wholeness > must somehow exclude the quality of rage :-) > > And yes, I *do* realize I am as always only talking to mySelf! > > At the moment, I am playing St. George, lovingly spearing a > particularly slippery dragon-coil of my DNA, a piece that has > fearfully and hatefully eluded my attention until Now. There's > the "dragon-story" you asked for! > > Nailing me and loving it! :-) > > *lol* > Nailing someone besides yourself is fun, too, but I suspect that hasn't happened for you for quite some time, even though your obvious creative ability could put someone else in simultaneous ecstasy with you - a good thing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > > wrote: > > > > > > After reading the op-ed piece I must admit that his > > > interview on NPR was more impressive than this piece. > > > Either I'm missing his point or his point is rather > > > banal. He seems to need to take a good philosophy of > > > science course. To me he appears to be reifying the > > > "laws of physics". That is he's separating the > > > physical universe from the laws that describe these > > > relationships. The "laws of physics" are not things, > > > they are higher-order explanations of ontological > > > facts. Since we never have all the facts, the "laws" > > > evolve over time as more and more facts are > > > discovered. Judy, or anyone, what's your take on > > > this? Am I, or Judy, missing something here? I just > > > don't get his point. > > I don't think he has a point, just a misunderstanding about > how we know what is from what isn't, "laws" are explanations > of observations no-one ever said they were immutable, they > change as the evidence changes. This is really very funny. You might want to have a look at Davies's credentials: "PAUL DAVIES is a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist and author. He holds the position of Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University. His previous academic appointments were at the Universities of Cambridge, London, Newcastle upon Tyne and Adelaide. His research has ranged from the origin of the universe to the origin of life, and includes the properties of black holes, the nature of time and quantum field theory in curved spacetime. He is the author of several hundred research papers and articles, as well as over twenty books, including The Physics of Time Asymmetry and Quantum Fields in Curved Space, co-authored with his former PhD student Nicholas Birrell. His more recent popular books include How to Build a Time Machine and The Origin of Life. "Davies was awarded the 2001 Kelvin Medal by the UK Institute of Physics and the 2002 Faraday Award by The Royal Society. In Australia, he is the recipient of two Eureka Prizes and an Advance Australia award. He was also the recipient of the 1995 Templeton Prize for his work on science and religion" IOW, he isn't just some New Age flake who doesn't really understand science. He's about as qualified as it gets. Did you even read the piece we were discussing? The immutability, or not, of the laws isn't the issue, as you'd know if you read the piece; nor is their "evolution" as we learn more the issue, as I pointed out below: > > As I understand his point, he's asking why there should > > be higher-order explanations of ontological facts in > > the first place. (That the explanations evolve as we > > learn more is beside the point.) > > > > Or to put it another way, why *don't* we reify the > > laws of physics? > > > > It's similar to the old question, Why is there something > > rather than nothing? except that Davies's question is, > > Why is there something orderly rather than something > > random? > > Already answered that, if there wasn't we wouldn't be here to > comment on it. Uh, yes, that's pretty basic. Davies knows all about the Anthropic Principle, strong and weak. > > We take the fact that the universe is apparently orderly > > as a given; but how is that different from taking the > > existence of God as a given? > > It's obvious the universe is orderly, not obvious that a god is > responsible. No, the question is, *why* is the universe apparently orderly? Religionists say, "That's just how God designed it." Science says, "That's just how it is." As all the evidence isn't in it's an open question, but > the clever money goes to the natural and understood (lets not > forget testable) progression of increasing complexity due to > electrons cooling after big bang. molecules forming inside > supernovae, finally the earth, 4 billion years later us, then > comes consciousness and the wondering whether laws are > immutable, this Davies guy needs to see the big picture. ROTFL!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
"It would be an interesting thing in my opinion to have a "Meditation Smack-down Match," in which advanced practitioners of several techniques sit in a room together and go for samadhi, each of them hooked up to EEG machines and other testing devices to see if anything is happening on any other level than the subjective. It would be fascinating to me to see who "kicks ass" in such a contest." Now that's entertainment! Excellent riffs off my odd exchange with Off. I'll give MMY credit for giving us criteria to judge the failure of his own program. No sidhi, no enlightenment. Now it seems to be fashionable to evade this clear connection and just go with inner feelings of expansion, evaluating coincidences or the ordinary weird stuff that happens in life, and very vivid imaginations, as signs of sidhis and enlightenment. Likewise point matches and choreographed demos ignore that for the last 50 years in Brazil there is a way to prove that your system of martial arts really works, Vale Tudo or no holds barred fighting matches. When it came to the US 15 years ago it revolutionized martial arts. It separated the posers from the fighters. It also created a sport that is the fastest growing sport in the world right now, mixed martial arts. Guys willing to actually test their theories in the ring. And the posers continue to give explanations about why they can't join the tests just as you predict the movement would in your "Meditation Smack-down Match." Let's get ready to ruuumble! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > The videos on your tape were students in point matches and highly > > > choreographed demos with people playing the part of an attacker > > > but then giving no resistance and rolling out of the way when the > > > "master" touched them. Ever try to flip someone using one hand > > > who doesn't want to flip over? > > > > > > We are exactly 15 years too late for any argument about > > > traditional karate styles, the issue has been settled in the ring > > > by guys willing to put their traditions on the line to really > > > find out what works. Any dojo that isn't cross training now is > > > running an aerobics class. > > > Not that there is anything wrong with that. Any attention on any > > > martial art is great IMO. So high five for that. But comparing > > > choreographed demos to challenge matches is not realistic. > > > > What he said. Especially the part about, "Have > > you ever tried to flip someone who doesn't want > > to be flipped?" > > > > Some strong lessons there for the Rajas who find > > the audiences they're speaking to less receptive > > than they expect them to be. > > I'll follow up on this because the more I think > about it, the more parallels I see to the "TM > approach" to meditation and self-discovery. > > Not only is the tradition not willing to "put itself > on the line" with regard to proving its claims (except > with arguably bogus "science"), it actively discourages > any of its followers from ever *trying* any other tech- > nique to do comparisons of their relative effectiveness > themselves. > > Try another "style" of meditation as a TMer and you're > out on your ass. And the remaining TB followers are > actively discouraged from having anything to do with > you. You hear things like, "You can't believe anything > they say -- they're Off The Program and thus obviously > unstressing, and thus nothing they say can be believed." > Or, "They never really learned TM 'correctly' in the > first place." > > The last buzzphrase really amuses me. The whole TM > "schtick" is the effectiveness of its teaching method. > Everyone gets the same perfect quality of instruction; > the very "purity of the teaching" concept "insures" > it. But it seems that whenever anyone who once learned > TM expresses a preference for another style of medi- > tation on this forum, several people pop out of the > woodwork and claim that either these people never > learned TM in the first place or (even more hilarious) > that they learned "incorrectly." > > The people who say this never seem to realize that if > they really *believe* what they're saying, they are > stating that they *don't* believe the TM claim that > its teaching method is universally effective because > of the "purity of the teaching." > > In my case, whenever someone says that I "never learned > TM properly" or never understood its dogma "correctly," > what they are saying is that my initiator (Jerry Jarvis) > was a fuckup, and the person whose lectures I attended > literally hundreds of hours of (Maharishi) was a fuckup. > > :-) > > Curtis' one-liner about "Have you ever tried to throw > someone who isn't willing to be thrown?" is just *perfect* > to describe the TMO environment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
No, the question is, *why* is the universe apparently orderly? Religionists say, "That's just how God designed it." Science says, "That's just how it is." I still don't see the parallel here Judy. One is saying that they do know why and one is saying that they don't know why. They couldn't be more different assertions, they are opposites. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > After reading the op-ed piece I must admit that his > > > > interview on NPR was more impressive than this piece. > > > > Either I'm missing his point or his point is rather > > > > banal. He seems to need to take a good philosophy of > > > > science course. To me he appears to be reifying the > > > > "laws of physics". That is he's separating the > > > > physical universe from the laws that describe these > > > > relationships. The "laws of physics" are not things, > > > > they are higher-order explanations of ontological > > > > facts. Since we never have all the facts, the "laws" > > > > evolve over time as more and more facts are > > > > discovered. Judy, or anyone, what's your take on > > > > this? Am I, or Judy, missing something here? I just > > > > don't get his point. > > > > I don't think he has a point, just a misunderstanding about > > how we know what is from what isn't, "laws" are explanations > > of observations no-one ever said they were immutable, they > > change as the evidence changes. > > This is really very funny. You might want to have a look > at Davies's credentials: > > "PAUL DAVIES is a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, > astrobiologist and author. He holds the position of > Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Australian Centre > for Astrobiology at Macquarie University. His previous > academic appointments were at the Universities of > Cambridge, London, Newcastle upon Tyne and Adelaide. > His research has ranged from the origin of the universe to > the origin of life, and includes the properties of black > holes, the nature of time and quantum field theory in > curved spacetime. He is the author of several hundred > research papers and articles, as well as over twenty books, > including The Physics of Time Asymmetry and Quantum > Fields in Curved Space, co-authored with his former PhD > student Nicholas Birrell. His more recent popular books > include How to Build a Time Machine and The Origin > of Life. > > "Davies was awarded the 2001 Kelvin Medal by the UK > Institute of Physics and the 2002 Faraday Award by The > Royal Society. In Australia, he is the recipient of two > Eureka Prizes and an Advance Australia award. He was > also the recipient of the 1995 Templeton Prize for his > work on science and religion" > > IOW, he isn't just some New Age flake who doesn't > really understand science. He's about as qualified > as it gets. > > Did you even read the piece we were discussing? > > The immutability, or not, of the laws isn't the issue, > as you'd know if you read the piece; nor is their > "evolution" as we learn more the issue, as I pointed out > below: > > > > As I understand his point, he's asking why there should > > > be higher-order explanations of ontological facts in > > > the first place. (That the explanations evolve as we > > > learn more is beside the point.) > > > > > > Or to put it another way, why *don't* we reify the > > > laws of physics? > > > > > > It's similar to the old question, Why is there something > > > rather than nothing? except that Davies's question is, > > > Why is there something orderly rather than something > > > random? > > > > Already answered that, if there wasn't we wouldn't be here to > > comment on it. > > Uh, yes, that's pretty basic. Davies knows all > about the Anthropic Principle, strong and weak. > > > > > We take the fact that the universe is apparently orderly > > > as a given; but how is that different from taking the > > > existence of God as a given? > > > > It's obvious the universe is orderly, not obvious that a god is > > responsible. > > No, the question is, *why* is the universe apparently > orderly? Religionists say, "That's just how God designed > it." Science says, "That's just how it is." > > As all the evidence isn't in it's an open question, but > > the clever money goes to the natural and understood (lets not > > forget testable) progression of increasing complexity due to > > electrons cooling after big bang. molecules forming inside > > supernovae, finally the earth, 4 billion years later us, then > > comes consciousness and the wondering whether laws are > > immutable, this Davies guy needs to see the big picture. > > ROTFL!! >
[FairfieldLife] Mars, the Bringer of War by Holst
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp7E3OjhD1U
[FairfieldLife] Re: 3 Million Wariors Ready to Pounce
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Also, I might suggest that Off's "count" of "3 million" > people drawn up on the battlefield of the Bhagavad-Gita > should give people a clue as to the reality of his "one > punch and you're out" theory of fighting. :-) But the BG is a wonderful story. Interesting how many stories are about conflicts. Often wars, or warriors -- martial arts. The Mahabaratha, which is a massive tomb encapsulating the tiny seed few pages of the BG, is an even more lovely story. And there are stories built upon stories. Like a grand house of cards, or sandcastles in the sky. The story of "My story (about martial arts , or meditation, or teachers, or kewl states I have been in) is way better than your story." Why the competition? If ones story is rich and insightful, why any need to compare? Unless perhaps the story does not impress the teller sufficiently. Then the claim to "best story" makes sense. Repeat it, "My story is best" and the knawing feeling that ones story is not satisfying or worthy goes away. For a bit. Such arguments have nothing to do with seeking truth, rational arguments and external evidence. it is about repeating the story long and hard and emphatically enough so that the teller becomes reconvinced that their story is significant, worthy, whole -- and ultimately, fulfilling. Its interesting (my current story says) to observe the teller's intent and style. Are they attempting to pass on useful insights so that others may benefit -- as the teller has -- from the essence of the story? Or is the teller attempting more to tell an impressive story. Often talking past the listener, not trying to communicate, but rather to impress? Is the teller open, even eager, to get feedback on their story -- to see which parts are unclear, or not so useful, so they can reshape the story -- to make its more useful -- to make its kernel, its essence more accessable? Or does the teller get very defensive. proclaiming that its a perfect story and the listener is defective because he does not get it? Does he teller think, and project, a framework of "victory", of slaying their opponent, in discussions of the merit of the story? Do they feel more and more that their story is good, if not great, the more listener victims of their stories there are? Slaying the listener hardly seems effective if ones intent is to share some insight, via the story, however humble or grand the insight is. Slaying, or better, attempting to severely wound, the listener is a good strategy if one intent is not to share, but to impress. Impress no just the immediate listener, but to impress and instill fear and respect in the broader audience of potential listeners? Is the teller open to the possibility that their story has not much "essence" within it to pass on? And drop or revise the story accordingly to make the essence, the insight, richer, more useful and accessable? Or is the listener cast as stupid an ignorant when the story neither transmits insight -- nor impresses the listener? And some stories are only, or mostly for the teller. Which is good an fine. But with such stories, does the teller seem to realize this of their particular story? Or are they out whipping the crowds for being ignorant and incomprehensive of the gems the teller deems so useful to themselves?
[FairfieldLife] Re: my message to you
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "All is one and perfect as it is" is a > valid point of view IMO, but only IF that > is really one's daily perception. And even > then, it is valid only for the being whose > perception is on that level, and only during > the moments in which it is at that level. > At all other times and for all other beings, > to perceive difference and claim Unity is > just moodmaking. > > My biggest gripe with philosophies and relig- > ions that posit a "highest truth" is that > their followers tend to actually *believe* > the "highest" thing and moodmake it into > what they believe is happening, even when > their own senses tell them otherwise. But their own senses, of course, do *not* "tell them otherwise." At least not if they understand what "Everything is perfect just as it is" really means. What you're saying is sorta like insisting we nonastronauts should go around saying the earth is flat. I mean, the astronauts tell us the earth is round, but our senses tell us otherwise.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "It would be an interesting thing in my opinion to have > a "Meditation Smack-down Match," in which advanced > practitioners of several techniques sit in a room > together and go for samadhi, each of them hooked up > to EEG machines and other testing devices to see if > anything is happening on any other level than the > subjective. It would be fascinating to me to see who > "kicks ass" in such a contest." > > Now that's entertainment! Exactly. And *only* entertainment. I for one wouldn't really CARE who "kicked ass" or which technique comes out "best." I'd just like to see it done so we could put all these "My technique is better than your technique" braggarts behind us once and for all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > wrote: > > > > > THIS IS SHOTOKAN (that I learned, and these are just people > > > trying to qualify for black belt or 2nd dan) > > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZlAFJHEu8go > > > > Boy, to the utterly untrained eye, that's pretty > > darned impressive stuff. > > Exactly. Well said. > > This is "fighting" the way you like to "debate," > "playing by the rules" (especially if you get > to make up the rules). In a real fight there > are none. You might want to rethink that analogy. In a "real fight," there's no question who won. What's the parallel, debate-wise, to a "real fight"? (Oh, and by the way, I don't "make up the rules." They're quite well established. Making up the rules is something *you* do when you find it impossible to "win" under the accepted rules. Unfortunately, the result is that your "win" is made up as well.) > There are *definitely* some Shotokan karatekas > who could kick ass in a real-life situation. But > my five years in that study convinced me that > for every one of them there are 20 who only > believe that they could kick ass in a real-life > situation. Kinda like TMers and their assessment > of where they stand "importance-wise" in the > cosmic scheme of things. :-) You should probably be careful to say "some TMers" when you make generalizations like this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > > Oh, goodie. Story time. Tell us the one again about the infinitely > > radiant Pride. Ot the ones where particlees collide in this big > > chamber and go "boom boom"! Or one about dragons. I love the ones > > about dragons! > > LOL. > > The one about bombarding all us other "particles" > with His grace to fulfill all our desires and align > our demonic impulses with His angelic harmony is > one of my personal favorites. > from the perspective of dense waking state, it does sound ludicrous doesn't it? I'd stick to material science if I were you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > "It would be an interesting thing in my opinion to have > > a "Meditation Smack-down Match," in which advanced > > practitioners of several techniques sit in a room > > together and go for samadhi, each of them hooked up > > to EEG machines and other testing devices to see if > > anything is happening on any other level than the > > subjective. It would be fascinating to me to see who > > "kicks ass" in such a contest." > > > > Now that's entertainment! > > Exactly. And *only* entertainment. I for one wouldn't > really CARE who "kicked ass" or which technique comes > out "best." I'd just like to see it done so we could > put all these "My technique is better than your > technique" braggarts behind us once and for all. > As far as I can tell, you are the ONLY ONE on here playing that particular game. You are the only one on here continuously driving the dichotomy between "other seekers" and your particular brand of spiritual correctness. So would this smack down really silence you? Methinks not. At all.
[FairfieldLife] How bad could things get? NY Times
Go Figure Trying to Guess What Happens Next By PETER S. GOODMAN Published: November 25, 2007 NYT YOU need not be a Wall Street chieftain to feel the anxiety that has wrapped its arms around the American economy. The stock market seems locked in a downward spiral as one bank after another suffers its day How bad could things get? Pretty bad, say many economists. Not so bad that your grandfather's prescriptions for enduring the Great Depression need dusting off, but nasty enough to force many Americans to get reacquainted with living within their means. That could make life uncomfortable. It may also be an unavoidable step toward purging the United States and the global economy of a major source of instability an unhealthy dependence on the willingness of American consumers to keep buying even as debt mounts. Concerns that Americans must eventually grow thrifty, leaving factories from Guangzhou to Guatemala City scrambling for buyers, now sows unease around the world. It is worth bearing in mind that the American economy has a history of unexpected resilience in the face of supposedly grim prospects. Moreover, some parts of the economy are enjoying good times, notably farmers able to cash in on the making of ethanol. That said, most economists think the American economy is headed for a significant slowdown, as housing prices keep falling, consumers grow tight, and businesses cut investments. The Federal Reserve last week said it expected the economy to grow 1.6 percent to 2.6 percent next year, a stark contrast from the 3.9 percent rate registered in the most recent quarter. Some see signs of a worst-case scenario a severe recession that would feature a plummeting stock market, a lower dollar and the loss of many jobs. That would make for an unpleasant year or two for Americans from most walks of life. It would probably drag down the world economy, as Americans put off purchases of everything from computers made in China to Italian-produced sports cars. The most bearish indulge frighteningly gloomy tones. "The evidence is now building that an ugly recession is inevitable," declared Nouriel Roubini, an economist who was among the first to warn of the dangers of a real estate downturn, writing last week on his blog, the Global EconoMonitor. "When the United States sneezes the rest of the world gets the cold. And since the United States will not just sneeze, but is risking a serious case of protracted and severe pneumonia, the rest of the world should start to worry about a serious viral contagion." Most economists are not so pessimistic. The most likely outcome envisioned by many is a slowdown or a mild recession. That would increase unemployment somewhat, and it would keep the stock market in the doldrums, but it would probably not be severe enough to significantly crimp economies abroad. And while it would impose pain, some see in this more moderate path a way to fix the imbalances in world trade that are at the center of fears of a great unraveling. Americans have been buying staggering quantities of goods from overseas using money lent by foreigners. Foreign exporters have been relying on American consumers to keep them in business. For years, this dynamic has made for increasingly lopsided terms of trade: Last year, American imports outstripped exports by $764 billion, with foreigners stepping in to cover the difference. Economists have long intoned that somehow, some day, the United States will be forced to settle up and stop depending upon the largess of foreigners. The basic laws of economics say imbalances are eventually balanced. Some have warned of a worst-case scenario where the foreigners holding American debt get spooked that the value of the dollar is about to plummet and dump the currency in a self-fulfilling prophesy. This would jack up the price of imported goods in the United States, making it harder for Japan, China and Europe to sell their wares, and delivering a global recession. In the more appetizing scenario, the adjustment would happen gradually. The dollar would fall, making American goods cheaper abroad and helping to correct the trade imbalance. The American economy would slow, but the world economy would continue apace, allowing American firms to export aggressively. Faced with slower business at home, Americans would be more inclined to save. That would force Japan, China, India and other export giants to find new ways to prosper without leaning on the beleaguered American consumer. The world economy would be cleansed of its imbalances, emerging stronger. The more optimistic suggest that this very scenario is now unfolding. "If you're a global benevolent despot, you want a five-year period where China booms, India booms and the U.S. consumer takes a decided back seat," said Robert Barbera, chief economist at the brokerage and advisory firm ITG. "You need to have a period where Asia booms and we limp along, because the No. 1 worry for the world economy is large, u
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "It would be an interesting thing in my opinion to have > a "Meditation Smack-down Match," in which advanced > practitioners of several techniques sit in a room > together and go for samadhi, each of them hooked up > to EEG machines and other testing devices to see if > anything is happening on any other level than the > subjective. It would be fascinating to me to see who > "kicks ass" in such a contest." > > Now that's entertainment! Excellent riffs off my odd exchange with Off. > > I'll give MMY credit for giving us criteria to judge the failure of > his own program. No sidhi, no enlightenment. Now it seems to be > fashionable to evade this clear connection and just go with inner > feelings of expansion, evaluating coincidences or the ordinary weird > stuff that happens in life, and very vivid imaginations, as signs of > sidhis and enlightenment. > LOL! good one! Yes, enlightenment is one big fantasy, designed to make those who have worked so hard to achieve this state "feel good" and disassociate from Reality! Whoo HA! See if you can sell that load of malarkey to someone-- oh wait, you just bought it-- LOL!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll follow up on this because the more I think > about it, the more parallels I see to the "TM > approach" to meditation and self-discovery. > > Not only is the tradition not willing to "put itself > on the line" with regard to proving its claims (except > with arguably bogus "science"), And how would it "put itself on the line" except via science? it actively discourages > any of its followers from ever *trying* any other tech- > nique to do comparisons of their relative effectiveness > themselves. > > Try another "style" of meditation as a TMer and you're > out on your ass. And the remaining TB followers are > actively discouraged from having anything to do with > you. You hear things like, "You can't believe anything > they say -- they're Off The Program and thus obviously > unstressing, and thus nothing they say can be believed." Have you heard things like this? I haven't. > Or, "They never really learned TM 'correctly' in the > first place." > > The last buzzphrase really amuses me. The whole TM > "schtick" is the effectiveness of its teaching method. > Everyone gets the same perfect quality of instruction; > the very "purity of the teaching" concept "insures" > it. Actually, the instruction doesn't ensure anything. What it does is *minimize* the possibility of getting it wrong. But it seems that whenever anyone who once learned > TM expresses a preference for another style of medi- > tation on this forum, several people pop out of the > woodwork and claim that either these people never > learned TM in the first place or (even more hilarious) > that they learned "incorrectly." Actually, it depends on what the person who expressed the preference says to justify it. > The people who say this never seem to realize that if > they really *believe* what they're saying, they are > stating that they *don't* believe the TM claim that > its teaching method is universally effective because > of the "purity of the teaching." I've never heard such a claim from TM. Have you? > In my case, whenever someone says that I "never learned > TM properly" or never understood its dogma "correctly," > what they are saying is that my initiator (Jerry Jarvis) > was a fuckup, and the person whose lectures I attended > literally hundreds of hours of (Maharishi) was a fuckup. That sure isn't what *I'm* saying when I say you've never understood what MMy teaches. (I think you probably learned the technique correctly, but you never got why it's unique.) > It would be an interesting thing in my opinion to have > a "Meditation Smack-down Match," in which advanced > practitioners of several techniques sit in a room > together and go for samadhi, each of them hooked up > to EEG machines and other testing devices to see if > anything is happening on any other level than the > subjective. It would be fascinating to me to see who > "kicks ass" in such a contest. > > It would be even more fascinating to see who refuses > to participate. My bet is that the TM organization > would be the first to send in its polite refusal. Possibly because anyone who is "going for samadhi" in their meditation wouldn't be practicing TM, don'cha think?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
> > > LOL! good one! Yes, enlightenment is one big fantasy, designed to > make those who have worked so hard to achieve this state "feel good" > and disassociate from Reality! Whoo HA! See if you can sell that > load of malarkey to someone-- oh wait, you just bought it-- LOL! > I am just talking about the formulation of enlightenment by MMY. In his system sidhis are needed as sigh posts of enlightenment. No sidhis mastery, no enlightenment. I admire him for his lack of "wiggle room" about this connection. Anyone "enlightened" without sidhis is using a different system of evaluation from MMY. BTW do you believe that the rapture of Christianity is a fantasy? Same thing for me so far about enlightenment. But perhaps someone will hover in the air someday and I can happily amend my opinion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > "It would be an interesting thing in my opinion to have > > a "Meditation Smack-down Match," in which advanced > > practitioners of several techniques sit in a room > > together and go for samadhi, each of them hooked up > > to EEG machines and other testing devices to see if > > anything is happening on any other level than the > > subjective. It would be fascinating to me to see who > > "kicks ass" in such a contest." > > > > Now that's entertainment! Excellent riffs off my odd exchange > with Off. > > > > I'll give MMY credit for giving us criteria to judge the failure of > > his own program. No sidhi, no enlightenment. Now it seems to be > > fashionable to evade this clear connection and just go with inner > > feelings of expansion, evaluating coincidences or the ordinary > weird > > stuff that happens in life, and very vivid imaginations, as signs > of > > sidhis and enlightenment. > > > LOL! good one! Yes, enlightenment is one big fantasy, designed to > make those who have worked so hard to achieve this state "feel good" > and disassociate from Reality! Whoo HA! See if you can sell that > load of malarkey to someone-- oh wait, you just bought it-- LOL! >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > LOL! good one! Yes, enlightenment is one big fantasy, designed to > make those who have worked so hard to achieve this state "feel good" > and disassociate from Reality! Whoo HA! See if you can sell that > load of malarkey to someone-- oh wait, you just bought it-- LOL! As did you apparently. Curtis being a particle of your / our self. A particle seeking, apparently, healing and wholeness. And you give your self / particle nothing but ridicule and derision. I must heal this you-particle of my self, for such aberrant behavior. Oh, nice particle, what has made you feel so maligned? What can we do to make you more whole, and for your to feel the Love? So that you can realign and be part of this wonderful wholeness, and not an isolated aberrant and non-caring, cutting derisive particle?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > LOL! good one! Yes, enlightenment is one big fantasy, designed to > > make those who have worked so hard to achieve this state "feel good" > > and disassociate from Reality! Whoo HA! See if you can sell that > > load of malarkey to someone-- oh wait, you just bought it-- LOL! > > > > I am just talking about the formulation of enlightenment by MMY. In > his system sidhis are needed as sigh posts of enlightenment. No sidhis > mastery, no enlightenment. I admire him for his lack of "wiggle room" > about this connection. Anyone "enlightened" without sidhis is using a > different system of evaluation from MMY. > > BTW do you believe that the rapture of Christianity is a fantasy? > Same thing for me so far about enlightenment. But perhaps someone > will hover in the air someday and I can happily amend my opinion. And may the someone be Maria Sharipova, or Kiera Knightly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, the question is, *why* is the universe apparently > orderly? Religionists say, "That's just how God designed > it." Science says, "That's just how it is." > > I still don't see the parallel here Judy. One is saying > that they do know why and one is saying that they don't > know why. They couldn't be more different assertions, > they are opposites. They're identical, actually, in that neither answers the "why?" question. *Why* did God design the universe to be orderly? "Just how it is" and "Just how God designed it" are synonymous, when you think about it: how it is is how God designed it; how God designed it is how it is. There's no information content in either statement.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Shotokan dominates Martial Arts_______wasMannounces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As I've suggested before in this thread, I > > think that it's a *perfect* analog of the > > way that TMers believe that their technique > > is "the best," and that the ME creates > > "invincibility." > > *Some* TMers. The ones in charge. The ones who set TM doctrine. If you worked at MUM and declared you didn't believe the above, Bevan would fire you immediately.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > No, the question is, *why* is the universe apparently > > orderly? Religionists say, "That's just how God designed > > it." Science says, "That's just how it is." > > > > I still don't see the parallel here Judy. One is saying > > that they do know why and one is saying that they don't > > know why. They couldn't be more different assertions, > > they are opposites. > > They're identical, actually, in that neither answers > the "why?" question. *Why* did God design the universe > to be orderly? > > "Just how it is" and "Just how God designed it" are > synonymous, when you think about it: how it is is how > God designed it; how God designed it is how it is. > There's no information content in either statement. I've been staying out of this because I have no interest in such nitpicky intellectual jackoff sessions, but I really think you're missing the point, Judy. "Just how it is" and "Just how God designed it" are NOT synonymous. One implies that things were "designed" and the other does not. I'm kinda astounded that you can't see this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
> They're identical, actually, in that neither answers > the "why?" question. *Why* did God design the universe > to be orderly? > > "Just how it is" and "Just how God designed it" are > synonymous, when you think about it: how it is is how > God designed it; how God designed it is how it is. > There's no information content in either statement. > Thanks for taking a minute on this. I get that he is making a point that I am missing so I'll give this more thought. I agree with your equation of the statement in their ability to answer "why". I guess I am missing his point about why there is an imperative to answer "why". I did have a glimmer of stepping outside my own mental constraints that perhaps he is keeping the hope alive to really answer this question when some scientists have used the word "God" and some have used "who cares", effectively blowing off the questions and, to use one of our favorite phrases, stopping thought on this topic. Is he encouraging scientist to keep up the good fight of inquiry into this question? I was thinking that in the world he lives in, he is surrounded by scientists and probably very aware of the mental assumptions that are limiting their thinking. For him this kind of assumption may be blocking a direction of his scientific interest? Or he might just be making a linguistic error by putting why at that level of abstraction. But given his mental chops, I'll bet I am just still missing his point. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > No, the question is, *why* is the universe apparently > > orderly? Religionists say, "That's just how God designed > > it." Science says, "That's just how it is." > > > > I still don't see the parallel here Judy. One is saying > > that they do know why and one is saying that they don't > > know why. They couldn't be more different assertions, > > they are opposites. > > They're identical, actually, in that neither answers > the "why?" question. *Why* did God design the universe > to be orderly? > > "Just how it is" and "Just how God designed it" are > synonymous, when you think about it: how it is is how > God designed it; how God designed it is how it is. > There's no information content in either statement. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
> > BTW do you believe that the rapture of Christianity is a fantasy? > > Same thing for me so far about enlightenment. But perhaps someone > > will hover in the air someday and I can happily amend my opinion. > > > And may the someone be Maria Sharipova, or Kiera Knightly. > And may they hover just above eye level... Brilliant dude! I'll bet it would take a lot less consciousness than it would to lift Bevan off the ground! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > LOL! good one! Yes, enlightenment is one big fantasy, designed to > > > make those who have worked so hard to achieve this state "feel good" > > > and disassociate from Reality! Whoo HA! See if you can sell that > > > load of malarkey to someone-- oh wait, you just bought it-- LOL! > > > > > > > I am just talking about the formulation of enlightenment by MMY. In > > his system sidhis are needed as sigh posts of enlightenment. No sidhis > > mastery, no enlightenment. I admire him for his lack of "wiggle room" > > about this connection. Anyone "enlightened" without sidhis is using a > > different system of evaluation from MMY. > > > > BTW do you believe that the rapture of Christianity is a fantasy? > > Same thing for me so far about enlightenment. But perhaps someone > > will hover in the air someday and I can happily amend my opinion. > > > And may the someone be Maria Sharipova, or Kiera Knightly. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > No, the question is, *why* is the universe apparently > > > orderly? Religionists say, "That's just how God designed > > > it." Science says, "That's just how it is." > > > > > > I still don't see the parallel here Judy. One is saying > > > that they do know why and one is saying that they don't > > > know why. They couldn't be more different assertions, > > > they are opposites. > > > > They're identical, actually, in that neither answers > > the "why?" question. *Why* did God design the universe > > to be orderly? > > > > "Just how it is" and "Just how God designed it" are > > synonymous, when you think about it: how it is is how > > God designed it; how God designed it is how it is. > > There's no information content in either statement. > > I've been staying out of this because I have > no interest in such nitpicky intellectual jackoff > sessions, ROTFL!! but I really think you're missing the > point, Judy. > > "Just how it is" and "Just how God designed it" are > NOT synonymous. One implies that things were "designed" > and the other does not. > > I'm kinda astounded that you can't see this. My point is that they're effectively the same thing because they add nothing to our knowledge of how the laws came to be. "Designed" versus "not designed" is obviously irrelevant. I'd say I'm kinda astounded that you can't see this, but I'm not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
Jim: from the perspective of dense waking state, it does sound ludicrous > doesn't it? I'd stick to material science if I were you. > On a serious note Jim: If you can understand this you will understand why you get accused of using your self proclaimed state of consciousness as a position of condescension to the rest of us. You and I have gone through most of the levels of rapport and non rapport at different times. There is an original side of you that I can relate to and I enjoy. But the statement above is obnoxious in every way to me. It is using your self created position of superior awareness as a snide weapon, as if you were talking down to a child. Referring to anyone here as living in a "dense waking state" is simply rude. This is an extremely conscious group of humans posting here, including the ones I disagree with on a regular basis. I hope you can take a second to understand how offensive the posture of intrinsic superiority contained in your comment is to me. And I hope you also can consider that this perspective of intrinsic superiority may be leaking out in your posts more than you realize. It is an assumptive premise of superior consciousness. This is completely different from people here attempting to show that they are using superior reasoning skills or presenting facts unknown to the person they are debating a point with. I dig you at the reindeer games Jim, but your nose isn't glowing bright enough to guide our sleigh tonight. We killed Rudolph and are roasting his ribs over the campfire. Pull up a chair man. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > wrote: > > > > > > Oh, goodie. Story time. Tell us the one again about the > infinitely > > > radiant Pride. Ot the ones where particlees collide in this big > > > chamber and go "boom boom"! Or one about dragons. I love the ones > > > about dragons! > > > > LOL. > > > > The one about bombarding all us other "particles" > > with His grace to fulfill all our desires and align > > our demonic impulses with His angelic harmony is > > one of my personal favorites. > > > from the perspective of dense waking state, it does sound ludicrous > doesn't it? I'd stick to material science if I were you. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > "Just how it is" and "Just how God designed it" are > > NOT synonymous. One implies that things were "designed" > > and the other does not. > > > > I'm kinda astounded that you can't see this. > > My point is that they're effectively the same thing > because they add nothing to our knowledge of how the > laws came to be. "Designed" versus "not designed" is > obviously irrelevant. Not at all. To assume that these two statements are synonymous is to assume that things *were* "designed" and that non-changing "laws" of nature exist, something I do not assume for a moment. The universe could just as easily be chaos, onto which humans, whether their bent is science or religion, *project* their desire for "laws" and "design" onto a universe that contains neither. I'm suggesting that you can't step back from the assumption that there *are* such "laws" and/or "design" and contemplate a universe in which neither exists. And *that* is what makes you think that these two statements are synonymous. I can posit a universe in which any "law" you can point to *as* a "law" could change at any moment. I suspect that they do so all the time, and that humans are just so rigid in their beliefs that they never notice. I'm not even comfortable with the statement "Just how it is." That implies that a human being could actually know "just how it is." A truly non-biased scientist *or* religionist would have to say, "Just how it appears to me (and/or my instruments) at this moment."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > They're identical, actually, in that neither answers > > the "why?" question. *Why* did God design the universe > > to be orderly? > > > > "Just how it is" and "Just how God designed it" are > > synonymous, when you think about it: how it is is how > > God designed it; how God designed it is how it is. > > There's no information content in either statement. > > > Thanks for taking a minute on this. I get that he is making a point > that I am missing so I'll give this more thought. > > I agree with your equation of the statement in their ability to > answer "why". I guess I am missing his point about why there is an > imperative to answer "why". Well, I think the title of the piece suggests what his point is: "Taking Science on Faith." He's not comfortable with that. I did have a glimmer of stepping outside > my own mental constraints that perhaps he is keeping the hope alive > to really answer this question when some scientists have used the > word "God" and some have used "who cares", effectively blowing off > the questions and, to use one of our favorite phrases, stopping > thought on this topic. Is he encouraging scientist to keep up the > good fight of inquiry into this question? Oh, yes, I'm sure he is. Actually he's encouraging scientists to *take it up*, because they haven't so far. At the *very* least, he would like science to recognize that the whole scientific enterprise is founded on a faith issue. But I think he wants to go further than that and actually hash it out. I was thinking that in the world he lives > in, he is surrounded by scientists and probably very aware of the > mental assumptions that are limiting their thinking. For him this > kind of assumption may be blocking a direction of his scientific > interest? I *think*, as I suggested earlier, that what he's looking for is a "theory of everything" that incorporates consciousness as the agent of the creation of the universe. I suspect that's what he means when he says what's needed is a TOE that eliminates external agency. I even wonder if he might not have a glimmering of the self-reference concept. > Or he might just be making a linguistic error by putting why at that > level of abstraction. But given his mental chops, I'll bet I am > just still missing his point. I think that's distinctly likely. ;-) Doesn't mean, necessarily, that you'd go along with it once you had grokked it, but you'd be addressing it differently. I should note that all I've got hold of is the very most elementary aspect of his point.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > "Just how it is" and "Just how God designed it" are > > > NOT synonymous. One implies that things were "designed" > > > and the other does not. > > > > > > I'm kinda astounded that you can't see this. > > > > My point is that they're effectively the same thing > > because they add nothing to our knowledge of how the > > laws came to be. "Designed" versus "not designed" is > > obviously irrelevant. > > Not at all. To assume that these two statements > are synonymous is to assume that things *were* > "designed" and that non-changing "laws" of nature > exist, something I do not assume for a moment. It would really help if you read the piece we've been discussing so you had some idea of what you were talking about. > The universe could just as easily be chaos, onto > which humans, whether their bent is science or > religion, *project* their desire for "laws" and > "design" onto a universe that contains neither. > > I'm suggesting that you can't step back from the > assumption that there *are* such "laws" and/or > "design" and contemplate a universe in which neither > exists. Oh, I can step back from it, no problem. It isn't inconceivable that randomness is the answer to the question. But that wouldn't alter the point in the slightest. And *that* is what makes you think that these > two statements are synonymous. Nope, they'd be synonymous even if randomness were the case. > I can posit a universe in which any "law" you can > point to *as* a "law" could change at any moment. > I suspect that they do so all the time, and that > humans are just so rigid in their beliefs that they > never notice. > > I'm not even comfortable with the statement "Just > how it is." That implies that a human being could > actually know "just how it is." A truly non-biased > scientist *or* religionist would have to say, "Just > how it appears to me (and/or my instruments) at this > moment." Heh. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Or maybe not, if what I suspect about where Davies wants to go with this is on target. So let's throw something else into the mix here, Bertrand Russell's notion that we all have two heads, as expounded by Robert Anton Wilson: http://www.headtochrist.com/board/index.php?showtopic=1550 (I'm pretty sure it's beyond you, Barry, but Curtis might find it of interest.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nice story. You just said, "To me, anything with words is a story. Even OM / AUM has its story --- and is a story. If you take your stories so serious as to believe them to be something else, then, as you please." If so, typing "Nice story" is redundant and meaningless, as it's equally applicable to all conversation, isn't it? So what did you really mean by the phrase? Are you trying to dismiss my observations of our interactions *within the story*? It just sounds to me like more of your snidely dishonest "advaita shuffle," anything to avoid real introspection and Self-Work.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latin America: One country per week to gain invincibility through student Yogic Flyers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, I certainly hope this happens. I wish Dr. > Alvarez the best. But I have a sneaking suspicion that > this will be the last that we ever hear about this. > MMY has trained his Rajas to be like him: they value > the idea much more than the reality. How typical a comment from an old american seeing South America (finally) rising in strenght, little by little throwing off decades of North Amrican domination and abuse both economic and on the level of human rights. Must be scary and bitter observing one country after the other, on all continents now with rising Invincibility worldwide, finding their own grounds independent of the dollar and Pentagon. History is providing the unavoidable right in front of our eyes; making the USA obsolete as an international reference and influence. Soon the only thing they will have to think of are themselves - and that will give them plenty to worry about. "Now that Communism is gone the next to go is capitalism." - Maharishi, 1989. Thanks petersupthen, your grumpy comments are always a joy to read and a real measure of how certain stagnated americans react to a very rapidly changing world thanks to the rise of world consciousness! Thank you again ! :-) (Just for the record; I know very well that you are not representative of a poplulation of also highly flexible, idealistic, altruistic, creative, goodnatured, intelligent and lovable americans.) > > --- michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Latin America: One country per week to gain > > invincibility through student Yogic Flyers > > by Global Good News staff writer > > > > Global Good News > > 24 November 2007 > > > > Dr Jose Luis Alvarez, Raja (Administrator) of Latin > > America for the Global Country of World Peace, > > observed that about one country per week will be > > rising to invincibility in his domain throughout the > > rest of this year, creating continental > > invincibility. > > > > Three countries have been chosen for structures to > > be built, Dr Alvarez outlined, 'in Paraguay, at the > > border of Bolivia; in the northeast of Brazil in a > > most precious foresta place of eternal spring; and > > in Venezuela near a national park in a very special > > area that has been donated. . . . These are three > > paradises which will be the basis of Global Ram Raj > > in Latin America. > > > > Dr Alvarez also noted that a live video conference > > to be seen by 13,000 students was planned, 'with all > > of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's knowledge, in the third > > week of November.' > > > > Dr Alvarez showed slides from Peru, where they > > currently have 700 Yogic Flyers who will be joined > > by another 250 next week, giving that nation many > > more than the 530 necessary to structure its > > invincibility. The slides showed large numbers of > > students learning Yoga postures, practicing > > Maharishi's Transcendental (TM) Meditation Technique > > together, and 'flying high, like very experienced > > Yogic Flyers.' In another picture they are listening > > to their teacher. Dr Alvarez said that after 30 > > years of teaching Maharishi's TM-Sidhi Programme, > > this is the most fulfilling experience for him. > > > > 'The students are reporting so much joy, > > peacefulness, and silence. They say they can touch > > the silence; and they are flying as if they are > > being pulled up to heaven. These are children 14 to > > 16 years old; and when they have free time on the > > weekend, they have seminars that they all want to go > > to. . . . Now all the adults want to be Yogic Flyers > > like their children. > > > > 'In Bolivia, on the other side of the lake, 500 more > > Yogic Flyers are ready; and in Colombia we have more > > than the invincibility number of 700 Yogic Flyers. > > In two weeks Chile will be rising to invincibility > > with 500 who are in the Yogic Flying course now. > > Ecuador will have 120 with another group starting > > soon; and Brazil is also starting a large group. > > > > 'For these children,' Dr Alvarez said in closing, > > 'it becomes very concrete. It is very simple for > > themthe experience of infinity within the silence. > > Each group raises the next, the whole country. Life > > in supreme happiness will be able to be lived. The > > ideal is being actualized by these children.' > > > > Copyright © 2007 Global Good News(sm) Service > > > > > > > > > > - > > Ihr erstes Baby? Holen Sie sich Tipps von anderen > Eltern. > > > > __ __ > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >
Re: [FairfieldLife] 3 Million Wariors Ready to Pounce
On Nov 25, 2007, at 8:56 PM, new.morning wrote: If 3 million warriors had come bent on anihilating me, it may cause me to ponder what i did to piss so many people off so much. Or you could simply get into a whole lot of rationalizing, new, as in ..."Well, at least it's not *4* million..." A little denial goes a long way.:) Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: UFC of Yogic Shaman Tantric Masters
On Nov 25, 2007, at 9:38 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Too bad no one seems to be able to live up to his own bold claim and now has to make excuses for why their internal states don't come with demonstrable party favors. I don't know what you mean, Curtis...mine comes with all sorts of party favors--colors, visions, the Realization of the Meaning of LIfe--and that's even before I hit the Ecstasy. Guess you're just not as evolved as I am. :) Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
On Nov 25, 2007, at 10:34 PM, new.morning wrote: ...by the bye, OMGAkashaNewMonitor, I seem to remember that you recently claimed you found me boring I did just get a new monitor. How did you know? That omniscience is really kicking into high gear. That's just a warm-up for Rory and Jim, new. Just wait until they start cognizing your pst lives. Bet you didn't realize you were Eva Braun, following the charismatic Hitler...? :) Just how were those summers in Berchtesgaden, anyway? I believe I did, I believe I do at times. It was not an absolute statement. It should be, IMO. How you and Curtis manage the patience to wade through their insufferably boring tracts is truly beyond me. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It should be, IMO. How you and Curtis manage the patience to wade > through their insufferably boring tracts is truly beyond me. > > Sal Go Know yourself, Sal -- and I don't mean just in the Biblical sense :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] UFC of Yogic Shaman Tantric Masters
new.morning wrote: > This seems to be a quite powerful and apt analogy to spiritual > traditions and their "one punch knockouts" of ignorance and bondage. A > UFC of masters of pure traditions would be interesting. More to the > point would be having them come up against cross-training masters. > > I liked the story Jerry used to tell of sadhus on the banks of the > Ganges, jumping in with their dohti or robes, and then sitting on the > banks, in contests with each other, to see who could dry their clothes > fastest from internal heat from their bodies. > > Perhaps way too crude and earthy a demonstration for pure > consciousness junkies. But on a day that Sankara uses a brilliantly > discusses the dynamics of duality within unity based on an analogy of > a wet dream, a little earthiness in spiritual matters seems fitting. > > Hook up 10 Yogic Shaman Tantric Masters to real time brain imaging > machines, results displayed on huge high definition wall panels in the > collosium, and then, in peace and brotherly love, have at it. Who can > create "cosmic" brain images fastest. Create the most stable. Create > them in others via transmission. > > I can't wait to see those trash talking cross-training > yogi/tantric/god-men swagger into the stadium and strut their stuff. > > "Hey Mr South indian yogi man, I will eat your blissful samadhi for > lunch! And show you the all powerful punch of Shatki Love before your > most blessed head hits the mat. i have the power of 10 indras to hold > absolute and relative together in Brahman and i will crush your > massive ignorance with it. Namaste. " > > "No you most venerable, yet deluded one. I will dance like shiva on > your chest as you lay prone why all the devas chant in sorrow yet joy > for your most blessed mahsamadi as I liberate you from your still > quite existant and reeking bondage. Namaste" Hilarious but no real tantric would participate, just fakes. Real tantrics don't show off their powers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > > > > > > > "Just how it is" and "Just how God designed it" are > > > > NOT synonymous. One implies that things were "designed" > > > > and the other does not. > > > > > > > > I'm kinda astounded that you can't see this. > > > > > > My point is that they're effectively the same thing > > > because they add nothing to our knowledge of how the > > > laws came to be. "Designed" versus "not designed" is > > > obviously irrelevant. > > > > Not at all. To assume that these two statements > > are synonymous is to assume that things *were* > > "designed" and that non-changing "laws" of nature > > exist, something I do not assume for a moment. > > It would really help if you read the piece we've > been discussing so you had some idea of what you > were talking about. > > > The universe could just as easily be chaos, onto > > which humans, whether their bent is science or > > religion, *project* their desire for "laws" and > > "design" onto a universe that contains neither. > > > > I'm suggesting that you can't step back from the > > assumption that there *are* such "laws" and/or > > "design" and contemplate a universe in which neither > > exists. > > Oh, I can step back from it, no problem. It isn't > inconceivable that randomness is the answer to the > question. But that wouldn't alter the point in the > slightest. > > And *that* is what makes you think that these > > two statements are synonymous. > > Nope, they'd be synonymous even if randomness > were the case. > > > I can posit a universe in which any "law" you can > > point to *as* a "law" could change at any moment. > > I suspect that they do so all the time, and that > > humans are just so rigid in their beliefs that they > > never notice. > > > > I'm not even comfortable with the statement "Just > > how it is." That implies that a human being could > > actually know "just how it is." A truly non-biased > > scientist *or* religionist would have to say, "Just > > how it appears to me (and/or my instruments) at this > > moment." > > Heh. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Or maybe > not, if what I suspect about where Davies wants to > go with this is on target. > > So let's throw something else into the mix here, > Bertrand Russell's notion that we all have two > heads, as expounded by Robert Anton Wilson: > > http://www.headtochrist.com/board/index.php?showtopic=1550 > > (I'm pretty sure it's beyond you, Barry, but Curtis > might find it of interest.) > It must hurt - having enormous intellect, confined within such a small mind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" > wrote: > > > I don't think he has a point, just a misunderstanding about > > how we know what is from what isn't, "laws" are explanations > > of observations no-one ever said they were immutable, they > > change as the evidence changes. > > This is really very funny. You might want to have a look > at Davies's credentials: So you think he's got a point because he has a PHD? You're very easily impressed aren't you? >> > Did you even read the piece we were discussing? Of course I read it, and just read it agin to see if I missed something. I still don't get what his problem is, scientists don't have "faith" that the universe is orderly it's what they've found. The multiverse theory doesn't "duck" anything it's the best explanation of quantum physics yet because it accounts for all observable phenomena without recourse to gods, consciousness etc. Surely he gets it, why does he think the laws of physics are due to an external agency? "And just as Christians claim that the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case, so physicists declare a similar asymmetry: the universe is governed by eternal laws (or meta-laws), but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe." It's not me that got this wrong, I'm sure of it. The laws are invented by man to explain what we see, no-one knows if they are "real" and if they do turn out to be I would hope they are impervious. Nobody "declared" anything, it's all been painstakingly worked out and it isn't finished. > As all the evidence isn't in it's an open question, but > > the clever money goes to the natural and understood (lets not > > forget testable) progression of increasing complexity due to > > electrons cooling after big bang. molecules forming inside > > supernovae, finally the earth, 4 billion years later us, then > > comes consciousness and the wondering whether laws are > > immutable, this Davies guy needs to see the big picture. > > ROTFL!! I'll lend you my bookshelves so maybe you can see it too.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: UFC of Yogic Shaman Tantric Masters
I think I came late to this party. When do we drop acid? --- Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 25, 2007, at 9:38 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > Too bad no one seems to be able to > > live up to his own bold claim and now has to make > excuses for why > > their internal states don't come with demonstrable > party favors. > > I don't know what you mean, Curtis...mine comes with > all sorts of > party favors--colors, visions, the Realization of > the Meaning of > LIfe--and that's even before I hit the Ecstasy. > > Guess you're just not as evolved as I am. :) > > Sal > > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
By these exchanges I see that Davies' point is either trivial, not clear or no point at all! --- hugheshugo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I don't think he has a point, just a > misunderstanding about > > > how we know what is from what isn't, "laws" are > explanations > > > of observations no-one ever said they were > immutable, they > > > change as the evidence changes. > > > > This is really very funny. You might want to have > a look > > at Davies's credentials: > > > > So you think he's got a point because he has a PHD? > You're very easily impressed aren't you? > > > > >> > > Did you even read the piece we were discussing? > > Of course I read it, and just read it agin to see if > I missed > something. I still don't get what his problem is, > scientists don't > have "faith" that the universe is orderly it's what > they've found. > The multiverse theory doesn't "duck" anything it's > the best > explanation of quantum physics yet because it > accounts for all > observable phenomena without recourse to gods, > consciousness etc. > Surely he gets it, why does he think the laws of > physics are due to > an external agency? > > "And just as Christians claim that the world depends > utterly on God > for its existence, while the converse is not the > case, so physicists > declare a similar asymmetry: the universe is > governed by eternal laws > (or meta-laws), but the laws are completely > impervious to what > happens in the universe." > > > It's not me that got this wrong, I'm sure of it. The > laws are > invented by man to explain what we see, no-one knows > if they > are "real" and if they do turn out to be I would > hope they are > impervious. Nobody "declared" anything, it's all > been painstakingly > worked out and it isn't finished. > > > > As all the evidence isn't in it's an open > question, but > > > the clever money goes to the natural and > understood (lets not > > > forget testable) progression of increasing > complexity due to > > > electrons cooling after big bang. molecules > forming inside > > > supernovae, finally the earth, 4 billion years > later us, then > > > comes consciousness and the wondering whether > laws are > > > immutable, this Davies guy needs to see the big > picture. > > > > ROTFL!! > > I'll lend you my bookshelves so maybe you can see it > too. > > > > 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 > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Nailing someone besides yourself is fun, too, but I suspect that hasn't happened for you > for quite some time, even though your obvious creative ability could put someone else in > simultaneous ecstasy with you - a good thing. Sweet; thank you! Not to do the "advaita shuffle," or anything, but I am not at all convinced that there *is* "someone besides yourself," or myself, or whatever. How could we ever know?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
On Nov 26, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Peter wrote: By these exchanges I see that Davies' point is either trivial, not clear or no point at all! Post of the week--I think you've just given a perfect description of most of the discussions on FFL, Peter. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" > > wrote: > > > > I don't think he has a point, just a misunderstanding about > > > how we know what is from what isn't, "laws" are explanations > > > of observations no-one ever said they were immutable, they > > > change as the evidence changes. > > > > This is really very funny. You might want to have a look > > at Davies's credentials: > > So you think he's got a point because he has a PHD? > You're very easily impressed aren't you? Look, I'm going to post his credentials again, because you apparently didn't read them: "PAUL DAVIES is a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist and author. He holds the position of Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University. His previous academic appointments were at the Universities of Cambridge, London, Newcastle upon Tyne and Adelaide. His research has ranged from the origin of the universe to the origin of life, and includes the properties of black holes, the nature of time and quantum field theory in curved spacetime. He is the author of several hundred research papers and articles, as well as over twenty books, including The Physics of Time Asymmetry and Quantum Fields in Curved Space, co-authored with his former PhD student Nicholas Birrell. His more recent popular books include How to Build a Time Machine and The Origin of Life. "Davies was awarded the 2001 Kelvin Medal by the UK Institute of Physics and the 2002 Faraday Award by The Royal Society. In Australia, he is the recipient of two Eureka Prizes and an Advance Australia award. He was also the recipient of the 1995 Templeton Prize for his work on science and religion" That's a helluva lot more than a Ph.D., buster. It's fine to take issue with him, but it's rather absurd for you to act like you know more about science, cosmology, philosophy of science, etc., than he does. And he's definitely a big-picture guy. > > Did you even read the piece we were discussing? > > Of course I read it, and just read it agin to see if I missed > something. Well, just for one thing, you missed that he's well acquainted with the Anthropic Principle. Virtually everything you've been saying to correct his "misunderstandings" is stuff that it's crystal clear from the piece that he already knows all about. I still don't get what his problem is, scientists don't > have "faith" that the universe is orderly it's what they've found. No, not *that* the universe is orderly. They don't inquire into *why* the universe is orderly. > The multiverse theory doesn't "duck" anything it's the best > explanation of quantum physics yet because it accounts for all > observable phenomena without recourse to gods, consciousness etc. "There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse." > Surely he gets it, why does he think the laws of physics are due to > an external agency? He doesn't. What he says is that they're external to the universe--as you go on to quote: > "And just as Christians claim that the world depends utterly on God > for its existence, while the converse is not the case, so > physicists declare a similar asymmetry: the universe is governed by > eternal laws (or meta-laws), but the laws are completely impervious > to what happens in the universe." > > It's not me that got this wrong, I'm sure of it. The laws are > invented by man to explain what we see, no-one knows if they > are "real" and if they do turn out to be I would hope they are > impervious. If they're impervious to what happens in the universe, then, like God, they're external to it, by definition. Nobody "declared" anything, it's all been painstakingly > worked out and it isn't finished. I don't know why you aren't getting it, but that they've all been painstakingly worked out and are still unfinished *isn't relevant to his point*-- it's a given, he knows that, I know that, we all know that. You're getting hung up on a red herring. I think the problem here is that Davies's big picture is *bigger* than your big picture. > > As all the evidence isn't in it's an open question, but > > > the clever money goes to the natural and understood (lets not > > > forget testable) progression of increasing complexity due to > > > electrons cooling after big bang. molecules forming inside > > > supernovae, finally the earth, 4 billion years later us, then > > > comes consciousness and the wondering whether laws are > > > immutable, this Davies guy needs to see the big picture. > > > > ROTFL!! > > I'll lend you my bookshelves so maybe you ca
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > By these exchanges I see that Davies' point is either > trivial, not clear or no point at all! That's definitely what you'd see in what hugheshugo says. And you're right, it's obviously not clear to either of you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "Just how it is" and "Just how God designed it" are > > > > > NOT synonymous. One implies that things were "designed" > > > > > and the other does not. > > > > > > > > > > I'm kinda astounded that you can't see this. > > > > > > > > My point is that they're effectively the same thing > > > > because they add nothing to our knowledge of how the > > > > laws came to be. "Designed" versus "not designed" is > > > > obviously irrelevant. > > > > > > Not at all. To assume that these two statements > > > are synonymous is to assume that things *were* > > > "designed" and that non-changing "laws" of nature > > > exist, something I do not assume for a moment. > > > > It would really help if you read the piece we've > > been discussing so you had some idea of what you > > were talking about. > > > > > The universe could just as easily be chaos, onto > > > which humans, whether their bent is science or > > > religion, *project* their desire for "laws" and > > > "design" onto a universe that contains neither. > > > > > > I'm suggesting that you can't step back from the > > > assumption that there *are* such "laws" and/or > > > "design" and contemplate a universe in which neither > > > exists. > > > > Oh, I can step back from it, no problem. It isn't > > inconceivable that randomness is the answer to the > > question. But that wouldn't alter the point in the > > slightest. > > > > And *that* is what makes you think that these > > > two statements are synonymous. > > > > Nope, they'd be synonymous even if randomness > > were the case. > > > > > I can posit a universe in which any "law" you can > > > point to *as* a "law" could change at any moment. > > > I suspect that they do so all the time, and that > > > humans are just so rigid in their beliefs that they > > > never notice. > > > > > > I'm not even comfortable with the statement "Just > > > how it is." That implies that a human being could > > > actually know "just how it is." A truly non-biased > > > scientist *or* religionist would have to say, "Just > > > how it appears to me (and/or my instruments) at this > > > moment." > > > > Heh. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Or maybe > > not, if what I suspect about where Davies wants to > > go with this is on target. > > > > So let's throw something else into the mix here, > > Bertrand Russell's notion that we all have two > > heads, as expounded by Robert Anton Wilson: > > > > http://www.headtochrist.com/board/index.php?showtopic=1550 > > > > (I'm pretty sure it's beyond you, Barry, but Curtis > > might find it of interest.) > > It must hurt - having enormous intellect, confined within > such a small mind. No, Sal...THIS is the post of the week. :-) I've never heard Judy synopsized so perfectly, and in so few words.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jim: from the perspective of dense waking state, it does sound ludicrous > > doesn't it? I'd stick to material science if I were you. > > > > On a serious note Jim: > > If you can understand this you will understand why you get accused of > using your self proclaimed state of consciousness as a position of > condescension to the rest of us. You and I have gone through most of > the levels of rapport and non rapport at different times. There is an > original side of you that I can relate to and I enjoy. > > But the statement above is obnoxious in every way to me. It is using > your self created position of superior awareness as a snide weapon, as > if you were talking down to a child. Referring to anyone here as > living in a "dense waking state" is simply rude. This is an extremely > conscious group of humans posting here, including the ones I disagree > with on a regular basis. > > I hope you can take a second to understand how offensive the posture > of intrinsic superiority contained in your comment is to me. And I > hope you also can consider that this perspective of intrinsic > superiority may be leaking out in your posts more than you realize. > It is an assumptive premise of superior consciousness. This is > completely different from people here attempting to show that they are > using superior reasoning skills or presenting facts unknown to the > person they are debating a point with. > > I dig you at the reindeer games Jim, but your nose isn't glowing > bright enough to guide our sleigh tonight. We killed Rudolph and are > roasting his ribs over the campfire. Pull up a chair man. > I was stating a conclusion based on Turq's misunderstanding and consequent condescending take on what Rory had originally posted. Turq's condescension apparently escaped your sensitivity to being offended-- which leads to an obvious conclusion-- that you are not offended by comments which no matter how condescending, are in line with your values. My reply was meant to say, "Yes, I understand how you didn't understand a word of what Rory posted, because knowledge *is* different in different states of consciousness, and that you choose to take Rory's statement out of context and dismiss it as a joke. Therefore, to make yourself more comfortable, I suggest that you confine your musings in the future to the sensory comforts of material science." Better?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > (I'm pretty sure it's beyond you, Barry, but Curtis > > > might find it of interest.) > > > > It must hurt - having enormous intellect, confined within > > such a small mind. > > No, Sal...THIS is the post of the week. :-) > > I've never heard Judy synopsized so perfectly, > and in so few words. Translation: Barry just *hates* it when he gets out of his depth in a discussion with me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > LOL! good one! Yes, enlightenment is one big fantasy, designed to > > make those who have worked so hard to achieve this state "feel good" > > and disassociate from Reality! Whoo HA! See if you can sell that > > load of malarkey to someone-- oh wait, you just bought it-- LOL! > > > > I am just talking about the formulation of enlightenment by MMY. In > his system sidhis are needed as sigh posts of enlightenment. No sidhis > mastery, no enlightenment. I admire him for his lack of "wiggle room" > about this connection. Anyone "enlightened" without sidhis is using a > different system of evaluation from MMY. > > BTW do you believe that the rapture of Christianity is a fantasy? > Same thing for me so far about enlightenment. But perhaps someone > will hover in the air someday and I can happily amend my opinion. > I doubt that very much Curtis. There are people on this forum that would and do renounce the reality of enlightenment, no matter what is presented to them. Why? Because all enlightenment is, is a radical departure from how we see ourselves in terms of our relationship with our universe; with no longer any stories or concepts filtering our immediate experience. That is a very threatening reality to many, despite in most cases their former years being supposedly committed to the dissolution of such stories and filters. As I like to say of such peoples' thinking, "unbounded awareness is great, but enough is enough". So continue as you choose to doubt and question and challenge, and in general protect all that you think is yours. Make every statement in favor of enlightenment, here and now, a rebuttal of your "precious" and protected self. Define each statement in favor of eternal freedom, available right now, in terms of a strange dualistic concept, where everything stated as Real is found to be either above or below you, either inferior or superior. Continue to ridicule and cast doubt on those who have awakened to life's Reality. I see clearly that there is nothing to be done about it, unless and until you and others choose to literally change your minds and hearts. I have nothing to prove to you, nor do I write for your benefit, as you have amply demonstrated.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
Credentials, as you pointed out to me not too long ago, are irrelevant. authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" > > wrote: > > > > I don't think he has a point, just a misunderstanding about > > > how we know what is from what isn't, "laws" are explanations > > > of observations no-one ever said they were immutable, they > > > change as the evidence changes. > > > > This is really very funny. You might want to have a look > > at Davies's credentials: > > So you think he's got a point because he has a PHD? > You're very easily impressed aren't you? Look, I'm going to post his credentials again, because you apparently didn't read them: "PAUL DAVIES is a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist and author. He holds the position of Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University. His previous academic appointments were at the Universities of Cambridge, London, Newcastle upon Tyne and Adelaide. His research has ranged from the origin of the universe to the origin of life, and includes the properties of black holes, the nature of time and quantum field theory in curved spacetime. He is the author of several hundred research papers and articles, as well as over twenty books, including The Physics of Time Asymmetry and Quantum Fields in Curved Space, co-authored with his former PhD student Nicholas Birrell. His more recent popular books include How to Build a Time Machine and The Origin of Life. "Davies was awarded the 2001 Kelvin Medal by the UK Institute of Physics and the 2002 Faraday Award by The Royal Society. In Australia, he is the recipient of two Eureka Prizes and an Advance Australia award. He was also the recipient of the 1995 Templeton Prize for his work on science and religion" That's a helluva lot more than a Ph.D., buster. It's fine to take issue with him, but it's rather absurd for you to act like you know more about science, cosmology, philosophy of science, etc., than he does. And he's definitely a big-picture guy. > > Did you even read the piece we were discussing? > > Of course I read it, and just read it agin to see if I missed > something. Well, just for one thing, you missed that he's well acquainted with the Anthropic Principle. Virtually everything you've been saying to correct his "misunderstandings" is stuff that it's crystal clear from the piece that he already knows all about. I still don't get what his problem is, scientists don't > have "faith" that the universe is orderly it's what they've found. No, not *that* the universe is orderly. They don't inquire into *why* the universe is orderly. > The multiverse theory doesn't "duck" anything it's the best > explanation of quantum physics yet because it accounts for all > observable phenomena without recourse to gods, consciousness etc. "There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse." > Surely he gets it, why does he think the laws of physics are due to > an external agency? He doesn't. What he says is that they're external to the universe--as you go on to quote: > "And just as Christians claim that the world depends utterly on God > for its existence, while the converse is not the case, so > physicists declare a similar asymmetry: the universe is governed by > eternal laws (or meta-laws), but the laws are completely impervious > to what happens in the universe." > > It's not me that got this wrong, I'm sure of it. The laws are > invented by man to explain what we see, no-one knows if they > are "real" and if they do turn out to be I would hope they are > impervious. If they're impervious to what happens in the universe, then, like God, they're external to it, by definition. Nobody "declared" anything, it's all been painstakingly > worked out and it isn't finished. I don't know why you aren't getting it, but that they've all been painstakingly worked out and are still unfinished *isn't relevant to his point*-- it's a given, he knows that, I know that, we all know that. You're getting hung up on a red herring. I think the problem here is that Davies's big picture is *bigger* than your big picture. > > As all the evidence isn't in it's an open question, but > > > the clever money goes to the natural and understood (lets not > > > forget testable) progression of increasing complexity due to > > > electrons cooling after big bang. molecules forming inside >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Credentials, as you pointed out to me not too long ago, are irrelevant. Uh, that isn't what I pointed out to you, Angela.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote: > > > > By these exchanges I see that Davies' point is either > > trivial, not clear or no point at all! > > That's definitely what you'd see in what hugheshugo > says. And you're right, it's obviously not clear to > either of you. I am certainly not surprised that it's clear to you, Judy, as you obviously Understand that (y)our consciousness contains it all, but I must say I am a little surprised that another "Dead guy" claims that he doesn't get the "self-evident" bigger picture which Davies' work so clearly points to. Maybe Dr. Pete has forgotten what the world looks like to those who ain't No-one yet? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
On Nov 26, 2007, at 2:47 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: I doubt that very much Curtis. There are people on this forum that would and do renounce the reality of enlightenment, no matter what is presented to them. Why? Because all enlightenment is, is a radical departure from how we see ourselves in terms of our relationship with our universe; with no longer any stories or concepts filtering our immediate experience Or so the story goes.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
Then you should have. authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Credentials, as you pointed out to me not too long ago, are irrelevant. Uh, that isn't what I pointed out to you, Angela. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am certainly not surprised that it's clear to you, Judy, as you > obviously Understand that (y)our consciousness contains it all, but I > must say I am a little surprised that another "Dead guy" claims that > he doesn't get the "self-evident" bigger picture which Davies' work > so clearly points to. > > Maybe Dr. Pete has forgotten what the world looks like to those who > ain't No-one yet? > > :-) Excuse me, Dr. Pete; I mean to say, "maybe you have forgotten what the world looks like to those who don't know they are No-one yet?" Questioning the hitherto-unquestioned assumption that there is an external order to which the Universe conforms, is *huge*. IMO it shows a consciousness beginning to actually become aware of itself and its own participatory role in universe-manifestation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
Is it possible to perceive the world without the filter of concepts? If that's the case, why does someone blind from birth who gains sight have to learn to see? Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Nov 26, 2007, at 2:47 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: I doubt that very much Curtis. There are people on this forum that would and do renounce the reality of enlightenment, no matter what is presented to them. Why? Because all enlightenment is, is a radical departure from how we see ourselves in terms of our relationship with our universe; with no longer any stories or concepts filtering our immediate experience Or so the story goes. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Excuse me, Dr. Pete; I mean to say, "maybe you have forgotten what the > world looks like to those who don't know they are No-one yet?" > > Questioning the hitherto-unquestioned assumption that there is an > external order to which the Universe conforms, is *huge*. IMO it shows > a consciousness beginning to actually become aware of itself and its > own participatory role in universe-manifestation. And I don't mean this in a purely intellectual way; his words *actually tickled and stirred Me* bodily. He is becoming a knower of Me, of That- Self.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
I thought about the particular passage Vaj has taken exception to when I wrote it, because I am making a relative comparison, not an absolute one. To say that enlightenment is a state where all prior knowledge disappears is not accurate, and this isn't what I meant. There seems to be a basic level of conceptual knowledge that is necessary for our fulflling existence. Thanks for the question. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is it possible to perceive the world without the filter of concepts? If that's the case, why does someone blind from birth who gains sight have to learn to see? > > Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 26, 2007, at 2:47 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: > > I doubt that very much Curtis. There are people on this forum that > would and do renounce the reality of enlightenment, no matter what > is presented to them. Why? Because all enlightenment is, is a > radical departure from how we see ourselves in terms of our > relationship with our universe; with no longer any stories or > concepts filtering our immediate experience > > > > Or so the story goes. > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Then you should have. If you think credentials are irrelevant, why do you keep making such a big deal of yours? (BTW, if you'd been following the thread, you'd know I raised the credentials issue only because hugheshugo was apparently under the mistaken impression that Davies wasn't a scientist at all.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" wrote: > > Excuse me, Dr. Pete; I mean to say, "maybe you have forgotten what > the > > world looks like to those who don't know they are No-one yet?" > > > > Questioning the hitherto-unquestioned assumption that there is an > > external order to which the Universe conforms, is *huge*. IMO it > shows > > a consciousness beginning to actually become aware of itself and its > > own participatory role in universe-manifestation. > > And I don't mean this in a purely intellectual way; his words *actually > tickled and stirred Me* bodily. He is becoming a knower of Me, of That- > Self. > When you say, "actually tickled and stirred Me", don't you mean with a particular sensation of bliss? The reason I ask is that I find it quite easy sometimes to put my attention on a particular individual and feel their vibrations regardless of their physical proximity, and so can be stirred by their vibrations, which is not necessarily an indication that the person is becoming a knower of Self (at least not very quickly-lol). However, when someone has released themselves into that which is universal, that which is enlightened, their vibrations take on a blissy quality. I don't know how else to describe it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: "my message to you"
to be able to BE homeless living in a burned out car & "all right" of course required lots of steel wool to the ego. . Beyond the snappy tune & "PURE & TRUE" lyrics this is a great video showing the reality of ONEness regardless of outer circumstance. The Crystal Cathedral, TMO etc always try to show the UP cycle & not the down- How one reacts when one is furtherest down would show what level of moodmaking one is doing I suppose But if you feel ANY good results from the TM siddhis. surely it better to be seeing things positively.after all, what you see as true IS TRUE for you .The more live supporting thoughts one has the easier to be UP when circumstances are DOWN.Candace Pace, oh I don't have time. someone clever with words can talk her discoveries as in What the Bleep.. I think the way to get to this place naturally is to try to follow the Little Flower, Therese of Liseaux, Bob Marley, Meher Baba etc. Make your daily routine your spiritual practice. The only BIG things are all the little things that one does everyday. In Truth & love, Janet By the way, Haven't smoked anything since returning from the first Squaw Valley course in `68. My non-meditating boyfriend had gotten "the best" and since it couldn't get me any higher than I'd been that whole month I decided not to waste any more money or nervous system. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I love Marley, and *on one level* agree > that "every little thing is gonna be all > right." However, that level is theorhetical, > and to get to it you seem to have to be > smokin' the same stuff that Bob was smokin' > or buy into the stuff that Jim and Rory > believe. Me, I'm gonna stick with here and > now and keep to the "don't worry" part of > the song, while not confusing the theo- > rhetic with the actual. > > "All is one and perfect as it is" is a > valid point of view IMO, but only IF that > is really one's daily perception. And even > then, it is valid only for the being whose > perception is on that level, and only during > the moments in which it is at that level. > At all other times and for all other beings, > to perceive difference and claim Unity is > just moodmaking.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
I stopped when you took me to task for it. You were right to do so. authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Then you should have. If you think credentials are irrelevant, why do you keep making such a big deal of yours? (BTW, if you'd been following the thread, you'd know I raised the credentials issue only because hugheshugo was apparently under the mistaken impression that Davies wasn't a scientist at all.) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] BBC World Report of Collapse of WTC7 23 Minutes before it happened.
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/ I don't know how to explain this video of the BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 before it fell -- in fact the reporter shows the skyline and Building 7 is still RIGHT THERE while she's talking about it having gone down. I don't know how fresh this report is -- don't see any headlines anywhere else at the major news sites. Other sites are saying the same thing and they are dated today. The place where the reporter has Building 7 in the background comes just a bit passed the halfway point. Anyone want to explain this to me? Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
On Paul Davies and his essay for the NY Times: >> http://tinyurl.com/2o9fc7 I'd take exception to a number of things that Paul Davies said in this article. Physics does not accept the universality and immutability of physical laws on "faith." It's an empirical observation that Nature behaves in ways that we can model, and thus predict, mathematically. Therefore, it's a good working assumption that those laws are immutable. But if we find that they change over time, it won't be the end of science. But it is not the job of science to answer the question of *why* there are those specific laws and not some other ones; just as it's not the business of mathematics to answer questions about why geometry is the way it is. It's simply outside the scope of the field. It's absurd to regard it as some sort of failing or shortcoming of physics that it does not answer questions that are outside of its scope. It's like demanding that biology should be able to answer questions about free will. If we're being reasonable, then we acknowledge that any field of human endeavor has some proper limits, and some thing are simply not answered by any form of human knowledge available to us, and probably never will be. >From the viewpoint of physics, the laws of physics can be regarded as uncaused. This should not be such a huge offense to reason; at least not after quantum mechanics. It's been over a century now since quantum mechanics overturned Newtonian mechanics, and the notion of a deterministic universe. It has been amply demonstrated that not all individual physical events have a cause; even if there are laws that govern the statistical probability of events as they happen in great numbers. The Gods do indeed play dice on a small scale (to put a spiritual spin on quantum indeterminacy and randomness); so there is no reason why They can't also play dice on a much bigger, even cosmic, scale. That is, there may well be a vast multiverse of many universes, and a matter of pure luck that this one has these laws. And it's no coincidence that that's the universe we're in, because we would not have evolved in any other one. That's really all that the anthropic principle says. And given how limited our imagination is when it comes to things we cannot observe, there may well be some vastly different kinds of life forms in other universes with different physical laws -- forms of "life" that are so very different from our own as to just be inconceivable to us. And in those other universes, the creatures who evolve under those very different laws may likewise be marveling at what a divine and perfect coincidence it is that their universe is set up just right to allow for their evolution and existence. But hopefully both we and they will outgrow that idea, just as we once outgrew the geocentric model of the cosmos and the Newtonian model of gravity. But would it reduce the universe to a "meaningless absurdity" if it were just a matter of chance which physical laws our universe happened to get? No, I don't think so. It would be a lot like quantum randomness, on a cosmic scale. Quantum randomness does not wipe out the orderly patterns of nature that we observe on a larger scale; and from a big enough perspective, a cosmic roll of the dice that randomly led to some specific set of physical laws and physical constants would not wipe out the orderly behavior of Nature on a cosmic scale either. It just means that there's a mixture of order and chaos (or randomness) in all that we see. That could also be true in the case that the physical laws vary by location within our specific physical universe; although that seems less likely. Davies' idea of what "reason" requires seems rather narrow to me; it almost even sounds like he's confusing reason with determinism, as if physical causality were a requirement for reason. But it's not, as quantum theory shows. Of course, there were plenty of early physicists who thought that quantum mechanics was a violation of reason, too. But they were wrong; and quantum mechanics is one of the most solid and well-confirmed scientific theories of all time. Does that mean that the physical laws "changed" when we discovered quantum effects, as Davis oddly seems to hint at? No, it means that our understanding of those laws was made more precise than it was before. The corresondence principle says that a new theory should give the same results as the old theory, in areas where the old theory was well confirmed. And with regard to macroscopic objects, quantum theory does "reduce" to Newtonian physics. So, there was no "changing" of the immutable laws, only a refinement of our understanding of them. Specific statements in the Davies article that I take issue with: >> "In science, a healthy skepticism is a >> professional necessity, whereas in religion, >> having belief without evidence is
[FairfieldLife] Re: BBC World Report of Collapse of WTC7 23 Minutes before it happened.
Further research shows that this is an old report and that this issue has been bouncing around since Feb 2007 at least judging by the Web site dating I've been able to track down. But the question still remains. I have not found any explanations by the BBC or other authorities to discount this video. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/ > > I don't know how to explain this video of the BBC reporting the > collapse of Building 7 before it fell -- in fact the reporter shows > the skyline and Building 7 is still RIGHT THERE while she's talking > about it having gone down. > > I don't know how fresh this report is -- don't see any headlines > anywhere else at the major news sites. Other sites are saying the > same thing and they are dated today. > > The place where the reporter has Building 7 in the background comes > just a bit passed the halfway point. > > Anyone want to explain this to me? > > Edg >
[FairfieldLife] Curtis and Barry will flunk this test
http://tinyurl.com/2a96ol Try this out. Just to be honest, I flunked it too. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > The videos on your tape were students in point matches and highly > > choreographed demos with people playing the part of an attacker but > > then giving no resistance and rolling out of the way when the > > "master" > > touched them. Ever try to flip someone using one hand who doesn't > > want to flip over? > > > > We are exactly 15 years too late for any argument about traditional > > karate styles, the issue has been settled in the ring by guys > > willing > > to put their traditions on the line to really find out what works. > > Any dojo that isn't cross training now is running an aerobics class. > > Not that there is anything wrong with that. Any attention on any > > martial art is great IMO. So high five for that. But comparing > > choreographed demos to challenge matches is not realistic. > > What he said. Especially the part about, "Have > you ever tried to flip someone who doesn't want > to be flipped?"> No, it is very easy for the properly trained person and takes no strength at all. OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: BBC World Report of Collapse of WTC7 23 Minutes before it happened.
Duveyoung wrote: > Further research shows that this is an old report and that this issue > has been bouncing around since Feb 2007 at least judging by the Web > site dating I've been able to track down. > > But the question still remains. I have not found any explanations by > the BBC or other authorities to discount this video. > > Edg > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/ >> >> I don't know how to explain this video of the BBC reporting the >> collapse of Building 7 before it fell -- in fact the reporter shows >> the skyline and Building 7 is still RIGHT THERE while she's talking >> about it having gone down. >> >> I don't know how fresh this report is -- don't see any headlines >> anywhere else at the major news sites. Other sites are saying the >> same thing and they are dated today. >> >> The place where the reporter has Building 7 in the background comes >> just a bit passed the halfway point. >> >> Anyone want to explain this to me? >> >> Edg Here's conspiracy central (remember that the official 9-11 story IS by definition a conspiracy theory): http://prisonplanet.com/ Hang out on the forum to take a pulse: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/ It help keep you up to date. Though it is sort of becoming Ron Paul Central/Prison Planet. All kinds of people hang out there from conservatives to progressives. Lots that think they're libertarians (just don't ask them to define the term). Very entertaining if nothing else. Not for Judys. :D
[FairfieldLife] Re: 3 Million Wariors Ready to Pounce
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > wrote: > > > > > > Tell that to Arjunalol !3 million people drawn up on the > > > battlefield ready for COMPLETE anihilation, and he is in the > > > middle of it prayin' to jesus for help. > > > > If 3 million warriors had come bent on anihilating me, it may > > cause me to ponder what i did to piss so many people off so much. > > LOL. > > Also, I might suggest that Off's "count" of "3 million" > people drawn up on the battlefield of the Bhagavad-Gita > should give people a clue as to the reality of his "one > punch and you're out" theory of fighting. :-)>> Actually , that is Ru's like you that I was quoting, just to humor you. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] TurquoiseB dominates Straw Man Combat____was_Shotokan dominates Martial Arts
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > Those are some violent fantasies you have there. You might want to > > get that checked. In the meantime I'll put you down for a "no" for > > any evidence in your corner other than shop worn claims from 1960's > > editions of "I'm a Badass Karate Guy" magazine. And I'm gunna put > > you down for a "no" about ever sparring with a boxer also. > > > > You believe in magic and I don't. Pretty simple really. > > > > > READ MY LIPS: > > > If you are watching a fight where the fight is NOT stopped after > > > one strike (at least for a second or two), then you are not > > > watching a legitimate martial art > > > > Read mine: One video of your claim, or even a convincing first > > person account. All the bluff and bluster doesn't hide your lack > > of evidence for your claim. Meanwhile I have provided actual > > videos of a karate guy's inability to do what you claim, and > > there are many, many more. > > > > I do enjoy how riled up you get though. Must be all that: > transcendental consiousness.> > > > But all they're doing is repeating a buncha > claims that got claimed to them. > > Pussy martial artists, pussy spiritual seekers. > Parallel? You decide.>> More straw man attacks from the Straw Man Master. You just don't understand martial arts Turq. You have no idea of the bone shattering power, or organ collapsing danger a Shotokan fighter is trained to give on the first strike. If a hardened foot or a hardened fist hits your adam's apple with full force it shoves it into the back of your neck. You would probably be dead. This is just one of MANY other Shotokan instantly devestating techniques. How about your big gorrilla guy on steroids or wiley grappler guy gets his knees broken? Not that difficult for a well trained Shotokan fighter. A Shotokan fighter cannot be tested unless the other fighters understand that one blow can be one blow too many in a real combat. If you are watching a fight where the fight is NOT stopped after one solid strike, then you are not watching a legitimate martial art. IF the fighters carry on, then it is because they do not understand that a blow with full Shotokan power, will likely break a bone or collapse an organ, or break your knees. You are living in a TV ratings fantasy land when it comes to martial arts. Shotokan dominates Martial Arts, and almost all Shotokan experts are totally humble. The only thing more powerful than thatpure transcendental consiousness, but alas, Turq. you have no intelligent understanding of that either, only straw man attacks for argument. OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: SaaMkhya-suutras: any takers?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Addenda et corrigenda: > > > sattva-rajas-tamasaaM saamyaavasthaa prakRtiH prakRter > > mahaan mahato 'haMkaaro *'haMkaaraat* pañca *tanmaatraaNy* ubhayam > > indriyam indriyebhyaH Oh, shit! That should be 'tanmaatrebhyaH', NOT 'indriyebhyaH', "of course"; 'sthuula-bhuutas' are "born" of 'tanmaatras', NOT 'indriyas'. sthuula-bhuutaani puruSa iti pañca- > > viMshatir (five-twenty) gaNaH. > > > BTW, I 67 sounds quite funny: muule muulaabhavaad amuulaM muulam! :D
[FairfieldLife] Shotokan Prediction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Those are some violent fantasies you have there. >> They are not fantasies, just realities which your arrogance and ego cannot accept. The enlightened see the pearly white teeth in everything, the unenlightened see violence in words...lol. << You might want to get that checked. >> Wait...you're the Ru here...you get checked. You just don't understand martial arts Curtis. You have no idea of the bone shattering power, or organ collapsing danger a Shotokan fighter is trained to give on the first strike. If you watch Shotokan fighters, it is all about the first blow. Poor quality martial artist's don't understand this. You are a VERY smart man Curtis, but on this point you are INCREDIBLY stupid. If a hardened foot or a hardened fist hits your adam's apple with full force it shoves it into the back of your neck. You would probably be dead. This is just one of MANY other Shotokan instantly devestating techniques. How about your big gorrilla guy on steroids or wiley grappler guy gets his knees broken? Not that difficult for a well trained Shotokan fighter. A Shotokan fighter cannot be tested unless the other fighters understand that one blow can be one blow too many in a real combat. If you are watching a fight where the fight is NOT stopped after one solid strike, then you are not watching a legitimate martial art. IF the fighters carry on, then it is because they do not understand that a blow with full Shotokan power, will likely break a bone or collapse an organ, or break your knees. There are techniques that even a black belt in Shotokan (never mind the 5th and 6th dan guys), that would COMPLETELY baffle and throw a grappler or a boxer off, and, in competition, before the guy knows what happened he would be gently laid to the ground, flat out, with a hard bone of a heel coming towards his face at an unprecedented speed. If it were carried through, that bone would break the guys skull. Curtis, you just don't get it. A true expert in shotokan will take down 95% of the others in a split second, but the other baboons keep fighting as if nothing happened. LOL...it is a joke. You are living in a TV ratings fantasy land when it comes to martial arts. Shotokan dominates Martial Arts, and almost all Shotokan experts are totally humble. The only thing more powerful than thatpure transcendental consiousness. NOW...since your ego is too big to concede this obvious point (there are extremely vulnerable parts that an expert can COMPLETELY incapacitate the opponent with the VERY firt strike, and therefore competitions that keep on fighting are not true martial arts, but a different and less precise sport ), I therefore predict that one day you will see a true Shotokan master enter your babies Octagon. Silence will enfold the world at that point and the monstor on steroids that you hold so highlywill be annihilated. This day will come, and you will see it. That is my prediction, and you will be awestruck. OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
On Nov 26, 2007, at 3:18 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: I thought about the particular passage Vaj has taken exception to when I wrote it, because I am making a relative comparison, not an absolute one. To say that enlightenment is a state where all prior knowledge disappears is not accurate, and this isn't what I meant. There seems to be a basic level of conceptual knowledge that is necessary for our fulflling existence. Thanks for the question. It wasn't a question, it was a comment. Thoughts or emotions don't stop per se, but in the higher bodhisattva levels emotional and cognitive obscurations (Skt.: avarana) are lost forever. This is the POV of a gradual path (not a "sudden" path, although a sudden path (or pathless path) would naturally contain all the bodhisattva levels nonetheless). In a gradual path, eventually you lose a certain type of thought (or style of thought).
[FairfieldLife] Re: TurquoiseB dominates Straw Man Combat____was_Shotokan dominates Martial Arts
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You just don't understand martial arts Turq. > > You have no idea of the bone shattering power, or organ collapsing > danger a Shotokan fighter is trained to give on the first strike. Wanna bet which of us has a higher belt rant in Shotokan karate? Five years for me, plus another three before that in other karate styles and another 3-4 in various other styles and martial arts. Didn't you say that you'd studied for only three years total? Basically, Off, you're one of those pussies who talks big and buys the bullshit. We weeded those guys out *before* going out for drinks after a session at the dojo. The pussies never get to come along. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > When you say, "actually tickled and stirred Me", don't you mean with > a particular sensation of bliss? The reason I ask is that I find it > quite easy sometimes to put my attention on a particular individual > and feel their vibrations regardless of their physical proximity, > and so can be stirred by their vibrations, which is not necessarily > an indication that the person is becoming a knower of Self (at least > not very quickly-lol). However, when someone has released themselves > into that which is universal, that which is enlightened, their > vibrations take on a blissy quality. I don't know how else to > describe it. Yes, I can relate to that, Jim. A Knower of the Self *is* my Self. At present most people look/feel like love/light/bliss-points in me, which if drawn to do so I either pay attention to and watch them "warm up" or "lighten up" or "quicken" (as is usually the case nowadays), or else "incarnate" and experience from the inside out, if need be (which is actually quite seldom nowadays), and in either case only to whatever degree is appropriate. In Davies' case, he was *not* a bliss-point at all; he was right from the start an entire field, a significant portion of me. Not my Self, exactly, but ... definitely tickling in that vicinity *lol*
[FairfieldLife] Re: TurquoiseB dominates Straw Man Combat____was_Shotokan dominates Martial Arts
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > wrote: > > > > You just don't understand martial arts Turq. > > > > You have no idea of the bone shattering power, or organ collapsing > > danger a Shotokan fighter is trained to give on the first strike. > > Wanna bet which of us has a higher belt rant in > Shotokan karate? I don't know about Shotokan, but I'd say you guys are about equally tied in higher-belt rants :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] BBC World Report of Collapse of WTC7 23 Minutes before it happened.
Edg, the laws of the universe went zooey that day in all kinds of ways. a Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/ I don't know how to explain this video of the BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 before it fell -- in fact the reporter shows the skyline and Building 7 is still RIGHT THERE while she's talking about it having gone down. I don't know how fresh this report is -- don't see any headlines anywhere else at the major news sites. Other sites are saying the same thing and they are dated today. The place where the reporter has Building 7 in the background comes just a bit passed the halfway point. Anyone want to explain this to me? Edg Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "delia555" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Paul Davies and his essay for the NY Times: > > >> http://tinyurl.com/2o9fc7 > > I'd take exception to a number of things > that Paul Davies said in this article. Thanks for actually addressing some of what he says. I don't think all your objections are relevant, and I suspect Davies would have good answers for those that are. I don't have much time, so I'm just going to speak to one point: [quoting Davies] > >> If one traces these reasons all the way down to > >> the bedrock of reality - the laws of physics - > >> only to find that reason then deserts us, it > >> makes a mockery of science. > > No, it makes a mockery of people who insist that > there must be comprehensible reasons for everything, > and that it is the job of science to provide them. The interesting thing here--and this is one of Davies's points--is that science tends to draw the line between itself and religion in terms of what it is and is not science's job to provide. Yet the question of why the very laws of nature that science studies are as they are is seen not to be part of science's brief. In any case, I don't think Davies is saying there *must* be comprehensible reasons for everything; he just doesn't think science has taken this question as far as it can, and he's not ready to give up on it yet. As I've said in other posts, I suspect what he's intent on is formulating a "theory of everything" in which consciousness plays a central role. (Delia, it's too bad you missed Bronte Baxter's tenure here by just a couple of weeks. A discussion between the two of you would have sold a whole lot of popcorn. Have a gander at message #154537, which Rick posted for her after she had unsubscribed.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi announces new role for himself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > "It would be an interesting thing in my opinion to have > > > a "Meditation Smack-down Match," in which advanced > > > practitioners of several techniques sit in a room > > > together and go for samadhi, each of them hooked up > > > to EEG machines and other testing devices to see if > > > anything is happening on any other level than the > > > subjective. It would be fascinating to me to see who > > > "kicks ass" in such a contest." > > > > > > Now that's entertainment! > > > > Exactly. And *only* entertainment. I for one wouldn't > > really CARE who "kicked ass" or which technique comes > > out "best." I'd just like to see it done so we could > > put all these "My technique is better than your > > technique" braggarts behind us once and for all. > > > As far as I can tell, you are the ONLY ONE on here playing that > particular game. You are the only one on here continuously driving > the dichotomy between "other seekers" and your particular brand of > spiritual correctness. So would this smack down really silence you? > Methinks not. At all.>> Excellent point Jim. Totally spot on. The man is thinks FFL is a version of the game show Survivor. Hey Turq, I've got news for you. There's no million dollars prize money ( Rick should have told him that at least ) OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: UFC of Yogic Shaman Tantric Masters
"and that's even before I hit the Ecstasy" Anytime Sal. I'll bring the raver glow sticks! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 25, 2007, at 9:38 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > Too bad no one seems to be able to > > live up to his own bold claim and now has to make excuses for why > > their internal states don't come with demonstrable party favors. > > I don't know what you mean, Curtis...mine comes with all sorts of > party favors--colors, visions, the Realization of the Meaning of > LIfe--and that's even before I hit the Ecstasy. > > Guess you're just not as evolved as I am. :) > > Sal >
[FairfieldLife] Re: BBC World Report of Collapse of WTC7 23 Minutes before it happened.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Further research shows that this is an old report and that this > issue has been bouncing around since Feb 2007 at least judging > by the Web site dating I've been able to track down. > > But the question still remains. I have not found any > explanations by the BBC or other authorities to discount > this video. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/02/ Once again, *common sense* should tell you that there's a benign explanation. How likely is it that the purported conspirators would circulate information to the news media to the effect that the building had collapsed 23 minutes before the fact? The last thing they'd want is for there to have been any suggestion that it was planned ahead of time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
Turq's condescension apparently escaped your sensitivity to being offended-- which leads to an obvious conclusion-- that you are not offended by comments which no matter how condescending, are in line with your values. My reply was meant to say, "Yes, I understand how you didn't understand a word of what Rory posted, because knowledge *is* different in different states of consciousness, and that you choose to take Rory's statement out of context and dismiss it as a joke. Therefore, to make yourself more comfortable, I suggest that you confine your musings in the future to the sensory comforts of material science." Better? A little bit. I may not have read Turq's post. But being offended is always a choice, so I'll call myself on that one. Being offended is almost never a good choice for me. I accept that I may have blown in half-cocked (now there is an unpleasant image) with my own agenda, without reading what you meant in context. Plus I was condescending about it! Have a Rudolf rib with the hot sauce, they are excellent. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > Jim: from the perspective of dense waking state, it does sound > ludicrous > > > doesn't it? I'd stick to material science if I were you. > > > > > > > On a serious note Jim: > > > > If you can understand this you will understand why you get accused > of > > using your self proclaimed state of consciousness as a position of > > condescension to the rest of us. You and I have gone through most > of > > the levels of rapport and non rapport at different times. There > is an > > original side of you that I can relate to and I enjoy. > > > > But the statement above is obnoxious in every way to me. It is > using > > your self created position of superior awareness as a snide > weapon, as > > if you were talking down to a child. Referring to anyone here as > > living in a "dense waking state" is simply rude. This is an > extremely > > conscious group of humans posting here, including the ones I > disagree > > with on a regular basis. > > > > I hope you can take a second to understand how offensive the > posture > > of intrinsic superiority contained in your comment is to me. And I > > hope you also can consider that this perspective of intrinsic > > superiority may be leaking out in your posts more than you > realize. > > It is an assumptive premise of superior consciousness. This is > > completely different from people here attempting to show that they > are > > using superior reasoning skills or presenting facts unknown to the > > person they are debating a point with. > > > > I dig you at the reindeer games Jim, but your nose isn't glowing > > bright enough to guide our sleigh tonight. We killed Rudolph and > are > > roasting his ribs over the campfire. Pull up a chair man. > > > I was stating a conclusion based on Turq's misunderstanding and > consequent condescending take on what Rory had originally posted. > > Turq's condescension apparently escaped your sensitivity to being > offended-- which leads to an obvious conclusion-- that you are not > offended by comments which no matter how condescending, are in line > with your values. > > My reply was meant to say, "Yes, I understand how you didn't > understand a word of what Rory posted, because knowledge *is* > different in different states of consciousness, and that you choose > to take Rory's statement out of context and dismiss it as a joke. > Therefore, to make yourself more comfortable, I suggest that you > confine your musings in the future to the sensory comforts of > material science." > > Better? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: TurquoiseB dominates Straw Man Combat____was_Shotokan dominates Martial Arts
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > wrote: > > > > You just don't understand martial arts Turq. > > > > You have no idea of the bone shattering power, or organ collapsing > > danger a Shotokan fighter is trained to give on the first strike. > > Wanna bet which of us has a higher belt rant in > Shotokan karate? > > Five years for me, plus another three before that > in other karate styles and another 3-4 in various > other styles and martial arts. >> You don't even know what Shotokan is, so how could you compare belt level. You are a Straw Man Master though. > > Didn't you say that you'd studied for only three > years total? > > Basically, Off, you're one of those pussies who > talks big and buys the bullshit.>> Tell you what Truq. I'll be in France next summer, we can meet for an official adjudicated spar? Start training. Then we'll get on the train and go for A REAL drinking session in Edinburgh. Start training. < session at the dojo. The pussies never get to > come along.>> No you didn't. I'm Scottish, you are American. You don't know what hard drinking is...which we did plenty of after the dojo. However, the top blackbelts in our club (who were also close to top in the UK, were two twin brothers of humble personality who would have beaten anyone you have likely ever met, and all toughest hard drinking karate black belts in the country treated them with the utmost respect. They did not drink...ever. ) How many times a week did you practice? And what exactly did you pussy Americans drink after the sessions? Go to Scotland for a real drinking session before you start talking to a Scotsman about drinking...lol..the Scots are baffled when an American starts talking about "drinking sessions" :-) OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Home sales rise in Vermont, fall in 47 states
Home sales fall in 47 states; rise in Vermont again ! Vermont Rocks ! ! ! http://tinyurl.com/364svt OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: BBC World Report of Collapse of WTC7 23 Minutes before it happened.
My common sense doesn't tell me there is a benign explanation. Nor have you offered one. authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Further research shows that this is an old report and that this > issue has been bouncing around since Feb 2007 at least judging > by the Web site dating I've been able to track down. > > But the question still remains. I have not found any > explanations by the BBC or other authorities to discount > this video. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/02/ Once again, *common sense* should tell you that there's a benign explanation. How likely is it that the purported conspirators would circulate information to the news media to the effect that the building had collapsed 23 minutes before the fact? The last thing they'd want is for there to have been any suggestion that it was planned ahead of time. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re:BBC World Report of Collapse of WTC7 23 Minutes before it happened.
You think it is peculiar that it was reported before it happened? Makes you wonder HUH? Try this one on. No planes ever hit WTC 7, nor was it crushed by any falling buildings. Yet it too fell in its own footprint. From what/ Even if you were to believe a fire could bring down WTC 1 and 2, (although no skyscrapers have ever collapsed from a fire) what caused WTC 7 to collapse. On BTW-Explosions took place in WTC 1 and 2 before the planes hit the building. 6 stories underground huge devastation was found"like a bomb went off" Excuse me. Anybody still think this was not a planned attack by OUR Govt? Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:BBC World Report of Collapse of WTC7 23 Minutes before it happened.
It was obvious on the day it happened. Buildings don't fall onto their own footprints because a plane hits them. Concrete doesn't turn to dust (rather than rubble) because a plane hits the building. Those two facts were enough to give the lie to the official story. steven klayman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You think it is peculiar that it was reported before it happened? Makes you wonder HUH? Try this one on. No planes ever hit WTC 7, nor was it crushed by any falling buildings. Yet it too fell in its own footprint. From what/ Even if you were to believe a fire could bring down WTC 1 and 2, (although no skyscrapers have ever collapsed from a fire) what caused WTC 7 to collapse. On BTW-Explosions took place in WTC 1 and 2 before the planes hit the building. 6 stories underground huge devastation was found"like a bomb went off" Excuse me. Anybody still think this was not a planned attack by OUR Govt? __ Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: BBC World Report of Collapse of WTC7 23 Minutes before it happened.
Er, Judy, just how much common sense does it take? Either the BBC made the report 23 minutes ahead of the fall of Bldg 7 or it didn't. I can only think that the entire video is faked and that those reporters are mere actors employed to make the fake video -- or that someone clever with video editing put into the video whatever it needed to "set it back in time." But this video has been seen umpteen times over a long time and yet I cannot find any "official" naysaying it. I find BBC saying "Oh, we said a lot of things in the rush." and that is just bullshit for a response. The BBC does things to utter detail especially if they're being accused of being part of a conspiracy or "used by" conspirators. That's definitely Bldg 7 in the background, and additionally, this woman reporter was "cut off" just a few minutes before Bldg 7 actually fell -- thus, it "looks like" someone figured it out and stopped her live report so that Bldg 7, which was right behind her, would not be seen falling before the same camera and reporter that had just reported the fall happening 23 minutes earlier. Judy, pretend for me that you're the BBC reporter -- what would you say to me about why you made that report 23 minutes before the building fell? Yes, it is entirely unlikely that the information would be "planned to be given out before the fall," but it doe make sense that someone could have messed up and sent the report to the BBC too soon. I'll do a bit more looking for sites that try to debunk this BBC issue, but unless someone can prove that the BBC's clocks were wrong at the time of the report, this report happened before Bldg 7 fell. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > Further research shows that this is an old report and that this > > issue has been bouncing around since Feb 2007 at least judging > > by the Web site dating I've been able to track down. > > > > But the question still remains. I have not found any > > explanations by the BBC or other authorities to discount > > this video. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/02/ > > Once again, *common sense* should tell you that > there's a benign explanation. How likely is it > that the purported conspirators would circulate > information to the news media to the effect that > the building had collapsed 23 minutes before the > fact? The last thing they'd want is for there to > have been any suggestion that it was planned > ahead of time. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Taking Science on Faith
When I quoted G. Spencer Brown (British mathematician) in response to the Davies piece, Judy assumed I had not read the thing. My comment was that it is absurd to posit something outside of the universe. So maybe a longer quote from Spence Brown will make my point clearer. This work was published in 1969: Returning, briefly, to the idea of existential precursors, we see that if we accept their form as endogenous to the less primitive structure identified, in present-day science, with reality, we cannot escape the inference that what is commonly now regarded as real consists, in its very presence, merely of tokens or expressions. And since tokens or expressions are considered to be OF some (other) substratum, so the universe itself, as we know it, may be considered to be an expression of a reality other than itself. Let us then consider, for a moment, the world as described by the physicist. It consists of a number of fundamental particles which, if shot through their own space, appear as waves, and are thus...of the same laminated structure as pearls or onions, and other wave forms called electromagnetic which it is convenient, by Occam's razor, to consider as travelling through space with a standard velocity. All these appear bound by certain natural laws which indicate the form of their relationship. Now the physicist himself, who describes all this, is, in his own account, himself constructed of it. He is, in short, made of the a conglomeration of the very particulars he describes, no more, no less, bound together by and obeying such general laws as he himself has managed to find and to record. Thus we cannot escape the fact that the world we know is constructed in order (and thus in such a way as to be able) to see itself. This is indeed amazing. Not so much in view of what it sees, although this may appear fantastic enough, but in respect of the fact that in CAN see AT ALL. But IN ORDER to do so, evidently it must first cut itself up into at least one state which seems, and at least one other state which is seen. In this severed and mutilated condition, whatever it sees is ONLY PARTIALLY itself. We may take it that the world undoubtedly is itself (i.e., is indistinct from itself), but, in any attempt to see itself as an object, it must, equally undoubtedly, act* so as to make itself distinct from, and therefore false to, itself. In this condition it will aways partially elude itself. It seems hard to find an acceptable answer to the question of how or why the world conceives a desire, and discovers an ability, to see itself, and appears to suffer the process. That it does so is sometimes called the original mystery. Perhaps, in view of THE FORM in which WE presently TAKE ourselves TO EXIST, the mystery ARISES FROM our insistence on FRAMING a question where there is, in reality NOTHING to question. However it may appear, if such desire, ability, and sufferance be granted, the sate or condition that arises as an outcome is, according to the laws here formulated, absolutely unavoidable. In this respect, at least, there is no mystery. We, as universal representatives CAN record universal law far enough to say and so on, and so on you will eventually construct the universe, in every detail and potentiality, as you know it now; but then, again, what you will construct will not be all, for by the time you will have reached what now is, the universe will have expanded into a new order to contain what will then be. In this sense, in respect of its own information, the universe MUST expand to escape the telescope through which we, who are it, are trying to capture it. which is us. The snake eats itself, the dog chases its tail. Thus the world, when ever it appears as a physical universe*, must always seem to us, its representatives, to be playing a kind of hide-and-seek with itself. What is revealed will be concealed, but what is concealed will again be revealed. And since we ourselves represent it, this occultation will be apparent in out life in general, and in our mathematics in particular 1* I can't reproduce the Greek letters of the footnote on "act." In English transliteration it is "Agonistes" = actor, antagonist. Spencer Brown comments: We may note the identity of action with agony. 2* Unus = one, vertere = turn. Any given (or captivated) universe is what is seen as teh result of ma making of one turn, and thus IS APPEARANCE of any first distinctionm, and onlyt a minor aspect of all being, apparent and non-apparent. Its particularity is the price we pay for its visibility. delia555 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Paul Davies and his essay for the NY Times: >> http://tinyurl.com/2o9fc7 I'd take exception to a number of things that Paul Davies said in this article. Physics does not accept the universality and immutability of physical laws on "faith." It's an empirical ob
