[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  
> wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 25, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote:
> > 
> > > This is only a very partial list of what he's been able to
> > > accomplish.  There is so much more, that it would really
> > > be too much to list.  You can check it out on Wikipedia.
> > 
> > And, I should have added, a highly successful FIRST marriage...
> > no horrible stories about him blowing off a wife or any
> > other relative.
> > 
> > Sal
> >
> 
> And maybe you should have added John Edwards having an affair while 
> his wife battles cancer.  Or maybe the baby John Edwards had with his 
> mistress. Or maybe John Edwards telling everyone that "they" are the 
> only one he has confided some personal details about his son's death.  
> Oh yea, family values.  The dems really personify them.
>

Edwards is the Dem nominee?


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >
> > curtisdeltablues wrote:
> > > 
> > > someone wrote:
> > > > Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your 
> > > > rejecting a lot of yogic science.
> > >
> > > I just said it is faith based, and it is.  I don't share 
> > > your faith. 
> >   
> > Apparently you think anything that has the word "yoga" 
> > associated with it is "faith based."

I would say that one cannot *deny* the element of 
"faith-basedness" in anything that has the word
"yoga" associated with it. The faith so permeates
the environment of anything that has the word "yoga"
associated with it that I don't think there can 
*exist* any such thing as "yogic science."

Claims of personal experience are, IMO, *always*
influenced by the teachings and the tradition of 
the environment one learned it in. I have seen
no evidence that people who have spent long periods
of time in "yogic" environments are *capable* of
distinguishing their faith from their personal
experience. One influences the other. 

That influence can be on the level of moodmaking,
as we have all seen (and many of us identify with
from our TM days), or it can be on the level of
"influence," coloring the ways in which we *inter-
pret* our personal experiences. This influence is
present from the moment of one's first introductory
lecture, or before, if one has read a bit or has
been exposed to other spiritual environments.

Would you have recognized transcendence as a personal
experience if it had not been described to you in
your intro lecture? You can say that you would have,
but at this point there is no way to be sure. The
description of the phenomenon preceded the experience
of the phenomenon, and thus influenced it.


> > I think that is a bit of an ignorant association 
> > but let's use "sound physics" instead.  That is unless you 
> > see "physics" as "faith based." :D :D :D
> 
> Again, invoking sciency sounding terms doesn't make the claims 
> more scientific. 

Exactly. This is an invocation of the "If I use
another vocabulary to describe it, it won't be
faith" shuck and jive routine that we are so 
familiar with from TM. :-)


> > > You also pick and choose what you have faith in. Just putting 
> > > the words yogic and science together does not make it so.  

No more than "creation science" makes fundamentalist
Christianity any less fundamentalist, or Christian.
It's shuck and jive.


> > > > You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in your 
> > > > attempt to debase TM. 
> > >
> > > What are you talking about, an "attempt to debase TM?" I 
> > > just don't buy into all the beliefs, I practice TM and 
> > > think it is a nice relaxation technique. So what is the 
> > > baby, all the beliefs that surround the practice?
> > 
> > Dismissing the various branches of yoga as anyone would notice
> > following this tract.

And what is wrong with that?

I dismiss them -- ALL of them. I don't believe that
ANY of them are in any way "scientific," or anything
other than faith-based philosophy. But I still practice
many things that came from those faith-based philosophies.

What I DON'T do, is claim that the reason I practice 
these things is based on anything OTHER than faith, even 
if it's just the faith that the form of meditation I 
practiced yesterday and was pleasant will be pleasant
today. There is faith in THAT, much less anything else
we tend to claim as the benefits or goals of meditation.

Like Curtis, I don't believe much in "magical mantras,"
or in magical ways of "transmitting" them. While I have
*experienced* the latter, personally I found the medi-
tations that resulted from that initiation to be no more
profound or useful than those meditations I learned in
a big room together with hundreds of other people, and 
no initiation ceremony. Sometimes even without a mantra.

"Yogic science" for me boils down to the word "faith,"
and more than anything else, faith in "authority."

I'm not real big on "authority" these days, whether the
authority invoked is Maharishi or Buddha or Krishna or
Guru Dev or Patanjali or Padmasambhava. I don't hold ANY
of them to be complete authorities -- they were probably
correct about some of the things they believed and taught, 
and they were probably incorrect about some of the things 
they believed and taught. I believe from what they have
said only what resonates with my own intuition and heart
and sense of ethics, and I toss on the rubbish heap 
anything from what they have said that doesn't.

And at least one of these guys would agree with my stance. 
His words on the subject grace the Home Page of this
discussion group:

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, 
or who said it, no matter if I have said it, 
unless it agrees with your own reason and your 
own common sense."   
-- Buddha, from the Dhammapada

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> > >
> > > curtisdeltablues wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > someone wrote:
> > > > > Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your 
> > > > > rejecting a lot of yogic science.
> > > >
> > > > I just said it is faith based, and it is.  I don't share 
> > > > your faith. 
> > >   
> > > Apparently you think anything that has the word "yoga" 
> > > associated with it is "faith based."
> 
> I would say that one cannot *deny* the element of 
> "faith-basedness" in anything that has the word
> "yoga" associated with it. The faith so permeates
> the environment of anything that has the word "yoga"
> associated with it that I don't think there can 
> *exist* any such thing as "yogic science."
> 

According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or
preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]:
"heart-putting" = faith). 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !

[Peter]

--- On Fri, 7/25/08, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 
> Swallows !
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 10:06 PM
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Nabs,
> > I won't make smarmy comments, but I have a really
> hard time
> believing crop circles have any sort of extra terrestrial
> origin. From
> what I've read, all evidence to the contrary is ignored
> and there's
> seems to be an apriori assumption that its aliens. Bill
> Witherspoon's
> Shri Yantra in Oregan in 1990 is a classic case of this.
> Bill and
> several other people all worked together to make the
> yantra. A very
> much earth-bound event, but after it was discovered, for
> his life, he
> couldn't convince the ufo people that he had done it.
> They came up
> with "facts" to disprove him. Incredible!  
> 
> But no one proved that Bill is not an alien, did they?

You know, I never thought about that. Bill definitely has an alien air about 
him! Quite dour too.






> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 7/25/08, nablusoss1008
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: nablusoss1008
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] South Field Crop Circle
> grown from 3 to 5
> Swallows !
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 1:26 PM
> > >
> http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2008/southfield/southfield2008.html
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

  

[FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !

[Richard J. Williams]

new wrote:
> But no one proved that Bill is not an alien, did they?
> 
Has anyone proved that we are all not aliens?

[FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !

[Richard J. Williams]

> > "NO video footage or photographs anywhere 
> > document an alleged creation of crop art 
> > (alleged man-made patterns) in progress 
> > from ground level AND SIMULTANEOUSLY from 
> > the air, to confirm that the alleged 
> > 'finished product' is indeed what the people 
> > 'below' are alleging to have stomped out in 
> > the crop."
> > 
> > http://cropcircleconnector.com/ilyes/ilyes9.html
> >
Lawson wrote: 
> Well, your average good ole boy doesn't have 
> access to a helicopter...
> 
But the area where the Oregon Shri Yantra appeared
was in the flight path of helicopters, and yet the
Shri Yantra seems to have been constructed overnight.

Is it possible for a couple of good ole boys to 
carve thirteen miles of grooves in the desert
in the middle of a single night with such remarkable 
precision?

Was Bill arrested for defacing public land?
 
> And even if you could prove that SOME circles were 
> manmade, you could never prove taht all are, so 
> its moot anyway.
> 
But, there's no proof that any of the crop circles
were man-made, since the actions on the ground were 
not substantiated with aerial photography from
above.

Oregon Sri Yantra:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mr2G1

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[lurkernomore20002000]

And maybe you should have added John Edwards having an affair while  
his wife battles cancer.  Or maybe the baby John Edwards had with 
his 
mistress. Or maybe John Edwards telling everyone that "they" are the 
only one he has confided some personal details about his son's 
death.  Oh yea, family values.  The dems really personify them.

 
> Edwards is the Dem nominee?

No Lawson, he's not.  But when Sal decided to come down on McCain 
for dumping his first wife, and touted Obama's successful marriage, 
and then sacastically referred to the Republicans as the party 
of "family values", I thought I'd hi-light the recent revelations of 
John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer.  An 
affair he's had for four years, and may even have produced a baby.

Hey, guess what.  Edwards is a lawyer.  If the allegations are 
untrue, maybe he knows someone that can refute them and go after the 
Enquirer.  That is, since according to Sal, the accusations are so 
baseless.

Lawson, let's call it like it is.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !

[Richard J. Williams]

> > > "NO video footage or photographs anywhere 
> > > document an alleged creation of crop art 
> > > (alleged man-made patterns) in progress 
> > > from ground level AND SIMULTANEOUSLY from 
> > > the air, to confirm that the alleged 
> > > 'finished product' is indeed what the people 
> > > 'below' are alleging to have stomped out in 
> > > the crop."
> > > 
> > > http://cropcircleconnector.com/ilyes/ilyes9.html
> > >
> > Well, your average good ole boy doesn't have access 
> > to a helicopter...
> > 
Hugo wrote:
> > And even if you could prove that SOME circles were 
> > manmade, you could never prove taht all are, so 
> > its moot anyway.
> >
> Luckily, proof that "some" are man made isn't too
> far away.
> 
> http://www.circlemakers.org/case_history.html
> 
> Given that we know there are many people who make 
> them why does anyone assume that *any* crop cricles 
> are made by aliens/fairies/earth magic/whatever?
> 
Maybe so, for modern land markings, but what about
ancient land markings?

'Chariots of the Gods'
by Erich von Daniken
Bantam, 1972
http://tinyurl.com/579k3u

[FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > "NO video footage or photographs anywhere 
> > > document an alleged creation of crop art 
> > > (alleged man-made patterns) in progress 
> > > from ground level AND SIMULTANEOUSLY from 
> > > the air, to confirm that the alleged 
> > > 'finished product' is indeed what the people 
> > > 'below' are alleging to have stomped out in 
> > > the crop."
> > > 
> > > http://cropcircleconnector.com/ilyes/ilyes9.html
> > >
> Lawson wrote: 
> > Well, your average good ole boy doesn't have 
> > access to a helicopter...
> > 
> But the area where the Oregon Shri Yantra appeared
> was in the flight path of helicopters, and yet the
> Shri Yantra seems to have been constructed overnight.
> 
> Is it possible for a couple of good ole boys to 
> carve thirteen miles of grooves in the desert
> in the middle of a single night with such remarkable 
> precision?
> 
> Was Bill arrested for defacing public land?
>  
> > And even if you could prove that SOME circles were 
> > manmade, you could never prove taht all are, so 
> > its moot anyway.
> > 
> But, there's no proof that any of the crop circles
> were man-made, since the actions on the ground were 
> not substantiated with aerial photography from
> above.
> 
> Oregon Sri Yantra:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mr2G1

Some circles are manmade, but they are easy to detect. First of all 
they are quite crude and very simple designs. If you look closely at 
a real circle you will see that the straws are carefully bent to the 
ground, the straws are not damaged. Manmade ones destroys the straws.
Also many of the real ones have been done within a timeframe of as 
little as 20 minutes, as many pilots will confirm. 

I'd like to see Dr.Peter and his friends do a complicated design in 
less than halfanhour in broad daylight AND without being 
detected ! :-)

[FairfieldLife] 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!

[R.G.]

Dennis Kucinich began inquiring again into impeachment for this 
criminal President Bush.
Hopefully, some of the rest of Congress will have the 'balls' to 
follow this through.
President Bush needs to be impeached, and held for murder charges.
He has led this country into the abyss.
I pray that either before or soon after Obama is elected that the 
precedent that Bush and his morons have created is smashed.
He is absolutely the most irresponsible leader since the days of Rome 
and Caligula.
Actually I believe he is a reincarnation of Caligula.

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 7:46 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5
Swallows !

 

>But the area where the Oregon Shri Yantra appeared
was in the flight path of helicopters, and yet the
Shri Yantra seems to have been constructed overnight.

It wasn't. it took them quite a few days, working in the hot sun. I just
took a while before the National Guard pilot noticed it. I know the guys
involved and see them regularly to this day: Bill Witherspoon, Bob Hoerlein,
Mark Petrick, I think Michael Cain, a few others. I've seen photos of them
working on the project. I believe in aliens and tend to believe they are
involved in many of the crop circles, but they weren't involved in the
Oregon yantra.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[TurquoiseB]

> > > And maybe you should have added John Edwards having an affair 
> > > while his wife battles cancer. Or maybe the baby John Edwards 
> > > had with his mistress. Or maybe John Edwards telling everyone 
> > > that "they" are the only one he has confided some personal 
> > > details about his son's death. Oh yea, family values. The 
> > > dems really personify them.
> >
> > Edwards is the Dem nominee?
> 
> No Lawson, he's not. But when Sal decided to come down on McCain 
> for dumping his first wife, and touted Obama's successful marriage, 
> and then sacastically referred to the Republicans as the party 
> of "family values", I thought I'd hi-light the recent revelations 
> of John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer. An 
> affair he's had for four years, and may even have produced a baby.
> 
> Hey, guess what. Edwards is a lawyer. If the allegations are 
> untrue, maybe he knows someone that can refute them and go after 
> the Enquirer. That is, since according to Sal, the accusations are 
> so baseless.
> 
> Lawson, let's call it like it is.

Just as a question, could "like it is" include
the possibility that none of this is any of our
damned business?

I'm pretty sure that if I were put under the 
scrutiny of running for public office, the press
would have a field day with my indiscretions. 
The incident in the hot tub with the cheerleaders
and the eels alone would probably bump me off the
ticket. 

The French had the right attitude about these 
things as far as I'm concerned. Former president
Chirac was a sonofabitch in his political dealings
and basically maintained two families concurrently, 
and the French didn't seem to have any problem with
this. The *predominantly Roman Catholic* French
didn't seem to have any problem with this. When he
died, his wife and family marched in the procession
side by side with his mistress and family. 

I'm uncomfortable with gettin' morally medieval on
politicians' asses as if their morals or lack thereof
might make them incapable of doing a good job as a
national leader. Winston Churchill was a drunk. FDR
had a mistress for 20 years. JFK probably nailed more
bimbos in the White House than Carter had Little Liver
Pills. Gandhi slept snuggled up between two young
girls. Nobel Peace Prize winners have turbulent and
sometimes abusive relationships with their spouses.
Hell, Alfred Nobel himself was one of the "masters of
war," an arms manufacturer.

Everybody has a closet, and as far as I can tell, 
everybody's got shit in that closet that they would
prefer that the narrow-minded and moral members of
society not see, so that they don't obsess on it.

THAT they obsess on it does not mean that the politician
in question has to obsess on it, or spend even a moment
"defending" himself or herself against their accusations. 
The smart ones, in my opinion, should just let the narrow-
minded obsess and do their own thing, and see how things 
work out. The Zen parable revolving around "Is that so?"
springs to mind.

I've mentioned a film here a few times, and never "gotten
a bite" on it. I think it's a very good film. It deals
with moral and ethical issues, and with the role of women
in politics or public life, and with how they are held to
different standards than the men sometimes. And it's a
good movie to boot. What is not to like about that?

The film is called "The Contender," and is about a woman
who is nominated to fill the vacant VP spot for a sitting 
presidency. Shortly following her nomination by the presi-
dent (Jeff Bridges, who has never been finer as the Columbo-
like stringpuller of the Washingtonian puppets), revelations 
appear of an orgy back in college. What's a politician to 
do? What's a WOMAN to do? What's a HUMAN BEING to do when 
accused of something they don't feel merits a response?

Joan Allen gives what should have been an Oscar-worthy
performance answering these questions. Highly recommended
for those who have to wade through the muck of the U.S.
presidential election media and need to be reminded what
having real ethics entails. 

RE: [FairfieldLife] 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of R.G.
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 8:35 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!

 

Dennis Kucinich began inquiring again into impeachment for this 
criminal President Bush.
Hopefully, some of the rest of Congress will have the 'balls' to 
follow this through.
President Bush needs to be impeached, and held for murder charges.
He has led this country into the abyss.
I pray that either before or soon after Obama is elected that the 
precedent that Bush and his morons have created is smashed.
He is absolutely the most irresponsible leader since the days of Rome 
and Caligula.
Actually I believe he is a reincarnation of Caligula.

When Obama was in FF, I asked him about impeaching Bush and Cheney. He said
he felt it would be too disruptive - that Congress wouldn't get anything
else accomplished - but he said that if elected, one of his first moves
would be to have his attorney general review everything Bush and Cheney had
done to erode the Constitution, and that he would reverse those decisions so
as to repair the damage.

[FairfieldLife] 'Obama moves Mountains'

[R.G.]

Barack Obama is destined to become the next President.
He is a very evolved soul, and carries the energy of Abraham Lincoln.
Wherever he goes, he inspires and uplifts and brings people together.
He is an inspiration to all the people of the world.

Osama bin Laden should fear Obama, because unlike the demon Bush, he 
will pursue the evil one, and it shall be done.

Mountains moves with the power of a leader of such greatness.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!

[R.G.]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of R.G.
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 8:35 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!
> 
>  
> 
> Dennis Kucinich began inquiring again into impeachment for this 
> criminal President Bush.
> Hopefully, some of the rest of Congress will have the 'balls' to 
> follow this through.
> President Bush needs to be impeached, and held for murder charges.
> He has led this country into the abyss.
> I pray that either before or soon after Obama is elected that the 
> precedent that Bush and his morons have created is smashed.
> He is absolutely the most irresponsible leader since the days of 
Rome 
> and Caligula.
> Actually I believe he is a reincarnation of Caligula.
> 
> When Obama was in FF, I asked him about impeaching Bush and Cheney. 
He said
> he felt it would be too disruptive - that Congress wouldn't get 
anything
> else accomplished - but he said that if elected, one of his first 
moves
> would be to have his attorney general review everything Bush and 
Cheney had
> done to erode the Constitution, and that he would reverse those 
decisions so
> as to repair the damage.
>
There was a Hearing yesterday in Congress...
The idea is that Bush has set such an example that to not take action 
against him would set a horrible precedent.
The only way to prosecute him, would be to start impeachment hearings,
Because he will just ignore anything else the congress could do.
When I was in Seattle, attending the caucus, I did see that part of 
Obama's platform would be to prosecute Bush and the rest of the 
criminals.
The thing is, while he is still president, we are still in danger of 
him doing something crazy, before Obama gets sworn in.
Especially if he knows that he will be prosecuted, and might take any 
crazy action to protect his demon ass.

[FairfieldLife] Bob Mataloni

[dhamiltony2k5]

Bob Mataloni, an old-time meditater friend of the old-days, passed 
away this week.

FW:

Dear friends,
  Our most beloved friend Bob past away this morning at 4:15 this 
morning (25th)   in his sleep. They called me to tell me that he was 
in peace. So Friday july 25 will be an auspicious day of rememberance 
of our loving friend bob. I was happy he listened to amma  a few days 
before.
 
Here is a poem which helped me when my mom died.
 
Do not stand at my grave and weep,
I am not there, I do not sleep,
I am in a thousand winds that blow,
I am the softly falling snow,
I am the gentle showers of rain,
I am the fields of ripening grain,
I am in the morning hush,
I am in the graceful rush
Of beautiful birds in circling flight,
I am the starshine of the night
I am in the flowers that bloom,
I am in a quiet room,
I am in the birds that sing
I am in each lovely thing
Do not stand at my grave and cry,
I am not there, I do not die
 
I love you all for caring so much about bob and he loves all of you .
whenever your outside just look up into the sky and say hey, bob
whats up?  He was one of the funniest guys I knew who truly was a 
most giving and loving person. 
feel free to stay in touch with me,
as all of you have become my dear friends thru the years of bob 
having cancer. I   feel like I know you all deeply.
There is  a whole in my heart a wound that is hurting and  I am 
already missing him. The tears flow, but their tears of love. But 
again, his wish came true, and he is finally at peace. I will just 
miss him so much. Hopefully heaven is one big party and maybe he can 
run some DJ parties there  for the dearly departed.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jul 26, 2008, at 2:26 AM, sparaig wrote:


And maybe you should have added John Edwards having an affair while
his wife battles cancer.  Or maybe the baby John Edwards had with his
mistress. Or maybe John Edwards telling everyone that "they" are the
only one he has confided some personal details about his son's death.
Oh yea, family values.  The dems really personify them.



Edwards is the Dem nominee?


No, But he's a Dem, good-looking, sick wife, so as such ripe for any
idiotic rumor that one can toss at him.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[boo_lives]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And maybe you should have added John Edwards having an affair while  
> his wife battles cancer.  Or maybe the baby John Edwards had with 
> his 
> mistress. Or maybe John Edwards telling everyone that "they" are the 
> only one he has confided some personal details about his son's 
> death.  Oh yea, family values.  The dems really personify them.
> 
>  
> > Edwards is the Dem nominee?
> 
> No Lawson, he's not.  But when Sal decided to come down on McCain 
> for dumping his first wife, and touted Obama's successful marriage, 
> and then sacastically referred to the Republicans as the party 
> of "family values", I thought I'd hi-light the recent revelations of 
> John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer.  An 
> affair he's had for four years, and may even have produced a baby.

What sort of hateful idiot takes an old, completely unsubstantiated
National Enquirer article, which doesn't even provide a name of one
piece of evidence, and calls it "revent revelations" and talks about
it as fact?

> Hey, guess what.  Edwards is a lawyer.  If the allegations are 
> untrue, maybe he knows someone that can refute them and go after the 
> Enquirer.  That is, since according to Sal, the accusations are so 
> baseless.
> 
> Lawson, let's call it like it is.
>
Sorry your understanding of law is about as deep as your preferred
source of reading material.  You actually think everything rags like
the enquirer publish has been proven true or else they can be sued
successfully??

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!

[Richard J. Williams]

babajii wrote:
> Dennis Kucinich began inquiring again into 
> impeachment for this criminal President Bush.
>
Have there been any court charges filed against 
the president? I think not.

> Hopefully, some of the rest of Congress will 
> have the 'balls' to follow this through.
>
The U.S. Congress voted to fund the war, right?

> President Bush needs to be impeached, and held 
> for murder charges.
>
In a democracy, usually murder charges come BEFORE 
the impeachment trial, Sir.

> He has led this country into the abyss.
>
But, apparently we are winning the war in Iraq
- the surge worked. What's up with that?

> I pray that either before or soon after 
> Obama is elected that the precedent that 
> Bush and his morons have created is smashed.
>
Is Obama against the war? I think not - he
recently proposed sending MORE U.S. troops to 
the Middle East.

> He is absolutely the most irresponsible leader 
> since the days of Rome and Caligula.
>
'Caligula', the third Roman Emperor, was assasinated
in a conspiracy involving members of the Roman 
Senate.

> Actually I believe he is a reincarnation of 
> Caligula.
>
Almost the entire U.S. Congress voted to authorize
the president to use force against the Iraq regime.

Over 50% of voting Americans re-elected Bush for a
second term AFTER the Iraq invasion.

The U.S. Congress has voted to fund the war for the
past five years or more.

The war in Iraq is under a United Nations mandate.

But you and Dennis want to impeach the duly elected 
president of the Untied States in the middle of a 
war because you two believe that the president is 
the 'reincarnation' of Caligula? 

Put down the pipe, Mr. Babaji! 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Guardian on Karadzic

[turiya89]

Well, you have in Mahabharat the rakshasa Shakuni, that is an 
incarnation of demon Dwarpa, as main causer of war.

It was not Duryodhan the rakshasa, he was rather negatively influenced.

In Ramayana there is Keykeyi sending Rama to forest, but she was again 
not the main evil but her rakshasa maid.

Who is responsible in Serbia, Bosnia? I think serbian academy of 
sciences, what i know maybe serbian ortodox church? Maybe serbian 
folkmusic lobby? There sit some rakshasas that would never meditate

The Western world is always trying to cover the secret forces by 
accusing one single person. 
Bush is also only vehicle, there are Banks and money structures 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Guardian on Karadzic

[turiya89]

Well, you have in Mahabharat the rakshasa Shakuni, that is an 
incarnation of demon Dwarpa, as main causer of war.

It was not Duryodhan the rakshasa, he was rather negatively 
influenced.

In Ramayana there is Keykeyi sending Rama to forest, but she was 
again not the main evil but her rakshasa maid.

Who is responsible in Serbia, Bosnia? I think serbian academy of 
sciences, what i know maybe serbian ortodox church? Maybe serbian 
folkmusic lobby? There sit some rakshasas that would never meditate

The Western world is always trying to cover the secret forces by 
accusing one single person. 
Bush is also only vehicle, there are Banks and money structures 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Guardian on Karadzic

[turiya89]

Well, you have in Mahabharat the rakshasa Shakuni, that is an 
incarnation of demon Dwarpa, as main causer of war.

It was not Duryodhan the rakshasa, he was rather negatively 
influenced.

In Ramayana there is Keykeyi sending Rama to forest, but she was 
again not the main evil but her rakshasa maid.

Who is responsible in Serbia, Bosnia? I think serbian academy of 
sciences, what i know maybe serbian ortodox church? Maybe serbian 
folkmusic lobby? There sit some rakshasas that would never meditate

The Western world is always trying to cover the secret forces by 
accusing one single person. 
Bush is also only vehicle, there are Banks and money structures 

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !

[Peter]

--- On Sat, 7/26/08, Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

From: Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 
Swallows !
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 26, 2008, 9:37 AM










From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Richard J. Williams
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 7:46 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows 
!
 



>But the area where the Oregon Shri Yantra appeared
was in the flight path of helicopters, and yet the
Shri Yantra seems to have been constructed overnight.
If you know anything about the psychology of perception, this is very easily 
explained, especially with a shape that is quite foreign to the pilot's' 
culture, which a sri yantra certainly is. The bottom line is that Bill W. and 
his friends made the sri yantra, so that is the foundation upon which 
everything else must be explained.
 
 
 
 
 
 


  

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jul 26, 2008, at 9:44 AM, boo_lives wrote:



What sort of hateful idiot takes an old, completely unsubstantiated
National Enquirer article, which doesn't even provide a name of one
piece of evidence, and calls it "revent revelations" and talks  
about it as fact?


Someone who's desperate?




Hey, guess what.  Edwards is a lawyer.  If the allegations are
untrue, maybe he knows someone that can refute them and go after the
Enquirer.  That is, since according to Sal, the accusations are so
baseless.

Lawson, let's call it like it is.


Sorry your understanding of law is about as deep as your preferred
source of reading material.  You actually think everything rags like
the enquirer publish has been proven true or else they can be sued
successfully??


Thanks, boo, that's what I was thinking. Obviously the Enq knows
they can't be sued or else they wouldn't print trash as if it were
"fact."

I was kind of wondering why I hadn't seen the "revelations" before
lurk posted them, then I saw where they came from.

Really scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't we, lurk?  If this
is how you and others support the Repugs, heaven help them.  You
and your party deserve each other.

Sal

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[Vaj]

On Jul 26, 2008, at 8:12 AM, cardemaister wrote:


According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or
preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]:
"heart-putting" = faith).



The key words here being "preceded by", as in "before" or "prior to".  
No gnostic based spirituality ultimately rests on faith, instead it  
rests on gnosis: direct knowing, jnana. However adherents of faith and  
deception-based orgs like the TMO are often conditioned to believe  
gnosis or samadhi occurs at the gaps in thought, but that is rarely  
the case. Bait and switch is common in such McMeditation orgs. Just  
because you were burnt by such a group does not mean direct-knowing is  
not possible, nor does it mean these are items of faith. It merely  
means you've been duped.


Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional  
science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification.  
It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.


Those who haven't experienced samadhi will have to take this "on  
faith" but if they follow a workable procedure (a technique or method)  
they too can abandon the crutch of faith. In terms of yoga teachers,  
those who can lead to jnana are the real teachers. Those who don't,  
are very likely fakes, esp. if they are asking for money.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!

[Brian Horsfield]

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

> >
> The U.S. Congress voted to fund the war, right?

> Almost the entire U.S. Congress voted to authorize
> the president to use force against the Iraq regime.
> 
> Over 50% of voting Americans re-elected Bush for a
> second term AFTER the Iraq invasion.
> 
> The U.S. Congress has voted to fund the war for the
> past five years or more.
> 
 Richard, the point is that this support was won by Bush based on lies and 
deliberate 
misrepresentation of CIA intelligence briefings.  Highlights of the testimony 
presented 
yesterday are provided in YouTube links here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/do-not-name-names-do-not-accuse-do-not-say-
impeach-do-not-applaud.html
One of the speakers (don't remember which) describes how the Bush 
Administration 
deleted all evidence from a CIA briefing which expressed doubt over whether 
Iraq was 
developing weapons of mass destruction. This has caused the deaths of by some 
estimates as much as one million Iraqis since the US invaded.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The "Just the facts, Ma'am" Approach To Meditation

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> 1. Meditation has been around a long time.
> 
> 2. It exists in many forms, and has been associated with
> many different forms of religion and spiritual practice,
> but need not be associated with any of them. It can be
> practiced *as a practice*, with no associated belief 
> system whatsoever.
> 
> 3. Proponents of meditation have said that it has had
> subjective benefits for them -- increased clarity of mind
> after the practice, a feeling of restfulness or relaxation
> during the practice, and generally *enough* benefits for
> them in their personal lives that they practice it regularly.
> 
> 4. Science has made a *start* at verifying some of the sub-
> jective claims made by proponents of meditation, but the
> extent of this verification varies from one form of meditation 
> to another, and from one study of the same method to another. 
> These scientific studies -- ALL of them, IMO -- have also 
> been tainted by the associated belief systems *about* medi-
> tation that the people they are testing bring with them, and 
> by the belief systems that the researchers themselves bring 
> with them. 
> 
> 5. Many systems of meditation make claims that their tech-
> nique is "the best" or "better" or "more effective" than 
> other forms of meditation. 
> 
> 6. So far, try as they might, neither subjective testimony 
> by practitioners nor science has ever conclusively proved 
> any of these claims of "betterness" or "bestness" or "most 
> effectiveness."
> 
> 7. The *mechanics* of these different forms of meditation
> vary greatly. Some may use mantras (the thinking or chanting
> of a word or words). Some practice meditation with eyes closed,
> some with eyes open or even during other activities. Some may 
> use yantras or some other visual aids as a focus for their
> meditative practice. Some pay attention to the breath, or to
> just what is taking place at the moment -- mentally and in
> the environment. Some have no element of focus for their 
> meditative practice at all. Some forms of meditation have a 
> "goal," and others have no "goal" at all, except to meditate. 
> 
> 8. Again, so far science has proved none of these techniques
> or approaches to meditation definitively "better" than another. 
> 
> 9. Some proponents claim that meditation has benefits that
> extend beyond the benefits to the person practicing the medi-
> tation itself. That is, they claim that the meditation some-
> how affects the environment around the meditator in positive
> ways. These claims include reduction of environmental stress,
> lower crime rates, a more peaceful and settled environment,
> and even world peace.
> 
> 10. Again, none of these claimed benefits have been conclu-
> sively proved by science.
> 
> 11. One can come up with numerous examples of people who
> practice meditation who DO seem to exemplify positive traits 
> in their daily lives. They are seen by most observers to be 
> more flexible, more compassionate and caring about others 
> around them, more capable of effective action in stressful 
> situations, and generally happy with their lives and 
> pleasant to be around.
> 
> 12. One can come up with just as many examples of people who
> practice meditation who do NOT seem to exemplify these positive
> traits in their daily lives. We have seen meditators convicted
> of crimes such as fraud and rape and robbery and murder, we have 
> seen numerous examples of depression and mental illness and even 
> suicide among long-term meditators, and we all know people who 
> have meditated for decades who do NOT seem to be happy with
> their lives or pleasant to be around.
> 
> 13. We can find BOTH the positive traits AND the negative traits 
> in those who do not practice and have never practiced any form 
> of meditation. 
> 
> 14. Despite the claims of proponents, no form of meditation
> has ever universally produced the positive traits in ALL of
> its practitioners.
> 
> 15. Despite the claims of *opponents* to meditation and medi-
> tative practice, no form of meditation has ever been shown to
> universally produce the negative traits in ALL of its prac-
> titioners.
> 
> 16. Since the positive traits appear in people who have never
> practiced meditation, no conclusive link has ever been proved
> between meditation and these positive traits. Same with the
> negative traits.
> 
> 17. For some, meditation practice is pleasant and even blissful.
> They look forward to each session because experience has shown
> them that it is enjoyable in itself, and that it produces
> benefits in their lives.
> 
> 18. For some, meditation practice is not as pleasant. It may 
> be perceived to be difficult or even unpleasant. Some who 
> experience this may stop the practice of meditation as a result.
> Others experience this and continue to meditate regularly any-
> way, because the benefits they perceive in their lives outweigh
> for them th

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[curtisdeltablues]

> Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional  
> science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification.  
> It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to
invoke the name "science" at all.  I get why Maharishi did it, to
sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the
religious ideas of his tradition.  But the scientific method,
wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold
standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and
the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for
spiritual practices.  

I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science."
 It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge.  That
means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a
high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues
science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are
"wrong."  I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our
preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. 

I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual
practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than
a personal opinion or insight.  But personal opinions and insights are
fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with
claims of "science."

Maharishis had it only half right IMO.  There is no "science of
being", but there is an "art of living."  And expressing the art of
living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3
out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge
alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells
metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we
feel something we personally value. 


>
> 
> On Jul 26, 2008, at 8:12 AM, cardemaister wrote:
> 
> > According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or
> > preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]:
> > "heart-putting" = faith).
> 
> 
> The key words here being "preceded by", as in "before" or "prior to".  
> No gnostic based spirituality ultimately rests on faith, instead it  
> rests on gnosis: direct knowing, jnana. However adherents of faith and  
> deception-based orgs like the TMO are often conditioned to believe  
> gnosis or samadhi occurs at the gaps in thought, but that is rarely  
> the case. Bait and switch is common in such McMeditation orgs. Just  
> because you were burnt by such a group does not mean direct-knowing is  
> not possible, nor does it mean these are items of faith. It merely  
> means you've been duped.
> 
> Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional  
> science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification.  
> It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.
> 
> Those who haven't experienced samadhi will have to take this "on  
> faith" but if they follow a workable procedure (a technique or method)  
> they too can abandon the crutch of faith. In terms of yoga teachers,  
> those who can lead to jnana are the real teachers. Those who don't,  
> are very likely fakes, esp. if they are asking for money.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The "Just the facts, Ma'am" Approach To Meditation

[curtisdeltablues]

This post kicked some serious ass.   It pulls together many fragmented
insights I have struggle with while posting here and thinking about
meditation, and by practicing meditation again.  It is like a
deprogramming manual for pro and anti TM factions.  It had a useful
effect on both parts of my perspective.  Very helpful Turq, thanks!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> For those who didn't grow up American (or are young :-)),
> Joe Friday was a police detective on a TV series called
> "Dragnet." His approach was brusque and no-nonsense, and
> the quintessence of this approach was his signature phrase
> used when interviewing a witness to learn about a crime: 
> "Just the facts, Ma'am."
> 
> For some reason I was thinking about Joe on my morning 
> walk along the beach with the dogs, and got to wondering
> what the "Just the facts, Ma'am" answer might be about 
> MEDITATION, the thing that we all have in common here.
> 
> What CAN we say about meditation that most of us can agree 
> on as "facts?" No bullshit, no dogma, no assumptions, no 
> theories, no assertions of "better" or "best." Just the 
> facts, Ma'am.
> 
> Here is my start at such a list. They're not "facts" in 
> the sense that I claim that they're cosmically "true" or
> "truth." They're just me trying to make sense out of 40+
> years on the spiritual path, and trying to write down a 
> few of the things that are as close to "fact" about medi-
> tation as I'm ever likely to get. I am also NOT speaking 
> of *only* TM, but of meditative practice as a wider 
> phenomenon, in ANY of its many forms. 
> 
> Other posters are invited to add their "facts" to my list, 
> and to discuss it as they wish. I doubt I'm going to feel 
> like defending it. Those who feel compelled to turn things 
> into an argument can do so, if that's the only thing they 
> see in this post to get off on. Me, I'm more interested 
> in what the people without an axe to grind and without a 
> crusade to fight have to say.
> 
> 1. Meditation has been around a long time.
> 
> 2. It exists in many forms, and has been associated with
> many different forms of religion and spiritual practice,
> but need not be associated with any of them. It can be
> practiced *as a practice*, with no associated belief 
> system whatsoever.
> 
> 3. Proponents of meditation have said that it has had
> subjective benefits for them -- increased clarity of mind
> after the practice, a feeling of restfulness or relaxation
> during the practice, and generally *enough* benefits for
> them in their personal lives that they practice it regularly.
> 
> 4. Science has made a *start* at verifying some of the sub-
> jective claims made by proponents of meditation, but the
> extent of this verification varies from one form of meditation 
> to another, and from one study of the same method to another. 
> These scientific studies -- ALL of them, IMO -- have also 
> been tainted by the associated belief systems *about* medi-
> tation that the people they are testing bring with them, and 
> by the belief systems that the researchers themselves bring 
> with them. 
> 
> 5. Many systems of meditation make claims that their tech-
> nique is "the best" or "better" or "more effective" than 
> other forms of meditation. 
> 
> 6. So far, try as they might, neither subjective testimony 
> by practitioners nor science has ever conclusively proved 
> any of these claims of "betterness" or "bestness" or "most 
> effectiveness."
> 
> 7. The *mechanics* of these different forms of meditation
> vary greatly. Some may use mantras (the thinking or chanting
> of a word or words). Some practice meditation with eyes closed,
> some with eyes open or even during other activities. Some may 
> use yantras or some other visual aids as a focus for their
> meditative practice. Some pay attention to the breath, or to
> just what is taking place at the moment -- mentally and in
> the environment. Some have no element of focus for their 
> meditative practice at all. Some forms of meditation have a 
> "goal," and others have no "goal" at all, except to meditate. 
> 
> 8. Again, so far science has proved none of these techniques
> or approaches to meditation definitively "better" than another. 
> 
> 9. Some proponents claim that meditation has benefits that
> extend beyond the benefits to the person practicing the medi-
> tation itself. That is, they claim that the meditation some-
> how affects the environment around the meditator in positive
> ways. These claims include reduction of environmental stress,
> lower crime rates, a more peaceful and settled environment,
> and even world peace.
> 
> 10. Again, none of these claimed benefits have been conclu-
> sively proved by science.
> 
> 11. One can come up with numerous examples of people who
> practice meditation who DO seem to exemplify positive traits 
> in their daily lives. They are seen by most observers to be 
> more flexible, more compass

[FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 7/26/08, Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> From: Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from
3 to 5 Swallows !
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, July 26, 2008, 9:37 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 7:46 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to
5 Swallows !
>  
> 
> 
> 
> >But the area where the Oregon Shri Yantra appeared
> was in the flight path of helicopters, and yet the
> Shri Yantra seems to have been constructed overnight.
> If you know anything about the psychology of perception, this is
very easily explained, especially with a shape that is quite foreign
to the pilot's' culture, which a sri yantra certainly is. The bottom
line is that Bill W. and his friends made the sri yantra, so that is
the foundation upon which everything else must be explained.

Well, if the aliens are smart enough to travel many many light years
in short enough time to still be alive, and/or have conquored aging, 
then doesn't it stand to reason that they may have disinformation
methods that would blind and dazzle mere earth animals? 

Think man, think!

And if Bill had done it, wouldn't it be obvious from the big "earth
shoe" foot prints he would have left?

And if mere earth teachers can make their students hallucinate,
couldn't much more highly evolved aliens do at least this?

And have we proved that the pilots were not aliens also? 

And if anyone are aliens, its gotta be GWB and DC. I mean, just LOOK a
them. And listen to them! If they let the 911 jets safely pass into
protected air space, don't you think they could give brother aliens a
free pass?

The truth is out there! 


>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional  
> > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification.  
> > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In
> FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> 
> What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to
> invoke the name "science" at all.  I get why Maharishi did it, to
> sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the
> religious ideas of his tradition.  But the scientific method,
> wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold
> standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and
> the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for
> spiritual practices.  

The mantra is like a Jackson Pollack painting -- devoid of meaning. it
allows you to drop, like dropping a can of paint, to hit the floor of
consciousness, where its like white light -- where all of the colors
are mixed together to form white. on that journey, the mantra sort of
beoomes like monet. then like seurat, but along the way things can
seem very Dali like. Ultimately, you get to the most primitive state
-- a totally blank canvas. Its from this white canvas state that all
art, all creativity emerges. 
> 
> I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science."
>  It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge.  That
> means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a
> high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues
> science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are
> "wrong."  I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our
> preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. 
> 
> I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual
> practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than
> a personal opinion or insight.  But personal opinions and insights are
> fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with
> claims of "science."
> 
> Maharishis had it only half right IMO.  There is no "science of
> being", but there is an "art of living."  And expressing the art of
> living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3
> out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge
> alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells
> metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we
> feel something we personally value. 
> 
> 
> >
> > 
> > On Jul 26, 2008, at 8:12 AM, cardemaister wrote:
> > 
> > > According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or
> > > preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa
[shrad-dhaa]:
> > > "heart-putting" = faith).
> > 
> > 
> > The key words here being "preceded by", as in "before" or "prior
to".  
> > No gnostic based spirituality ultimately rests on faith, instead it  
> > rests on gnosis: direct knowing, jnana. However adherents of faith
and  
> > deception-based orgs like the TMO are often conditioned to believe  
> > gnosis or samadhi occurs at the gaps in thought, but that is rarely  
> > the case. Bait and switch is common in such McMeditation orgs. Just  
> > because you were burnt by such a group does not mean
direct-knowing is  
> > not possible, nor does it mean these are items of faith. It merely  
> > means you've been duped.
> > 
> > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional  
> > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification.  
> > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.
> > 
> > Those who haven't experienced samadhi will have to take this "on  
> > faith" but if they follow a workable procedure (a technique or
method)  
> > they too can abandon the crutch of faith. In terms of yoga teachers,  
> > those who can lead to jnana are the real teachers. Those who don't,  
> > are very likely fakes, esp. if they are asking for money.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional  
> > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification.  
> > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In
> FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> 
> What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to
> invoke the name "science" at all.  I get why Maharishi did it, to
> sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the
> religious ideas of his tradition.  But the scientific method,
> wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold
> standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and
> the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for
> spiritual practices.  
> 
> I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science."
>  It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge.  That
> means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a
> high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues
> science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are
> "wrong."  I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our
> preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. 

Which you do by trial and error, testing this with one audience,
testing that with another. And voila, after enough such experiments,
you are able to verify an emerging theory as to what various groups
dig, and THEN based on this theory, you are able to fairly accurately
predict what style, banter, and sets will get various types of
audiences rocking. And if you get lucky, the journal of Blues Science
will publish your paper -- and you can get a cushy job teaching at
Georgetown U -- while still playing. Only now you can focus and hone
your research as to what sets, songs and styles get your female
students all worked up. A new theory, a new set of predictions -- LOTS
more field work ... 





> 
> I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual
> practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than
> a personal opinion or insight.  But personal opinions and insights are
> fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with
> claims of "science."
> 
> Maharishis had it only half right IMO.  There is no "science of
> being", but there is an "art of living."  And expressing the art of
> living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3
> out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge
> alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells
> metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we
> feel something we personally value. 
> 
> 
> >
> > 
> > On Jul 26, 2008, at 8:12 AM, cardemaister wrote:
> > 
> > > According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or
> > > preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa
[shrad-dhaa]:
> > > "heart-putting" = faith).
> > 
> > 
> > The key words here being "preceded by", as in "before" or "prior
to".  
> > No gnostic based spirituality ultimately rests on faith, instead it  
> > rests on gnosis: direct knowing, jnana. However adherents of faith
and  
> > deception-based orgs like the TMO are often conditioned to believe  
> > gnosis or samadhi occurs at the gaps in thought, but that is rarely  
> > the case. Bait and switch is common in such McMeditation orgs. Just  
> > because you were burnt by such a group does not mean
direct-knowing is  
> > not possible, nor does it mean these are items of faith. It merely  
> > means you've been duped.
> > 
> > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional  
> > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification.  
> > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.
> > 
> > Those who haven't experienced samadhi will have to take this "on  
> > faith" but if they follow a workable procedure (a technique or
method)  
> > they too can abandon the crutch of faith. In terms of yoga teachers,  
> > those who can lead to jnana are the real teachers. Those who don't,  
> > are very likely fakes, esp. if they are asking for money.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!

[Brian Horsfield]

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

> One of the speakers (don't remember which) describes how the Bush 
> Administration 
> deleted all evidence from a CIA briefing which expressed doubt over whether 
> Iraq was 
> developing weapons of mass destruction. 

This was Vincent Bugliosi, former assistant DA for Los Angeles who presents the 
most 
damning piece of legal evidence that Bush lied to take us into war here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1742899254259081797

The video is 7 minutes long the key point comes at 1'45" into the video, and 
describes 
documentary evidence that Bush deleted key facts from a CIA report he recieved 
just 6 days 
before in Feb 2002. This speech to my mind is the most credible evidence that 
impeachment 
proceedings need to begin immediately.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[curtisdeltablues]

> Which you do by trial and error, testing this with one audience,
> testing that with another. And voila, after enough such experiments,
> you are able to verify an emerging theory as to what various groups
> dig, and THEN based on this theory, you are able to fairly accurately
> predict what style, banter, and sets will get various types of
> audiences rocking. And if you get lucky, the journal of Blues Science
> will publish your paper -- and you can get a cushy job teaching at
> Georgetown U -- while still playing. Only now you can focus and hone
> your research as to what sets, songs and styles get your female
> students all worked up. A new theory, a new set of predictions --
LOTS> more field work ... 

No, this is how Boy Band managers work.  My job is to play the music
that rocks my world and find the people who agree.  If you try to play
for the audience reaction as your center you become a lounge act.

"Hey its really great to be heeerrre!"

That doesn't give an artist the right to be a total dick and ignore
the audience reaction, but when they want me to play some classic rock
cuz they don't understand my musical focus, they get Son House's Death
Letter Blues and I am either able to convert them on the spot, or not!







--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional  
> > > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather
unification.  
> > > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In
> > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > 
> > What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to
> > invoke the name "science" at all.  I get why Maharishi did it, to
> > sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the
> > religious ideas of his tradition.  But the scientific method,
> > wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold
> > standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and
> > the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for
> > spiritual practices.  
> > 
> > I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science."
> >  It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge.  That
> > means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a
> > high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues
> > science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are
> > "wrong."  I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our
> > preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. 
> 
> Which you do by trial and error, testing this with one audience,
> testing that with another. And voila, after enough such experiments,
> you are able to verify an emerging theory as to what various groups
> dig, and THEN based on this theory, you are able to fairly accurately
> predict what style, banter, and sets will get various types of
> audiences rocking. And if you get lucky, the journal of Blues Science
> will publish your paper -- and you can get a cushy job teaching at
> Georgetown U -- while still playing. Only now you can focus and hone
> your research as to what sets, songs and styles get your female
> students all worked up. A new theory, a new set of predictions -- LOTS
> more field work ... 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual
> > practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than
> > a personal opinion or insight.  But personal opinions and insights are
> > fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with
> > claims of "science."
> > 
> > Maharishis had it only half right IMO.  There is no "science of
> > being", but there is an "art of living."  And expressing the art of
> > living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3
> > out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge
> > alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells
> > metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we
> > feel something we personally value. 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > 
> > > On Jul 26, 2008, at 8:12 AM, cardemaister wrote:
> > > 
> > > > According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or
> > > > preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa
> [shrad-dhaa]:
> > > > "heart-putting" = faith).
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The key words here being "preceded by", as in "before" or "prior
> to".  
> > > No gnostic based spirituality ultimately rests on faith, instead
it  
> > > rests on gnosis: direct knowing, jnana. However adherents of faith
> and  
> > > deception-based orgs like the TMO are often conditioned to believe  
> > > gnosis or samadhi occurs at the gaps in thought, but that is
rarely  
> > > the case. Bait and switch is common in such McMeditation orgs.
Just  
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional  
> > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification.  
> > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In
> FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> 
> What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to
> invoke the name "science" at all.  I get why Maharishi did it, to
> sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the
> religious ideas of his tradition.  But the scientific method,
> wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold
> standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and
> the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for
> spiritual practices.  
> 
> I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science."
>  It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge.  That
> means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a
> high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues
> science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are
> "wrong."  I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our
> preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. 
> 
> I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual
> practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than
> a personal opinion or insight.  But personal opinions and insights are
> fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with
> claims of "science."
> 
> Maharishis had it only half right IMO.  There is no "science of
> being", but there is an "art of living."  And expressing the art of
> living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3
> out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge
> alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells
> metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we
> feel something we personally value. 
> 

Baby. If meditation causes changes in physiology, behavior, or
possibly social structures,  then thats a legitimate, even fascinating
realm for science to explore.

Bathwater. Using scientific analogies and slight of hand to "prove"
and market stuff  to the gullible and uneducated.

(Or as Steve Martin was taught in "The Jerk" "This is Shit". "This is
Shinola" (know the difference and the world is yours.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Jul 26, 2008, at 9:44 AM, boo_lives wrote:
> 
> > What sort of hateful idiot takes an old, completely 
> > unsubstantiated National Enquirer article, which
> > doesn't even provide a name of one piece of evidence,
> > and calls it "revent revelations" and talks about it
> > as fact?
> 
> Someone who's desperate?

Actually, Boo appears not to be aware of the current
story.

> >> Hey, guess what.  Edwards is a lawyer.  If the allegations
> >> are untrue, maybe he knows someone that can refute them and
> >> go after the Enquirer.  That is, since according to Sal, the
> >> accusations are so baseless.
> >>
> >> Lawson, let's call it like it is.
> >>
> > Sorry your understanding of law is about as deep as your
> > preferred source of reading material.  You actually think 
> > everything rags like the enquirer publish has been proven
> > true or else they can be sued successfully??
> 
> Thanks, boo, that's what I was thinking. Obviously the Enq
> knows they can't be sued or else they wouldn't print trash
> as if it were "fact."

Actually the Enquirer has been successfully sued a
number of times for printing false information (by
Carol Burnett, for instance).

The Enquirer is a very mixed bag. It's a big mistake
to dismiss an Enquirer story out of hand, because it
has done some solid reporting.

Unfortunately, it looks as though the current Edwards
story may be true (just like a similar story the 
Enquirer broke about Jesse Jackson some years ago).

And Barry, the reason it's of interest is not because
we need to know what Edwards does in his private life,
but because if the story is true, it's going to affect
his *public* life. He's a possible vice-presidential
candidate, and even if that doesn't work out, there's
been speculation that Obama would appoint him to his
cabinet, possibly as attorney general.

If the Enquirer story turns out to be true, those
possibilities are very likely down the tubes.

> I was kind of wondering why I hadn't seen the "revelations"
> before lurk posted them, then I saw where they came from.
> 
> Really scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't we, lurk?

Not, as it happens. It's already hit the MSM (the LA
Times, for one), but the MSM is being appropriately
cautious until it can confirm the story. It's being
taken seriously, in other words.

  If this
> is how you and others support the Repugs, heaven help them.  You
> and your party deserve each other.

Lurk is quite right to point out that it isn't *only*
Republicans who have some problems with "family values."
That's the case even if the Edwards story is false.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[curtisdeltablues]

> Baby. If meditation causes changes in physiology, behavior, or
> possibly social structures,  then thats a legitimate, even fascinating
> realm for science to explore.
> 
> Bathwater. Using scientific analogies and slight of hand to "prove"
> and market stuff  to the gullible and uneducated.
> 
> (Or as Steve Martin was taught in "The Jerk" "This is Shit". "This is
> Shinola" (know the difference and the world is yours.)


Nice naildown New.  And then it can join the soft sciences with the
appropriate epistemological humility.  There will be some hard science
 qualities like the brain wave and chemical changes, but the
connections to behavior will always have to remain in the realm of
working theory. 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional  
> > > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather
unification.  
> > > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In
> > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > 
> > What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to
> > invoke the name "science" at all.  I get why Maharishi did it, to
> > sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the
> > religious ideas of his tradition.  But the scientific method,
> > wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold
> > standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and
> > the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for
> > spiritual practices.  
> > 
> > I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science."
> >  It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge.  That
> > means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a
> > high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues
> > science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are
> > "wrong."  I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our
> > preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. 
> > 
> > I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual
> > practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than
> > a personal opinion or insight.  But personal opinions and insights are
> > fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with
> > claims of "science."
> > 
> > Maharishis had it only half right IMO.  There is no "science of
> > being", but there is an "art of living."  And expressing the art of
> > living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3
> > out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge
> > alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells
> > metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we
> > feel something we personally value. 
> > 
> 
> Baby. If meditation causes changes in physiology, behavior, or
> possibly social structures,  then thats a legitimate, even fascinating
> realm for science to explore.
> 
> Bathwater. Using scientific analogies and slight of hand to "prove"
> and market stuff  to the gullible and uneducated.
> 
> (Or as Steve Martin was taught in "The Jerk" "This is Shit". "This is
> Shinola" (know the difference and the world is yours.)
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[Vaj]

On Jul 26, 2008, at 11:41 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:


Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional
science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification.
It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In

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

What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to
invoke the name "science" at all.  I get why Maharishi did it, to
sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the
religious ideas of his tradition.  But the scientific method,
wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold
standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and
the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for
spiritual practices.


One may be simple translation. The word often used in the spiritual  
sciences for the western word science is "vidya". However vidya has a  
deeper meaning that the western term science, as it is less encumbered  
by the taboo of subjectivity which stultifies western science. The  
taboo of subjectivity in the west has a lot to do with the way the  
scientific fundamentalism came about but it is also a shared element  
with religious fundamentalism, as both have placed a taboo on  
subjectivity. Both believe they are heading towards an absolute truth,  
one based on science's grokking of Nature, the other through the  
absolute word of god.


The actual basis for what we call science is in fact based on Greek  
and Hebrew religious and philosophical beliefs which all assert that a  
god or gods created the universe we inhabit before he/she/they created  
humans--this a basis for scientific realism which in turn was a basis  
for scientific materialism.


This is actually a rather lengthy and detailed topic, as one has to  
explain what the taboo of subjectivity is and how it came about, along  
with our current paradigms.




I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science."
It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge.  That
means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a
high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues
science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are
"wrong."  I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our
preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine.

I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual
practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than
a personal opinion or insight.  But personal opinions and insights are
fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with
claims of "science."

Maharishis had it only half right IMO.  There is no "science of
being", but there is an "art of living."  And expressing the art of
living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3
out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge
alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells
metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we
feel something we personally value.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Which you do by trial and error, testing this with one audience,
> > testing that with another. And voila, after enough such experiments,
> > you are able to verify an emerging theory as to what various groups
> > dig, and THEN based on this theory, you are able to fairly accurately
> > predict what style, banter, and sets will get various types of
> > audiences rocking. And if you get lucky, the journal of Blues Science
> > will publish your paper -- and you can get a cushy job teaching at
> > Georgetown U -- while still playing. Only now you can focus and hone
> > your research as to what sets, songs and styles get your female
> > students all worked up. A new theory, a new set of predictions --
> LOTS> more field work ... 
> 
> No, this is how Boy Band managers work.  My job is to play the music
> that rocks my world and find the people who agree.  If you try to play
> for the audience reaction as your center you become a lounge act.
> 
> "Hey its really great to be heeerrre!"
> 
> That doesn't give an artist the right to be a total dick and ignore
> the audience reaction, but when they want me to play some classic rock
> cuz they don't understand my musical focus, they get Son House's Death
> Letter Blues and I am either able to convert them on the spot, or not!

Well, laudibly you are a musical purist. 

However, I am glad that you have found a theory -- with extraordinary
 predictive power, via experimentation, the causal factor to make
womens's clothes levitate -- with the music of Getz and Gilberto.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Baby. If meditation causes changes in physiology, behavior, or
> > possibly social structures,  then thats a legitimate, even fascinating
> > realm for science to explore.
> > 
> > Bathwater. Using scientific analogies and slight of hand to "prove"
> > and market stuff  to the gullible and uneducated.
> > 
> > (Or as Steve Martin was taught in "The Jerk" "This is Shit". "This is
> > Shinola" (know the difference and the world is yours.)
> 
> 
> Nice naildown New.  And then it can join the soft sciences with the
> appropriate epistemological humility.  There will be some hard science
>  qualities like the brain wave and chemical changes, but the
> connections to behavior will always have to remain in the realm of
> working theory. 

Well, at least it will remain on the same level of predictive power
and unraveling of causal factors as any of the behavioral and social
sciences. 

But I heard tell them there white coat boys have made some pr'gress in
the last 100 years or so with white mice, mazes and all. But last I
heard much about that was at my 'nivrsity -- and those pocket
protector type prof'sors seemed like a bunch of eggheads, so you are
prob'ly right, their so called res'rch may not 'mount to much of nuthin'. 


 
 
 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an
unconventional  
> > > > science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather
> unification.  
> > > > It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In
> > > FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > > 
> > > What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality
try to
> > > invoke the name "science" at all.  I get why Maharishi did it, to
> > > sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the
> > > religious ideas of his tradition.  But the scientific method,
> > > wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only
gold
> > > standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and
> > > the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for
> > > spiritual practices.  
> > > 
> > > I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues
science."
> > >  It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge.  That
> > > means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't
get on a
> > > high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues
> > > science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are
> > > "wrong."  I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our
> > > preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. 
> > > 
> > > I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual
> > > practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is
more than
> > > a personal opinion or insight.  But personal opinions and
insights are
> > > fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are
with
> > > claims of "science."
> > > 
> > > Maharishis had it only half right IMO.  There is no "science of
> > > being", but there is an "art of living."  And expressing the art of
> > > living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with
the 3
> > > out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to
knowledge
> > > alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells
> > > metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we
> > > feel something we personally value. 
> > > 
> > 
> > Baby. If meditation causes changes in physiology, behavior, or
> > possibly social structures,  then thats a legitimate, even fascinating
> > realm for science to explore.
> > 
> > Bathwater. Using scientific analogies and slight of hand to "prove"
> > and market stuff  to the gullible and uneducated.
> > 
> > (Or as Steve Martin was taught in "The Jerk" "This is Shit". "This is
> > Shinola" (know the difference and the world is yours.)
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[Bhairitu]

curtisdeltablues wrote:
>> Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional  
>> science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification.  
>> It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In
>> 
> FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to
> invoke the name "science" at all.  I get why Maharishi did it, to
> sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the
> religious ideas of his tradition.  But the scientific method,
> wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold
> standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and
> the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for
> spiritual practices.  
>
>   
Because people aren't satisfied to take it on "faith."  They want to 
know how it works.  They want a concrete idea of how it works.  It's 
human nature.  When you start dissecting it then it becomes a "science."
> I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science."
>  It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge.  That
> means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a
> high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues
> science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are
> "wrong."  I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our
> preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. 
>   
Ah, but there is "music theory" which is an analysis of how music works 
including yours.  Really good music producers will look for that element 
when producing musical groups.  The Beatles had little knowledge of 
music theory but George Martin with a classically trained background was 
able to take their musical sketches and strengthen them and turn them 
into hits.  Much of what he did was the application of the musical 
sciences and psychology.  

I'm helped other songwriters who have really bad arcs in their songs 
(started out strong and went downhill from there) fix their songs so 
they had better arcs and people wanted to listen to them and responded 
with applause (rather than walk away bored).   And you don't apply these 
rules mechanically but rather test them if you notice that there is a 
weak spot in the music and then see if applying them helps.

In composition you have devices such as retrogrades, retrograde 
inversions, etc.  I turned a bunch of my musician friends to Gordon 
Delamont's "Modern Melodic Techniques" as it was a very readable and 
usable tutorial on how to improve one's compositions.  Probably anyone 
here who has tried to write a song has been stuck on what to do with the 
next phrase of their song.  They might have an idea but it just sounds 
lame to them.  Sometimes if you reverse the order of the notes in your 
first phrase so it is a mirror image of it you come up with an 
interesting sounding second phrase.  Or you can flip  the intervals of 
the notes of your original phrase which can produce an interesting 
second phrase.  These are all techniques that many musicians including 
the great masters have used down through the centuries.

And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with your 
"gut feeling" or your "musical faith" either.  :)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > And maybe you should have added John Edwards having an affair 
> > > > while his wife battles cancer. Or maybe the baby John Edwards 
> > > > had with his mistress. Or maybe John Edwards telling everyone 
> > > > that "they" are the only one he has confided some personal 
> > > > details about his son's death. Oh yea, family values. The 
> > > > dems really personify them.
> > >
> > > Edwards is the Dem nominee?
> > 
> > No Lawson, he's not. But when Sal decided to come down on McCain 
> > for dumping his first wife, and touted Obama's successful 
marriage, 
> > and then sacastically referred to the Republicans as the party 
> > of "family values", I thought I'd hi-light the recent revelations 
> > of John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer. 
An 
> > affair he's had for four years, and may even have produced a baby.
> > 
> > Hey, guess what. Edwards is a lawyer. If the allegations are 
> > untrue, maybe he knows someone that can refute them and go after 
> > the Enquirer. That is, since according to Sal, the accusations 
are 
> > so baseless.
> > 
> > Lawson, let's call it like it is.
> 
> Just as a question, could "like it is" include
> the possibility that none of this is any of our
> damned business?



Here's what makes it our business.

This is America.  For some godforsaken reason, many Americans believe 
that marital fidelity is a prerequisite for elected office.  Now, I 
don't happen to agree with it and, indeed, in Canada where I'm from 
people really don't give a rat's ass who a politician is fucking.  
For example, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had a kid out of 
wedlock (he was retired by this time) with his 30-something 
girlfriend and the almost universal reaction was: good for him!  
People admired him MORE as a result, not less.

Be that as it may, the U.S. is not Canada and however misplaced the 
fidelity notion may be, it's the reality.  And politicians know that 
before they enter the game.

So, no, it shouldn't be any of our business but the will of the 
people no matter how misplaced has made it our business.  And, as 
such, a politician opens himself up to the possibility of compromise 
via blackmail if he has indiscretions.

An example is, of course, J. Edgar Hoover, who is reputed to have 
beeen homosexual.  But Hoover also famously said that there was no 
organized crime in America when there was MAJOR organized crime in 
America.  It has been suggested that he was compromised and that 
photos existed in some Mafiosa's safe deposit box that were held over 
his head.

Unfair "rules"?  Yes.  But they are a reality of political life in 
America and if John Edwards willingly enters the arena he should be 
expected to play by the rules.






> 
> I'm pretty sure that if I were put under the 
> scrutiny of running for public office, the press
> would have a field day with my indiscretions. 
> The incident in the hot tub with the cheerleaders
> and the eels alone would probably bump me off the
> ticket. 
> 
> The French had the right attitude about these 
> things as far as I'm concerned. Former president
> Chirac was a sonofabitch in his political dealings
> and basically maintained two families concurrently, 
> and the French didn't seem to have any problem with
> this. The *predominantly Roman Catholic* French
> didn't seem to have any problem with this. When he
> died, his wife and family marched in the procession
> side by side with his mistress and family. 
> 
> I'm uncomfortable with gettin' morally medieval on
> politicians' asses as if their morals or lack thereof
> might make them incapable of doing a good job as a
> national leader. Winston Churchill was a drunk. FDR
> had a mistress for 20 years. JFK probably nailed more
> bimbos in the White House than Carter had Little Liver
> Pills. Gandhi slept snuggled up between two young
> girls. Nobel Peace Prize winners have turbulent and
> sometimes abusive relationships with their spouses.
> Hell, Alfred Nobel himself was one of the "masters of
> war," an arms manufacturer.
> 
> Everybody has a closet, and as far as I can tell, 
> everybody's got shit in that closet that they would
> prefer that the narrow-minded and moral members of
> society not see, so that they don't obsess on it.
> 
> THAT they obsess on it does not mean that the politician
> in question has to obsess on it, or spend even a moment
> "defending" himself or herself against their accusations. 
> The smart ones, in my opinion, should just let the narrow-
> minded obsess and do their own thing, and see how things 
> work out. The Zen parable revolving around "Is that so?"
> springs to mind.
> 
> I've mentioned a film here a few times, and never "gotten
> a bite" on it. I think it's a very good film. It deals
> with moral and ethical issues, and with the role of women
> in politics or public life, and with how they are held to
> different standards than th

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[curtisdeltablues]

snip
> >   
> Because people aren't satisfied to take it on "faith."  They want to 
> know how it works.  They want a concrete idea of how it works.  It's 
> human nature.  When you start dissecting it then it becomes a "science."

Not necessarily.  Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific
method. I think the phrase scientific method is more useful than the
word alone because that includes its virtues and limits.

> > I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science."
> >  It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge.  That
> > means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a
> > high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues
> > science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are
> > "wrong."  I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our
> > preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. 
> >   
> Ah, but there is "music theory" which is an analysis of how music works 
> including yours.  Really good music producers will look for that
element 
> when producing musical groups.  The Beatles had little knowledge of 
> music theory but George Martin with a classically trained background
was 
> able to take their musical sketches and strengthen them and turn them 
> into hits.  Much of what he did was the application of the musical 
> sciences and psychology. 

I don't think these reach the levels necessary to be called products
of the scientific method.  We could argue all day long about what
exactly George Martin contributed, but music theory is part of the
knowledge in the arts, not the sciences.  Science can study waves and
physics can describe how a guitar string vibrates and why the notes
get higher as the string shortens when we fret it, but how it feels to
be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not
science or universal knowledge.  It is personal opinion and taste.
 
> 
> I'm helped other songwriters who have really bad arcs in their songs 
> (started out strong and went downhill from there) fix their songs so 
> they had better arcs and people wanted to listen to them and responded 
> with applause (rather than walk away bored).   And you don't apply
these 
> rules mechanically but rather test them if you notice that there is a 
> weak spot in the music and then see if applying them helps.

I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just
because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a
Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want
that do we?

> 
> In composition you have devices such as retrogrades, retrograde 
> inversions, etc.  I turned a bunch of my musician friends to Gordon 
> Delamont's "Modern Melodic Techniques" as it was a very readable and 
> usable tutorial on how to improve one's compositions.  Probably anyone 
> here who has tried to write a song has been stuck on what to do with
the 
> next phrase of their song.  They might have an idea but it just sounds 
> lame to them.  Sometimes if you reverse the order of the notes in
your > first phrase so it is a mirror image of it you come up with an 
> interesting sounding second phrase.  Or you can flip  the intervals
of > the notes of your original phrase which can produce an interesting 
> second phrase.  These are all techniques that many musicians
including > the great masters have used down through the centuries.

This sounds really interesting.  Being an artist doesn't mean a
commitment to being a dumbass!  I try to learn from everything. 
Rational processes are part of the arts.

> 
> And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with
your > "gut feeling" or your "musical faith" either.  :)

I do my best to combine them.  Your example of songwriting is
excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the
process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach.  So
many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other
people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve
your ability to convey what you mean better.  But writing isn't a
science either, even though there are many known rules for having
better communication.







>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> One may be simple translation. The word often used in the spiritual  
> sciences for the western word science is "vidya". However vidya has a  
> deeper meaning that the western term science, as it is less encumbered  
> by the taboo of subjectivity which stultifies western science. The  
> taboo of subjectivity

I Know! All that scientific, white-coat, pocket protector eggheads get
so riled up about cognitive biases and self-serving results. Whew.
When will they get a clue! 

> in the west has a lot to do with the way the  
> scientific fundamentalism 

You nailed it brother. What a bunch of literalists with massive
blinders on. I mean when they read their scientific journals, they
actually interpret each word in a precise and literal sense. No
creativity. No seeing the big picture of the Known View. No
understanding, a priori, of how things really are. I only pray to
Jesus that I will never fall into that abyss of ignorance.

> came about but it is also a shared element  
> with religious fundamentalism, as both have placed a taboo on  
> subjectivity. 

I Know! If they delve into subjectivity its only that intersubjective
validation crap -- where a whole lot of people need to agree that they
seez the same thing. I mean, GD it, I see what i see, and its the damn
Truth! no matter if anyone else seez it. 

> Both believe they are heading towards an absolute truth,  

Yes, if anything, you have hit the nail on the head. Their premier
tenent of modern science is the discovery and defense of Absolute
Truth, Once Absolute Truth is found, there's no looking back. No
counter theories, no debate, no critiques Specially if its MY absolute
truth.

> one based on science's grokking of Nature, the other through the  
> absolute word of god.

I know! I hate that damn Journal of Scientific Groks. Scientists are
so confused that they all think Scientific Groking reveals Truth (the
ONE Truth)
 
> The actual basis for what we call science is in fact based on Greek  
> and Hebrew religious and philosophical beliefs which all assert that a  
> god or gods created the universe we inhabit before he/she/they created  
> humans--this a basis for scientific realism which in turn was a basis  
> for scientific materialism.

YOU are so right on today! First you are right, if jews and
goat-slamming greeks came up with it, its really suspect. And I took
some undergraduate science, and hung out with some science grad
students, and they told me the secret -- science is really all based
on a core belief that gods created the universe. Its like in the first
chapter of ALL science texts.


> 
> This is actually a rather lengthy and detailed topic, 

I know -- and I am too lame to understand it, so I am so glad you are
giving me the distilled version. And plus, being your subjective
truth, that makes it even more golden.

>as one has to  
> explain what the taboo of subjectivity is and how it came about, along  
> with our current paradigms.

I Know! can't them knucklehead scientists see that they are locked
into a paradigm.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[authfriend]

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

> > No, I'm not claiming that at all.  All I'm claiming is that
> different mantras have different effects and it is due to the
> resonance of the sound which also works at the mental level.
> That is not dogma as it can be observed at the audible level.
> 
> They are different in what parts of the body are involved.  A 
> thought is not a sound vibration of air molecules hitting the
> ear drum.  It may be an electrical or chemical event in the
> brain, but it is not the same thing as an external sound
> vibration.

There may not be as much difference as you think.
Unless we set up specialized instruments to measure
the sound, the only way we know there's an "external
sound vibration" is by the electrical/chemical event
it produces in the brain when it hits the eardrum.

It would be interesting to do a study to see whether 
thinking the mantra activates the hearing area of the
brain. There have been studies (not related to
meditation) showing that when we imagine a sound or
sight, maybe touch/smell/taste as well, the same areas
of the brain light up under MRI as when we actually 
hear or see etc. something external.

And even when we set up instruments to measure sound
vibrations, the measurements by themselves tell us
nothing about whether the sound is pleasant or
unpleasant, consonant or dissonant, major or minor.
Those qualities are the province of the brain, not
the measuring instruments.

Speaking of a fingernail on a blackboard, for many
people just *mentioning* it is enough to make them
wince, because the words evoke the memory of what it
sounds like. That's why the analogy is so effective
in the TM intro lecture. People "hear" the sound in
their mind's ear the same way they "hear" the mantra.
You sure wouldn't want to use the fingernail sound
as if it were a mantra.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>but how it feels to
> be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not
> science or universal knowledge.  It is personal opinion and taste.

I know! Science and rock n' roll are like oil and water and will never
mix. Scripture says so. Just because science has figured out that LSD
alters the action of the neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine,
and dopamine, triggering extensive changes in brain andsensory
functioning, for example, enabling some to feel and see music and such
has no bearing on what is really happening. The FACT is, whats really
happening, is that theres a magical leprechaun inside everyones head,
and when you take LSD the  leprechaun gets high as shit and starts
jumping around and kicking his legs about. Sometimes he accidently
kicks the back of your eyes which causes cascading colors and visions.
Also, sometimes he accidently kicks the insides of your ears which
causes auditory hallucinations. And he LOVES Sargent Pepper so he
really kicks out the jams when you play it.






>  
> > 
> > I'm helped other songwriters who have really bad arcs in their songs 
> > (started out strong and went downhill from there) fix their songs so 
> > they had better arcs and people wanted to listen to them and
responded 
> > with applause (rather than walk away bored).   And you don't apply
> these 
> > rules mechanically but rather test them if you notice that there is a 
> > weak spot in the music and then see if applying them helps.
> 
> I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just
> because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a
> Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want
> that do we?
> 
> > 
> > In composition you have devices such as retrogrades, retrograde 
> > inversions, etc.  I turned a bunch of my musician friends to Gordon 
> > Delamont's "Modern Melodic Techniques" as it was a very readable and 
> > usable tutorial on how to improve one's compositions.  Probably
anyone 
> > here who has tried to write a song has been stuck on what to do with
> the 
> > next phrase of their song.  They might have an idea but it just
sounds 
> > lame to them.  Sometimes if you reverse the order of the notes in
> your > first phrase so it is a mirror image of it you come up with an 
> > interesting sounding second phrase.  Or you can flip  the intervals
> of > the notes of your original phrase which can produce an interesting 
> > second phrase.  These are all techniques that many musicians
> including > the great masters have used down through the centuries.
> 
> This sounds really interesting.  Being an artist doesn't mean a
> commitment to being a dumbass!  I try to learn from everything. 
> Rational processes are part of the arts.
> 
> > 
> > And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with
> your > "gut feeling" or your "musical faith" either.  :)
> 
> I do my best to combine them.  Your example of songwriting is
> excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the
> process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach.  So
> many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other
> people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve
> your ability to convey what you mean better.  But writing isn't a
> science either, even though there are many known rules for having
> better communication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> >but how it feels to
> > be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not
> > science or universal knowledge.  It is personal opinion and taste.
> 
> I know! Science and rock n' roll are like oil and water and will never
> mix. Scripture says so. Just because science has figured out that LSD
> alters the action of the neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine,
> and dopamine, triggering extensive changes in brain andsensory
> functioning, for example, enabling some to feel and see music and such
> has no bearing on what is really happening. The FACT is, whats really
> happening, is that theres a magical leprechaun inside everyones head,
> and when you take LSD the  leprechaun gets high as shit and starts
> jumping around and kicking his legs about. Sometimes he accidently
> kicks the back of your eyes which causes cascading colors and visions.
> Also, sometimes he accidently kicks the insides of your ears which
> causes auditory hallucinations. And he LOVES Sargent Pepper so he
> really kicks out the jams when you play it.

Science can predict the brain effect side but not the artistic
preference part.  Some people like to trip and listen to death metal.



> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >  
> > > 
> > > I'm helped other songwriters who have really bad arcs in their
songs 
> > > (started out strong and went downhill from there) fix their
songs so 
> > > they had better arcs and people wanted to listen to them and
> responded 
> > > with applause (rather than walk away bored).   And you don't apply
> > these 
> > > rules mechanically but rather test them if you notice that there
is a 
> > > weak spot in the music and then see if applying them helps.
> > 
> > I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just
> > because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a
> > Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want
> > that do we?
> > 
> > > 
> > > In composition you have devices such as retrogrades, retrograde 
> > > inversions, etc.  I turned a bunch of my musician friends to Gordon 
> > > Delamont's "Modern Melodic Techniques" as it was a very readable
and 
> > > usable tutorial on how to improve one's compositions.  Probably
> anyone 
> > > here who has tried to write a song has been stuck on what to do with
> > the 
> > > next phrase of their song.  They might have an idea but it just
> sounds 
> > > lame to them.  Sometimes if you reverse the order of the notes in
> > your > first phrase so it is a mirror image of it you come up with an 
> > > interesting sounding second phrase.  Or you can flip  the intervals
> > of > the notes of your original phrase which can produce an
interesting 
> > > second phrase.  These are all techniques that many musicians
> > including > the great masters have used down through the centuries.
> > 
> > This sounds really interesting.  Being an artist doesn't mean a
> > commitment to being a dumbass!  I try to learn from everything. 
> > Rational processes are part of the arts.
> > 
> > > 
> > > And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with
> > your > "gut feeling" or your "musical faith" either.  :)
> > 
> > I do my best to combine them.  Your example of songwriting is
> > excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the
> > process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach.  So
> > many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other
> > people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve
> > your ability to convey what you mean better.  But writing isn't a
> > science either, even though there are many known rules for having
> > better communication.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of R.G.
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 8:35 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!
> 
>  
> 
> Dennis Kucinich began inquiring again into impeachment for this 
> criminal President Bush.
> Hopefully, some of the rest of Congress will have the 'balls' to 
> follow this through.
> President Bush needs to be impeached, and held for murder charges.
> He has led this country into the abyss.
> I pray that either before or soon after Obama is elected that the 
> precedent that Bush and his morons have created is smashed.
> He is absolutely the most irresponsible leader since the days of Rome 
> and Caligula.
> Actually I believe he is a reincarnation of Caligula.
> 
> When Obama was in FF, I asked him about impeaching Bush and Cheney.
He said
> he felt it would be too disruptive - that Congress wouldn't get anything
> else accomplished - but he said that if elected, one of his first moves
> would be to have his attorney general review everything Bush and
Cheney had
> done to erode the Constitution, and that he would reverse those
decisions so
> as to repair the damage.


Charles Manson prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi testifies before Congress
on evidence of Bush's war crimes: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAFozFn4kU

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> > > > And maybe you should have added John Edwards having an 
affair 
> > > > while his wife battles cancer. Or maybe the baby John 
Edwards 
> > > > had with his mistress. Or maybe John Edwards telling 
everyone 
> > > > that "they" are the only one he has confided some personal 
> > > > details about his son's death. Oh yea, family values. The 
> > > > dems really personify them.
> > >
> > > Edwards is the Dem nominee?
> > 
> > No Lawson, he's not. But when Sal decided to come down on McCain 
> > for dumping his first wife, and touted Obama's successful 
marriage, 
> > and then sacastically referred to the Republicans as the party 
> > of "family values", I thought I'd hi-light the recent 
revelations 
> > of John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer. 
An 
> > affair he's had for four years, and may even have produced a 
baby.
> > 
> > Hey, guess what. Edwards is a lawyer. If the allegations are 
> > untrue, maybe he knows someone that can refute them and go after 
> > the Enquirer. That is, since according to Sal, the accusations 
are 
> > so baseless.
> > 
> > Lawson, let's call it like it is.
> 
> Just as a question, could "like it is" include
> the possibility that none of this is any of our
> damned business?


I am in 100% agreement.  It makes no difference to me what the 
pecadillos of a politician may be.  In fact probably the men we 
admire most all had something going on, on the side. Who knows, that 
may go for the women as well.   But when someone starts dishing the 
dirt and pointing fingers about how "their" cadidate and party is a 
better example of moral rectitue, well I'm going to have some 
input.  About the only thing I find offensive here is the hypocrisy 
os someone trying stake out the high moral ground in "their" 
politics.  Right. I mean, I may have born at night, but I wasn't 
born last night. 


  
> 
> I'm pretty sure that if I were put under the 
> scrutiny of running for public office, the press
> would have a field day with my indiscretions. 
> The incident in the hot tub with the cheerleaders
> and the eels alone would probably bump me off the
> ticket. 
> 
> The French had the right attitude about these 
> things as far as I'm concerned. Former president
> Chirac was a sonofabitch in his political dealings
> and basically maintained two families concurrently, 
> and the French didn't seem to have any problem with
> this. The *predominantly Roman Catholic* French
> didn't seem to have any problem with this. When he
> died, his wife and family marched in the procession
> side by side with his mistress and family. 
> 
> I'm uncomfortable with gettin' morally medieval on
> politicians' asses as if their morals or lack thereof
> might make them incapable of doing a good job as a
> national leader. Winston Churchill was a drunk. FDR
> had a mistress for 20 years. JFK probably nailed more
> bimbos in the White House than Carter had Little Liver
> Pills. Gandhi slept snuggled up between two young
> girls. Nobel Peace Prize winners have turbulent and
> sometimes abusive relationships with their spouses.
> Hell, Alfred Nobel himself was one of the "masters of
> war," an arms manufacturer.
> 
> Everybody has a closet, and as far as I can tell, 
> everybody's got shit in that closet that they would
> prefer that the narrow-minded and moral members of
> society not see, so that they don't obsess on it.
> 
> THAT they obsess on it does not mean that the politician
> in question has to obsess on it, or spend even a moment
> "defending" himself or herself against their accusations. 
> The smart ones, in my opinion, should just let the narrow-
> minded obsess and do their own thing, and see how things 
> work out. The Zen parable revolving around "Is that so?"
> springs to mind.
> 
> I've mentioned a film here a few times, and never "gotten
> a bite" on it. I think it's a very good film. It deals
> with moral and ethical issues, and with the role of women
> in politics or public life, and with how they are held to
> different standards than the men sometimes. And it's a
> good movie to boot. What is not to like about that?
> 
> The film is called "The Contender," and is about a woman
> who is nominated to fill the vacant VP spot for a sitting 
> presidency. Shortly following her nomination by the presi-
> dent (Jeff Bridges, who has never been finer as the Columbo-
> like stringpuller of the Washingtonian puppets), revelations 
> appear of an orgy back in college. What's a politician to 
> do? What's a WOMAN to do? What's a HUMAN BEING to do when 
> accused of something they don't feel merits a response?
> 
> Joan Allen gives what should have been an Oscar-worthy
> performance answering these questions. Highly recommended
> for those who have to wade through the muck of the U.S.
> presidential election media and need to be reminded what
> having real ethics entails.
>

[FairfieldLife] Iowa's worst lead polluter in FF

[Rick Archer]

Public News Service-IA

 July 10, 2008

Lead Threat Still Exists Years After it was Banned in Paint and Gasoline 
 
Des Moines, IA - Researchers have long known the health dangers associated
with exposure to lead. It was banned 30 years ago as an additive in paint,
and more recently removed from gasoline and other materials. However, there
are thousands of facilities around the country, including some in Iowa, that
still emit lead into the air. According the Natural Resource Defense
Council, the Dexter Company in Fairfield emits the most lead in the state,
over 10 pounds a year. NRDC lead expert Avi Kar says the element is linked
to heart, lung and kidney problems in adults, but does the most damage to
children.

 "Lead can cause brain development problems in children, resulting in a
lower IQ. It can also lead to an inability to concentrate and aggressive
behavior."

 The EPA is currently reviewing lead exposure rules as required by the Clean
Air Act, and they're proposing tougher standards for the first time in 30
years. But Kar says the proposal doesn't achieve what scientists have
recommended. 
"The science has progressed quite a bit and we've discovered that lead is
dangerous at far lower levels than previously thought. The last time EPA
looked at the issue was 15 years ago, and they failed to make any changes to
the rules then."

 Kar says the health consequences of exposure to lead are significant. The
average child exposed at the proposed standard of 0.2 micrograms per cubic
meter could lose two-to-three IQ points. EPA defends the new standard,
saying it cuts the allowable emission of lead by as much as 93%. The agency
is accepting public comments through August 4th.

An interactive map of lead emitters is available at the NRDC's website,
www.nrdc.org. 

Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access
an audio version of this and other stories:
http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/5629-1

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of R.G.
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 8:35 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!
> 
>  
> 
> Dennis Kucinich began inquiring again into impeachment for this 
> criminal President Bush.
> Hopefully, some of the rest of Congress will have the 'balls' to 
> follow this through.
> President Bush needs to be impeached, and held for murder charges.
> He has led this country into the abyss.
> I pray that either before or soon after Obama is elected that the 
> precedent that Bush and his morons have created is smashed.
> He is absolutely the most irresponsible leader since the days of 
Rome 
> and Caligula.
> Actually I believe he is a reincarnation of Caligula.
> 
> When Obama was in FF, I asked him about impeaching Bush and 
Cheney. He said
> he felt it would be too disruptive - that Congress wouldn't get 
anything
> else accomplished - but he said that if elected, one of his first 
moves
> would be to have his attorney general review everything Bush and 
Cheney had
> done to erode the Constitution, and that he would reverse those 
decisions so
> as to repair the damage.

Oh yea.  Vote to renew the "Patriot" act.  He's off to a fine 
start.  Glad to see he doesn't make empty promise.  Campaign 
financing.  Glad to see he doesn't make empty promise.  Discount the 
effect of the "surge" in Iraq, but propose it for Afganistan.  This 
is one "stand up" guy.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Obama moves Mountains'

[lurkernomore20002000]

Bob, there is nothing he couldn't do that you wouldn't applaud.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "R.G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Barack Obama is destined to become the next President.
> He is a very evolved soul, and carries the energy of Abraham Lincoln.
> Wherever he goes, he inspires and uplifts and brings people together.
> He is an inspiration to all the people of the world.
> 
> Osama bin Laden should fear Obama, because unlike the demon Bush, he 
> will pursue the evil one, and it shall be done.
> 
> Mountains moves with the power of a leader of such greatness.
>

[FairfieldLife] New file uploaded to FairfieldLife

[FairfieldLife]

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the FairfieldLife 
group.

  File: /Paths, Teachers and Cults/Guru 1.pdf 
  Uploaded by : rick_archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  Description : Former MMY disciple Dattatreya Siva Baba, the YouTube Guru, 
predicts a new age of enlightenment starting on this month's full moon. 

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/files/Paths%2C%20Teachers%20and%20Cults/Guru%201.pdf
 

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles

Regards,

rick_archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[lurkernomore20002000]

 
> No, But he's a Dem, good-looking, sick wife, so as such ripe for any
> idiotic rumor that one can toss at him.
> 
> Sal
>
He's a trial lawyer Sal.  Not one to put up with BS.  So can we expect 
a defamation suit?  Wouldn't we expect this.  Or is it a case of "I 
will not digfify that with a response" type of thing.  I'm ready to 
eat crow if the facts warrant it.  Are you?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[lurkernomore20002000]

"boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Sorry your understanding of law is about as deep as your preferred
> source of reading material.  You actually think everything rags like
> the enquirer publish has been proven true or else they can be sued
> successfully??
>
The article I read had details, video, interviews.  Start refuting.  
This was not some hearsay article.  This account was specific dude.  
Dates, exact times, eye witness reports.  Sorry.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[lurkernomore20002000]

 Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>

> I was kind of wondering why I hadn't seen the "revelations" before
> lurk posted them, then I saw where they came from.
> 
> Really scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't we, lurk?  If this
> is how you and others support the Repugs, heaven help them.  You
> and your party deserve each other.

Again. I'm ready to eat crow if the facts warrant it.  Are you?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[Bhairitu]

curtisdeltablues wrote:
> Not necessarily.  Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific
> method. I think the phrase scientific method is more useful than the
> word alone because that includes its virtues and limits.
>   
I think that yoga and the various yogic techniques are very fit for 
scientific inquiry.  And MMY certainly wasn't the first one to think so, 
it's been going on for centuries.  But "whatever rocks your boat." :D
>   
>> Ah, but there is "music theory" which is an analysis of how music works 
>> including yours.  Really good music producers will look for that
>> 
> element 
>   
>> when producing musical groups.  The Beatles had little knowledge of 
>> music theory but George Martin with a classically trained background
>> 
> was 
>   
>> able to take their musical sketches and strengthen them and turn them 
>> into hits.  Much of what he did was the application of the musical 
>> sciences and psychology. 
>> 
>
> I don't think these reach the levels necessary to be called products
> of the scientific method.  We could argue all day long about what
> exactly George Martin contributed, but music theory is part of the
> knowledge in the arts, not the sciences.  Science can study waves and
> physics can describe how a guitar string vibrates and why the notes
> get higher as the string shortens when we fret it, but how it feels to
> be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not
> science or universal knowledge.  It is personal opinion and taste.
>   
You don't have to argue about what George Martin contributed, he wrote a 
book about it called "All You Need Is Ears." :D

Most professors of music would tell you that theory is a science and the 
application of it is an art.   That's what I was pointing out.
>  
>   
> I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just
> because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a
> Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want
> that do we?
>   
I'm sure musicologists and students have already dissected Brittany 
Spears productions as well as others for why they worked both 
psychologically and on a (sort of) musical level. 
>   
>
>> And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with
>> 
> your > "gut feeling" or your "musical faith" either.  :)
>
> I do my best to combine them.  Your example of songwriting is
> excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the
> process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach.  So
> many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other
> people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve
> your ability to convey what you mean better.  But writing isn't a
> science either, even though there are many known rules for having
> better communication.
>   
As I already pointed out.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[Sal Sunshine]

On Jul 26, 2008, at 1:29 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:


No, But he's a Dem, good-looking, sick wife, so as such ripe for any
idiotic rumor that one can toss at him.

Sal


He's a trial lawyer Sal.  Not one to put up with BS.  So can we expect
a defamation suit?  Wouldn't we expect this.  Or is it a case of "I
will not digfify that with a response" type of thing.  I'm ready to
eat crow if the facts warrant it.  Are you?


Sure, lurk, if a DNA test proves otherwise, I'll admit I was
wrong about Edwards.

But you're studiously missing the whole point--the Repugs position
themselves as the Party of Family Values, over and over...you know,
Down with abortion!  Down with sex education!  Down with any
social legislation that could help families live better lives!  And all
that stuff.  So they ask to be judged on that basis, which I agree most
of the time doesn't matter much, even in spite of the fact that
Republicans seem to have a particularly mean way of doing it.  Even
the Reagans were shocked at McCain's callous behavior.

And you know as well as I do that *if* it had been Obama, or
Hillary, or any other serious Dem contender, the Repugs would
have been all over them like flies.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Ottumwa Courier: Pond scum to power? State considering proposal from MUM to create algae bioreactor

[Rick Archer]

Published July 15, 2008 12:14 am -

 

Pond scum to power?

State considering proposal from MUM to create algae bioreactor

 

By MATT MILNER Courier staff writer

 

FAIRFIELD - You know that greenish tinge the swimming pool gets when you run
out of chlorine? The same one that showed up when the filter on the fish
tank broke?

 

What if you could use that to run your car?

 

Some researchers believe that's possible. And the state is considering a
proposal from Maharishi University of Management to create an algae
bioreactor.

 

It's a fancy name for a concept that is really quite simple, and it has
several potential advantages. Algae use photosynthesis to live. That's the
same basic process as other plants like trees and grass. The key is
chlorophyll, a green pigment that drives the reaction.

 

Photosynthesis uses light to produce energy for the plant and also strips
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Oxygen is a byproduct.

 

An algae farm uses photosynthesis to scrub the atmosphere. Algae grows fast,
so projects based on it can expand rapidly.

 

And there are some industrial applications already being tested. Some power
plants are using algae farms to strip out emissions, since the hot, carbon
dioxide-laden gases are a banquet for the tiny plants. Other scientists are
looking at using algae as a food supply in areas that crops won't easily
grow.

 

But none of this, including your cloudy fish tank, is producing oil. What's
missing?

 

MUM Professor Lonnie Gamble has the answer. It's not about what the algae
produce; it's about what the algae is.

 

"It turns out that the bodies of algae are about 50 percent oil. We can make
fuel from them," he said.

 

It's possible to refine the oil into biofuel that can then power vehicles.
The MUM project is partnering with Valcent, a Texas-based company, to
examine the potential for beginning a university bioreactor to produce and
refine the algae.

 

The current efforts are laboratory scale. The university wants to expand
that to a quarter-acre greenhouse for the algae as a test site. Researchers
believe industrial scale production will require sites of at least 100
acres.

 

Assistant Professor Jimmy Sinton directs the bioreactor project. He said the
key for future use of algae is that the plant is not difficult to grow, nor
is it difficult to understand.

 

The Iowa Power Fund will give money to the project, though it's not yet
clear how much. The original request was $2 million, but negotiations have
not set the final amount.

 

The question is whether the process is in itself fuel efficient. There's no
net benefit if it takes more power to produce the algae biofuel than you get
in return.

 

The good news is that it doesn't take much to grow the algae. Some algae
farms use gas vented from smokestacks as food for the algae. Sinton is not
planning to use that process for his algae. Geothermal heat and passive
sunlight are enough, particularly on the small scale currently being
planned.

 

Algae farmers don't need much space, either. Rooftop farms are possible, and
urban production is viable in the long term.

 

Both Gamble and Sinton say the process is close to carbon neutral. That
means it produces as much carbon as a fuel as it removes while it grows.
It's a trade-off.

 

But expanded use of the algae can make it carbon negative. Sinton pointed to
algae as a building material as an example of how producers can sequester
carbon and keep it out of the atmosphere on a long-term basis.

 

Money is a driving factor for the research. The process works. But the
money-saving advances haven't come in yet. Sinton's current estimates are
that setup will cost $300,000 per acre. That number will fall as researchers
learn how best to use materials.

 

That's a lot, but the payoffs are big as well. Sinton put production at
30,000 gallons per acre per year at the trial stage. Full-scale production
could produce as much as 600,000 gallons per acre per year.

 

As with everything, research should find ways to lower the production costs
and raise profits.

 

"We're focused particularly on how to produce cost-effective biodiesel,"
Sinton said. "The answers are all there. Nobody's put them all together."

 

Matt Milner can be reached at (641) 683-5359 or via e-mail at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 


 



 

 

<>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[lurkernomore20002000]

 Lurk:
I'm ready to
 eat crow if the facts warrant it.  Are you?
> 
> Sure, lurk, if a DNA test proves otherwise, I'll admit I was
> wrong about Edwards.

Okay.  Doesn't really address the affair part.

> 
> But you're studiously missing the whole point--the Repugs position
> themselves as the Party of Family Values, over and over...you know,
> Down with abortion!  Down with sex education!  Down with any
> social legislation that could help families live better lives!  
And all
> that stuff.  So they ask to be judged on that basis, which I agree 
most
> of the time doesn't matter much, even in spite of the fact that
> Republicans seem to have a particularly mean way of doing it.  Even
> the Reagans were shocked at McCain's callous behavior.

You're right, they do trumpet these positions.  At least McCain, 
(and I am uncomitted as to who I am likely to vote for), has a more 
pragmatic approach to most of the above.
> 
> And you know as well as I do that *if* it had been Obama, or
> Hillary, or any other serious Dem contender, the Repugs would
> have been all over them like flies.

My take on the whole thing is that the incident is so typical.  I'm 
not even judging the guy if he did, or if he didn't.  Just that 
politician as a whole tend to get ensnared in the same prediciments.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[curtisdeltablues]

> Most professors of music would tell you that theory is a science and
the > application of it is an art.   That's what I was pointing out.

I'm not sure this is true.  I tried to do a search on this and can't
find anything to support more than a loose connection.  No one can get
any type of music degree that is a BS, it is always a BA not matter
how technical your focus.  That doesn't mean that science can't study
aspects of music but I don't hang out with music professors so you may
be right.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> curtisdeltablues wrote:
> > Not necessarily.  Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific
> > method. I think the phrase scientific method is more useful than the
> > word alone because that includes its virtues and limits.
> >   
> I think that yoga and the various yogic techniques are very fit for 
> scientific inquiry.  And MMY certainly wasn't the first one to think
so, 
> it's been going on for centuries.  But "whatever rocks your boat." :D
> >   
> >> Ah, but there is "music theory" which is an analysis of how music
works 
> >> including yours.  Really good music producers will look for that
> >> 
> > element 
> >   
> >> when producing musical groups.  The Beatles had little knowledge of 
> >> music theory but George Martin with a classically trained background
> >> 
> > was 
> >   
> >> able to take their musical sketches and strengthen them and turn
them 
> >> into hits.  Much of what he did was the application of the musical 
> >> sciences and psychology. 
> >> 
> >
> > I don't think these reach the levels necessary to be called products
> > of the scientific method.  We could argue all day long about what
> > exactly George Martin contributed, but music theory is part of the
> > knowledge in the arts, not the sciences.  Science can study waves and
> > physics can describe how a guitar string vibrates and why the notes
> > get higher as the string shortens when we fret it, but how it feels to
> > be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not
> > science or universal knowledge.  It is personal opinion and taste.
> >   
> You don't have to argue about what George Martin contributed, he
wrote a 
> book about it called "All You Need Is Ears." :D
> 
> Most professors of music would tell you that theory is a science and
the 
> application of it is an art.   That's what I was pointing out.
> >  
> >   
> > I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just
> > because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a
> > Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want
> > that do we?
> >   
> I'm sure musicologists and students have already dissected Brittany 
> Spears productions as well as others for why they worked both 
> psychologically and on a (sort of) musical level. 
> >   
> >
> >> And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with
> >> 
> > your > "gut feeling" or your "musical faith" either.  :)
> >
> > I do my best to combine them.  Your example of songwriting is
> > excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the
> > process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach.  So
> > many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other
> > people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve
> > your ability to convey what you mean better.  But writing isn't a
> > science either, even though there are many known rules for having
> > better communication.
> >   
> As I already pointed out.
>

[FairfieldLife] Like a Rolling Stone?

[cardemaister]

http://tinyurl.com/5bjafe

http://nbjackson.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/19106339.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> >but how it feels to
> > be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not
> > science or universal knowledge.  It is personal opinion and taste.
> 
> I know! Science and rock n' roll are like oil and water and will never
> mix. Scripture says so. Just because science has figured out that LSD
> alters the action of the neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine,
> and dopamine, triggering extensive changes in brain andsensory
> functioning, for example, enabling some to feel and see music and such
> has no bearing on what is really happening. The FACT is, whats really
> happening, is that theres a magical leprechaun inside everyones head,
> and when you take LSD the  leprechaun gets high as shit and starts
> jumping around and kicking his legs about. Sometimes he accidently
> kicks the back of your eyes which causes cascading colors and visions.
> Also, sometimes he accidently kicks the insides of your ears which
> causes auditory hallucinations. And he LOVES Sargent Pepper so he
> really kicks out the jams when you play it.
> 

Ok, ok, ok!

On the other hand, Here are some examples of folks who are "normal"
but have been seriously short-changed in the grey matter department.
I'm not sure these examples live happily with the reductionist idea
"It's the brain, stupid!", do they?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926645.700-how-we-can-learn-from-children-with-half-a-brain.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301-man-with-tiny-brain-shocks-doctors.html

(I once saw a documentary on the Kennedy assassination. It was alleged
that at the autopsy the Great Man was found to be very poorly endowed
with grey stuff. I have no idea whether that's true or not! But the
idea that we "explain" subjective experience by brain correlations
seems fishy to me)



> 
> >  
> > > 
> > > I'm helped other songwriters who have really bad arcs in their
songs 
> > > (started out strong and went downhill from there) fix their
songs so 
> > > they had better arcs and people wanted to listen to them and
> responded 
> > > with applause (rather than walk away bored).   And you don't apply
> > these 
> > > rules mechanically but rather test them if you notice that there
is a 
> > > weak spot in the music and then see if applying them helps.
> > 
> > I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just
> > because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a
> > Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want
> > that do we?
> > 
> > > 
> > > In composition you have devices such as retrogrades, retrograde 
> > > inversions, etc.  I turned a bunch of my musician friends to Gordon 
> > > Delamont's "Modern Melodic Techniques" as it was a very readable
and 
> > > usable tutorial on how to improve one's compositions.  Probably
> anyone 
> > > here who has tried to write a song has been stuck on what to do with
> > the 
> > > next phrase of their song.  They might have an idea but it just
> sounds 
> > > lame to them.  Sometimes if you reverse the order of the notes in
> > your > first phrase so it is a mirror image of it you come up with an 
> > > interesting sounding second phrase.  Or you can flip  the intervals
> > of > the notes of your original phrase which can produce an
interesting 
> > > second phrase.  These are all techniques that many musicians
> > including > the great masters have used down through the centuries.
> > 
> > This sounds really interesting.  Being an artist doesn't mean a
> > commitment to being a dumbass!  I try to learn from everything. 
> > Rational processes are part of the arts.
> > 
> > > 
> > > And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with
> > your > "gut feeling" or your "musical faith" either.  :)
> > 
> > I do my best to combine them.  Your example of songwriting is
> > excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the
> > process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach.  So
> > many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other
> > people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve
> > your ability to convey what you mean better.  But writing isn't a
> > science either, even though there are many known rules for having
> > better communication.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > curtisdeltablues wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > someone wrote:
> > > > > > Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your 
> > > > > > rejecting a lot of yogic science.
> > > > >
> > > > > I just said it is faith based, and it is.  I don't share 
> > > > > your faith. 
> > > >   
> > > > Apparently you think anything that has the word "yoga" 
> > > > associated with it is "faith based."
> > 
> > I would say that one cannot *deny* the element of 
> > "faith-basedness" in anything that has the word
> > "yoga" associated with it. The faith so permeates
> > the environment of anything that has the word "yoga"
> > associated with it that I don't think there can 
> > *exist* any such thing as "yogic science."
> > 
> 
> According to YS I 20, (asaMpraj�aata) samaadhi is based on, or
> preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]:
> "heart-putting" = faith).
>

Intersting though. THe word "faith" in the Christan Bible translates two words:
a Hebrew word coming from "right-handed" that implies "strength [in God]"
and a Greek word that implies "intuitive knowledge."

Neither means simply "belief without proof" which is how the word "faith"
appears to be translated in modern societies. I would say that the Sanskrit
word sounds reasonably close to the Hebrew and Greek words, and not at
all like the English word for "belief without proof," even though everyone 
appears to use it that way (including you, above).


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> And maybe you should have added John Edwards having an affair while  
> his wife battles cancer.  Or maybe the baby John Edwards had with 
> his 
> mistress. Or maybe John Edwards telling everyone that "they" are the 
> only one he has confided some personal details about his son's 
> death.  Oh yea, family values.  The dems really personify them.
> 
>  
> > Edwards is the Dem nominee?
> 
> No Lawson, he's not.  But when Sal decided to come down on McCain 
> for dumping his first wife, and touted Obama's successful marriage, 
> and then sacastically referred to the Republicans as the party 
> of "family values", I thought I'd hi-light the recent revelations of 
> John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer.  An 
> affair he's had for four years, and may even have produced a baby.
> 
> Hey, guess what.  Edwards is a lawyer.  If the allegations are 
> untrue, maybe he knows someone that can refute them and go after the 
> Enquirer.  That is, since according to Sal, the accusations are so 
> baseless.
> 
> Lawson, let's call it like it is.
>

Are the Dems beating their chests and saying "we're the party of 'famiiy 
values/?"

If not, then you're just trying to drag more people into the mix to make the
Republicans look less guilty of hypocrisy.

Lawson

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Most professors of music would tell you that theory is a
> > science and the application of it is an art.   That's what
> > I was pointing out.
> 
> I'm not sure this is true.  I tried to do a search on this and
> can't find anything to support more than a loose connection.
> No one can get any type of music degree that is a BS, it is
> always a BA not matter how technical your focus.  That doesn't
> mean that science can't study aspects of music but I don't hang
> out with music professors so you may be right.

He is right. Much of music theory is mathematical, for
one thing (ever heard of Pythagoras?). Then there's
acoustics, a scientific discipline one of whose branches
is musical acoustics. And of course there's psychology,
which has at least some hard-science aspects.

You can go at music either way, from the artistic side or
the scientific side, and there's a big area of overlap in
the middle.

Try searching for "physics of music."

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[Bhairitu]

Richard M wrote:
>
> (I once saw a documentary on the Kennedy assassination. It was alleged
> that at the autopsy the Great Man was found to be very poorly endowed
> with grey stuff. I have no idea whether that's true or not! But the
> idea that we "explain" subjective experience by brain correlations
> seems fishy to me)
>   
This may be a bit too "woo-woo" for some folks here but I've often 
thought that maybe the brain is really only a transmitter receiver 
processor  for a larger cosmic brain.  Never made sense to me that you 
could store all those impression in such a tiny amount of matter.   And 
then there's the little thing about if you get sick and part of the 
brain seems to shut down how the mind just seems to go on functioning 
regardless.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Richard M wrote:
> >
> > (I once saw a documentary on the Kennedy assassination. It was alleged
> > that at the autopsy the Great Man was found to be very poorly endowed
> > with grey stuff. I have no idea whether that's true or not! But the
> > idea that we "explain" subjective experience by brain correlations
> > seems fishy to me)
> >   
> This may be a bit too "woo-woo" for some folks here but I've often 
> thought that maybe the brain is really only a transmitter receiver 
> processor  for a larger cosmic brain.  Never made sense to me that you 
> could store all those impression in such a tiny amount of matter.   And 
> then there's the little thing about if you get sick and part of the 
> brain seems to shut down how the mind just seems to go on functioning 
> regardless.
>

John Hagelin's current theory  is that the brain is the ordinary matter 
interface  of some larger entity composed of dark matter.

/shrug


Lawson

[FairfieldLife] FW: Barry's fiction

[Rick Archer]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 4:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Barry's fiction

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> As always I enjoy all of your posts on FFL, and often find them 
> entertaining and to the point. Just to put to rest Barry's fiction 
> that I left FFL because of him, I decided to go simply because there 
> was nothing more for me to say. FFL in my opinion has become mostly 
a 
> bunch of people saying the same old tired things against the TMO and 
> Maharishi and the TM technique. Not at all what it used to be - very 
> little knowledge there now.
> 
> You may share this if you want to.
> 
> All the Best and please stay in touch,
> Jim

You may also share this if you want: I left because of Barry, yes, and 
I communicated this to Judy.  I am not sure if Judy had me in mind, 
but it is certainly true.

If anybody thinks that this is an overeaction, or is interested, you 
can look at the last post Barry wrote to one of my posts, and then 
compare it to the original post. To cut it short, Barry draws a number 
of conclusions out of my posts about my alleged opinions, which are in 
no way written there, and which I had made clear to him before, that 
they are not mine. I came to the decission that I would have to go 
into another round of what I actually think, and what I said, in 
opposition of what he declares me of having said. If anyone is 
interested - which I doubt, you can look. So I was simply tired of 
this game. My reaction my be right or wrong, you may call me 
thinskinned, I am simply being honest to you.

Why should I leave only for one person? Well, for one thing I knew him 
online for a longer time than many others here. Second, I feel he has 
a certain degree of support in the group, and he tries to dominate it, 
by his literary eloquence. This seems to count more here than logical 
argument. There is a certain casualness in the group which I find 
alienating. Maybe the group is simply too big. There is a certain 
amount of negativity and sarcasm penetrating the group - I can live 
without it. Now let me say that I have also had fruitful discussions 
here, and there are certainly people here that I respect and like a 
lot. I also had nice exchanges with Barry in the past, I even had an 
email exchange with him not too long ago, which was very nice and on a 
friendly basis.  I used to think that if we would meet in person, we 
could have a nice and very interesting talk. But our last exchanges 
made me feel otherwise - I may be right, I may be wrong, but I have no 
interest anymore. I just feel a wall of negativity descending on me in 
almost all of his posts. 

About Judy I can say that she has a remarkable intellectual power, and 
that she was always interpreting me right. Maybe I expressed myself 
unclearly or too abstract, she could always say what I had meant.  
That doesn't mean I agree with everything she says - after all I am 
following a very different way since more than 20 years - but its a 
capacity of understanding and intuition which is remarkable - yes 
right not just intellectual scrutinity, but also intuition.

I largely agree with what Jim wrote. Jim was one of the few perls on 
this forum. I have been off and on again, so people may not notice I 
unsubscribed. I must also admit that I had unscubscribed one time 
before. I only inscribed myself again after MMY's death and funeral.  
I wanted to give some information to some people here.


Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1514 - Release Date: 6/23/2008
7:17 AM

[FairfieldLife] Haiku

[Rick Archer]

There was a haiku contest sponsored by Grist magazine, on the theme of
Global Warming.  As you may know, one of the most common images in
traditional haiku is the frog.  Anyway, here is the winner:
 
 
A frog in water
Doesn't feel it boil in time.
Dude, we are that frog.

 

[FairfieldLife] Incense is good

[Rick Archer]

CONTACT:

Cody Mooneyhan

Managing Editor

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

Tel: 1-301-634-7104

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

Incense is psychoactive: Scientists identify the biology behind the ceremony

New study in The FASEB Journal shows how and why molecules released from
burning incense in religious ceremonies alleviate anxiety and depression

 

Bethesda, MD-Religious leaders have contended for millennia that burning
incense is good for the soul. Now, biologists have learned that it is good
for our brains too. In a new study appearing online in The FASEB Journal
(http://www.fasebj.org), an international team of scientists, including
researchers from the United States and Israel, describe how burning
frankincense (resin from the Boswellia plant) activates poorly understood
ion channels in the brain to alleviate anxiety or depression. This suggests
that an entirely new class of depression and anxiety drugs might be right
under our noses.

 

"In spite of information stemming from ancient texts, constituents of
Bosweilla had not been investigated for psychoactivity," said Raphael
Mechoulam, one of the research study's co-authors. "We found that incensole
acetate, a Boswellia resin constituent, when tested in mice lowers anxiety
and causes antidepressive-like behavior. Apparently, most present day
worshipers assume that incense burning has only a symbolic meaning."

 

To determine incense's psychoactive effects, the researchers administered
incensole acetate to mice. They found that the compound significantly
affected areas in brain areas known to be involved in emotions as well as in
nerve circuits that are affected by current anxiety and depression drugs.
Specifically, incensole acetate activated a protein called TRPV3, which is
present in mammalian brains and also known to play a role in the perception
of warmth of the skin. When mice bred without this protein were exposed to
incensole acetate, the compound had no effect on their brains.

 

"Perhaps Marx wasn't too wrong when he called religion the opium of the
people: morphine comes from poppies, cannabinoids from marijuana, and LSD
from mushrooms; each of these has been used in one or another religious
ceremony." said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB
Journal. "Studies of how those psychoactive drugs work have helped us
understand modern neurobiology. The discovery of how incensole acetate,
purified from frankincense, works on specific targets in the brain should
also help us understand diseases of the nervous system. This study also
provides a biological explanation for millennia-old spiritual practices that
have persisted across time, distance, culture, language, and
religion-burning incense really does make you feel warm and tingly all
over!"

 

According to the National Institutes of Health, major depressive disorder is
the leading cause of disability in the United States for people ages 15-44,
affecting approximately 14.8 million American adults. A less severe form of
depression, dysthymic disorder, affects approximately 3.3 million American
adults. Anxiety disorders affect 40 million American adults, and frequently
co-occur with depressive disorders.

 

The FASEB Journal (http://www.fasebj.org) is published by the Federation of
American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) and is consistently
ranked among the top three biology journals worldwide by the Institute for
Scientific Information. FASEB comprises 21 nonprofit societies with more
than 80,000 members, making it the largest coalition of biomedical research
associations in the United States. FASEB advances biological science through
collaborative advocacy for research policies that promote scientific
progress and education and lead to improvements in human health.

 

Article details: Incensole acetate, an incense component, elicits
psychoactivity by activating TRPV3 channels in the brain. Arieh Moussaieff,
Neta Rimmerman, Tatiana Bregman, Alex Straiker, Christian C. Felder, Shai
Shoham, Yoel Kashman, Susan M. Huang, Hyosang Lee, Esther Shohami, Ken
Mackie, Michael J. Caterina, J. Michael Walker, Ester Fride, and Raphael
Mechoulam. Published online before print May 20, 2008 as doi:
10.1096/fj.07-101865.
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/fj.07-101865v1

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[inversely quoting you]]
>I think the phrase scientific method is more useful than the
> word alone because that includes its virtues and limits.

Yes. That is the broader point I have been goofing around. That
scientific method, or elements of it, can be used in many aspects of
life. Its not SCIENCE per se, but can build a strong foundation for a
the more traditional sciences. And a much keener interest in such. 

And if science was taught like that in grade and jr hi school, at
least started out like that, it would get kid's attention much more.
At least i would have lit up. (And maybe some teachers do go down that
road.) 

I am suggesting teaching the basic traits of scientific method to
basic problem solving in real life things. Testing various techniques
to hit a baseball further, get more spin on your forehand, running
further and faster with various training and diet regimes, learning
more stuff faster and more comprehensively, getting more and better
dates, being  telling funnier jokes, knowing better when somone is
full of BS, etc are all things for which elements of scientific
methods can be successfully applied: defining the problem, genrating
plausible hypotheses, systematically testing each, using methods to
know when something is (usually) working and not just a random fluke,
etc.

I lost a lot of interest in science, unfortunately, in formative
years, when 7th grade biology was all about memorizing a bunch of
phylums and sub phylums for things I had little affinity for or
knowledge of. It was so dry and unactionable. I have yet to
sucessfully apply my 7th grade knowledge of phylums in real life. 

On the other hand, I had a 6th grade teacher (when I was in 5th grade,
I got to sneak into his class, that blew our minds with talking about
Gauss, Pythagoras and Einstein and the problems they were trying to
solve. And building tetrahydrons without any direction (here is what I
want to you build -- you find the materials and figure aout a way to
do it. Pure magic to a 11 year old when you create this beautiful 3-d
object from scratch an ingenuity).  I couldn't get enough of it. 

That was a great inspiration part of getting hooked on scientific
methods. Mr Costelli lit the match that ignited my imagination and
motivation for math and science. It just wasn't followed up by others
teachers later on teaching the TOOLS of science to solve real
problems. My problems. Or neat problems that had not occurred to me.
After memorizing phyllums -- I was so zed out with science, I
disdained it for years. Much to my diminishment. 

(Thats why Wiki, and the emerging Wiki University is such a huge step
in human progress, IMO. With the $100 internet able PC, and every
student, world-wide having one, bad and mediocre and uninspiring
teachers can be bypassed and the natural inquisitiveness of kids can
find an infinite source to drink upon. Hqave you ever met a 3-4 year
old for whmo 50% of their word cound is not , "why?" (more like
why?!??!!!)

>  Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific
> method. 

Scrchchtz! Say what? I agree with your distinction above --
and that, my example, the Science of Getting Laid" is not a hard
Science (12 year old chuckle) but it is a hugely ripe area for
applying the scientific method -- and would turn millions of kids onto
scientific method -- and some onto hard science. What subject is not
applicable to at least some elements of scientific method -- in their
most basic forms? 

I am not saying its all science. There is "art". But I just don't see
a huge chasm between the two.  

[FairfieldLife] Article on stress-free schools

[Rick Archer]

LA Yoga Magazine

Adjusting Brain Waves, One School At A Time

 

To view this article online, go to:

  http://tinyurl.com/5qzw2v

 

 

-

LA Yoga Magazine

Adjusting Brain Waves, One School At A Time 

 

Written by Julie Deife   

 

Hope is in the air. It could mean student success and systemic change for a
failing education system, and it is coming from an unusual source: the
Transcendental Meditation (TM) program introduced to the world more than 40
years ago by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, rebranded and artfully packaged as
Stress-Free Schools.

 

The TM Stress-Free Schools program has been adopted in thirteen schools
nationwide, most of them in only the last three years,after the David Lynch
Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace turned its
focus to this cause. Stress-Free Schools' emergence coincides with a surge
of interest in consciousness and a national fear that our schools are
failing. No small coincidence either that meditation is no longer a stranger
to mainstream America or that the Transcendental Meditation program has
played a large part in this marvel that didn't happen overnight.

 

Transcendental Meditation is an ancient technique derived from Vedic wisdom.
It allows the practitioner to contact the field of pure being, the limitless
ocean of life described by physicists as the Unified Field.Learning TM
involves receiving a mantra (sacred syllable) and instructions from a TM
teacher. The student learns to let go and 'dive in' to the field of pure
consciousness, twice daily for about twenty minutes each session through
silent repetition of the mantra to focus the mind. Other meditation
techniques may also facilitate entry into the Unified Field for dedicated
practitioners over time, but the spread of TM has been quickened through its
simplicity and ability to produce fast results.

 

Early on an astute Maharishi invited scientists to research the effects of
TM, a move that yielded over 600 published scientific studies, many of which
have been verified independently. TM researchers collected a body of
evidence showing TM reduces stress, increases IQ scores, improves brain
function and brain coherence, improves job satisfaction and productivity,
reduces substance and alcohol abuse, decreases violent behaviors and
positively impacts a host of other issues that students and schools grapple
with daily.

 

World-renowned filmmaker David Lynch (Twin Peaks, Mulholland Drive,
Eraserhead, Inland Empire) came to TM thirty-four years ago as a
self-described "fairly miserable struggling artist," because he heard a
distinct change in his sister's voice after she'd begun practicing TM.
Today, after not missing a single meditation session in all that time, Lynch
is an unusually articulate spokesperson for Transcendental Meditation,
consciousness and creativity, publicly testifying to the power of TM by
recounting his experiences. Lynch is one of many high-profile individuals
attracted to TM and the Maharishi; most notably was the Beatles whose fame
and political positions helped popularize TM.

 

Lynch describes accessing the Unified Field as "pure bliss," "transcendent,"
"thrilling" and "every human's birthright" - language that is probably not
going to convince school boards that students should do TM. He does,
however, paint a clearer construct of Consciousness-based Education through
a nature-based analogy wherein the Unified Field is likened to an actual
field of soil. As with any field, if the soil is tended well, the plants
will be healthier, Lynch explains. When the focus is on the leaves as
opposed to the condition of the soil, it exemplifies a symptomatic approach
akin to prescribing drugs for the leaves of violence, anger, hatred or fear
that are a result of bad soil. As the soil of pure consciousness expands
unhealthy leaves will be replaced by leaves of peace, love, harmony and
creativity.

 

The David Lynch Foundation initially focused its efforts on peace through
the TM program, predominantly on college campuses. Recently the emphasis
shifted to teenagers and the idea of education reform, supporting work
already begun by the Maharishi organization. Through the Foundation, David
Lynch has made a commitment to "ensure that any child in America and around
the world who would like to learn to meditate can." Finding the means to
fulfill this promise is at least as astounding as the promise itself since
the standard cost to learn TM is $2,500 per person. Even with this
generosity and dedication, skepticism toward a meditation program in an
educational setting can be a daunting hurdle to overcome among traditionally
trained educators focused on accountability.

 

"If you told me I was going to be doing this [school-wide Transcendental
Meditation] in my school a few years ago, I never would have believed it,"
said the principal of an inner-city urban public middle school in the San
Francisco Unified School District about the 

[FairfieldLife] Real levitation ?

[Rick Archer]

Hi Rick,

some of our sidhis are already heavy into
science.

Since we where bored and fucked up of
the possible results after some decades of
"hopping", others, who never where in the
direct meditating, took all mmy-news as
complete reality, and took their road into
the possibilities from other angles 
This is from:
http://www.creativecosmos.org/PlanetaryForum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1092
 Image  
Pic from - http://english.pravda.ru  

Levitation has been elevated from being pure science fiction to science
fact, according to a study reported today by physicists.

In earlier work the same team of theoretical physicists showed that
invisibility cloaks are feasible.

Now, in another report that sounds like it comes out of the pages of a Harry
Potter book, the University of St Andrews team has created an 'incredible
levitation effects' by engineering the force of nature which normally causes
objects to stick together.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[curtisdeltablues]

I am aware of the math and physics behind music.  But when I was
thinking of music theory I was thinking of harmony and melody and
other aspects of composition.  It takes engineering to build a piano
but we would say that studying piano involves engineering would we?

I don't think people studying music theory are spending a lot of time
working out sine wave analysis of string lengths, even though as you
mention it lies as a core understanding of all string instruments. 
Music theory like melody, and harmony, rhythm and scales are highly
influenced by culture and I'm not sure it is referred to as a science.

But again maybe some do, I don't have much contact with academics. 
I'll ask my singing teacher who went the classical Peabody study route.  






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > > Most professors of music would tell you that theory is a
> > > science and the application of it is an art.   That's what
> > > I was pointing out.
> > 
> > I'm not sure this is true.  I tried to do a search on this and
> > can't find anything to support more than a loose connection.
> > No one can get any type of music degree that is a BS, it is
> > always a BA not matter how technical your focus.  That doesn't
> > mean that science can't study aspects of music but I don't hang
> > out with music professors so you may be right.
> 
> He is right. Much of music theory is mathematical, for
> one thing (ever heard of Pythagoras?). Then there's
> acoustics, a scientific discipline one of whose branches
> is musical acoustics. And of course there's psychology,
> which has at least some hard-science aspects.
> 
> You can go at music either way, from the artistic side or
> the scientific side, and there's a big area of overlap in
> the middle.
> 
> Try searching for "physics of music."
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[curtisdeltablues]

> >  Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific
> > method. 
> 
> Scrchchtz! Say what? I agree with your distinction above --
> and that, my example, the Science of Getting Laid" is not a hard
> Science (12 year old chuckle) but it is a hugely ripe area for
> applying the scientific method -- and would turn millions of kids onto
> scientific method -- and some onto hard science. What subject is not
> applicable to at least some elements of scientific method -- in their
> most basic forms? 
> 
> I am not saying its all science. There is "art". But I just don't see
> a huge chasm between the two.

I agree with your use of feedback mechanisms in real life.  I'm just
saying that some subjects go though too much reductionism when you try
to fit them into the methods of hard science and that includes some
areas of the soft sciences.  So trying to claim that a philosophy of
life is more scientific than another seems like a misuse of the term.
 For example if you tried to claim that it was scientifically proven
that groups of people sitting around thinking meaningless sounds
created world peace.  That claim would be silly and no educated person
would take it seriously...right?  It might be a delightful belief, but
it wouldn't be scientific even with a bunch of "sciency" sounding
studies claiming to prove it. 




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> [inversely quoting you]]
> >I think the phrase scientific method is more useful than the
> > word alone because that includes its virtues and limits.
> 
> Yes. That is the broader point I have been goofing around. That
> scientific method, or elements of it, can be used in many aspects of
> life. Its not SCIENCE per se, but can build a strong foundation for a
> the more traditional sciences. And a much keener interest in such. 
> 
> And if science was taught like that in grade and jr hi school, at
> least started out like that, it would get kid's attention much more.
> At least i would have lit up. (And maybe some teachers do go down that
> road.) 
> 
> I am suggesting teaching the basic traits of scientific method to
> basic problem solving in real life things. Testing various techniques
> to hit a baseball further, get more spin on your forehand, running
> further and faster with various training and diet regimes, learning
> more stuff faster and more comprehensively, getting more and better
> dates, being  telling funnier jokes, knowing better when somone is
> full of BS, etc are all things for which elements of scientific
> methods can be successfully applied: defining the problem, genrating
> plausible hypotheses, systematically testing each, using methods to
> know when something is (usually) working and not just a random fluke,
> etc.
> 
> I lost a lot of interest in science, unfortunately, in formative
> years, when 7th grade biology was all about memorizing a bunch of
> phylums and sub phylums for things I had little affinity for or
> knowledge of. It was so dry and unactionable. I have yet to
> sucessfully apply my 7th grade knowledge of phylums in real life. 
> 
> On the other hand, I had a 6th grade teacher (when I was in 5th grade,
> I got to sneak into his class, that blew our minds with talking about
> Gauss, Pythagoras and Einstein and the problems they were trying to
> solve. And building tetrahydrons without any direction (here is what I
> want to you build -- you find the materials and figure aout a way to
> do it. Pure magic to a 11 year old when you create this beautiful 3-d
> object from scratch an ingenuity).  I couldn't get enough of it. 
> 
> That was a great inspiration part of getting hooked on scientific
> methods. Mr Costelli lit the match that ignited my imagination and
> motivation for math and science. It just wasn't followed up by others
> teachers later on teaching the TOOLS of science to solve real
> problems. My problems. Or neat problems that had not occurred to me.
> After memorizing phyllums -- I was so zed out with science, I
> disdained it for years. Much to my diminishment. 
> 
> (Thats why Wiki, and the emerging Wiki University is such a huge step
> in human progress, IMO. With the $100 internet able PC, and every
> student, world-wide having one, bad and mediocre and uninspiring
> teachers can be bypassed and the natural inquisitiveness of kids can
> find an infinite source to drink upon. Hqave you ever met a 3-4 year
> old for whmo 50% of their word cound is not , "why?" (more like
> why?!??!!!)
> 
> >  Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific
> > method. 
> 
> Scrchchtz! Say what? I agree with your distinction above --
> and that, my example, the Science of Getting Laid" is not a hard
> Science (12 year old chuckle) but it is a hugely ripe area for
> applying the scientific method -- and would turn millions of kids onto
> scientific method -- and some onto hard scienc

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > curtisdeltablues wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > someone wrote:
> > > > > > > Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your 
> > > > > > > rejecting a lot of yogic science.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just said it is faith based, and it is.  I don't share 
> > > > > > your faith. 
> > > > >   
> > > > > Apparently you think anything that has the word "yoga" 
> > > > > associated with it is "faith based."
> > > 
> > > I would say that one cannot *deny* the element of 
> > > "faith-basedness" in anything that has the word
> > > "yoga" associated with it. The faith so permeates
> > > the environment of anything that has the word "yoga"
> > > associated with it that I don't think there can 
> > > *exist* any such thing as "yogic science."
> > > 
> > 
> > According to YS I 20, (asaMpraj�aata) samaadhi is based on, or
> > preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]:
> > "heart-putting" = faith).
> >
> 
> Intersting though. THe word "faith" in the Christan Bible translates
two words:
> a Hebrew word coming from "right-handed" that implies "strength [in
God]"
> and a Greek word that implies "intuitive knowledge."
> 
> Neither means simply "belief without proof" which is how the word
"faith"
> appears to be translated in modern societies. I would say that the
Sanskrit
> word sounds reasonably close to the Hebrew and Greek words, and not at
> all like the English word for "belief without proof," even though
everyone 
> appears to use it that way (including you, above).
> 
> 
> Lawson
>

Vyaasa's comment goes like this:

shraddhaa cetasaH saMprasaadaH | saa hi jananiiva kalyaaNii yoginaM
paati |

One possible "translation" could be:

Faith is saMprasaada[1] of mind (cetasaH) | It protects (paati[3]) 
a yogii (yoginam) like (iva) a kalyaaNii[2] mother (jananii).

1. samprasAda   m. perfect quiet (esp. mental repose during deep sleep)
S3Br. Lalit. ; favour , grace Uttarar. ; serenity Bhat2t2. (v.l.) ;
(in Veda7nta) the soul during deep sleep ChUp. MBh. &c. ; trust ,
confidence W.

2. kalyANa mf(%{I4})n. (g. %{bahv-Adi}) beautiful , agreeable RV.
S3Br. &c. ; illustrious , noble , generous ; excellent , virtuous ,
good (%{kalyANa} voc. `" good sir "' ; %{kalyANi} , `" good lady "') ;
beneficial , salutary , auspicious ; happy , prosperous , fortunate ,
lucky , well , right RV. i , 31 , 9 ; iii , 53 , 6 TS. AV. S3Br. Nir.
ii , 3 MBh. R.  

3. pA   3 cl. 2. P. (Dha1t. xxiv , 48) %{pA4ti} (Impv. %{pAhi4} ; pr.
p. P. %{pA4t} A1. %{pAna4} RV. ; pf. %{papau} Gr. ; aor. %{apAsIt}
Ra1jat. Subj. %{pAsati} RV. ; fut. %{pAsyati} , %{pAtA} Gr. ; Prec.
%{pAyAt} Pa1n2. 6-4 , 68 Sch. ; inf. %{pAtum} MBh.) , to watch , keep
, preserve ; to protect from , defend against (abl.) RV. &c. &c. ; to
protect (a country) i.e. rule , govern Ra1jat. ; to observe , notice ,
attend to , follow RV. AitBr.: Caus. %{pAlayati} see %{pAl}: Desid.
%{pIpAsati} Gr.:

[FairfieldLife] Re: Iowa's worst lead polluter in FF

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Public News Service-IA
> 
>  July 10, 2008
> 
> Lead Threat Still Exists Years After it was Banned in Paint and 
Gasoline 
>  
> Des Moines, IA - Researchers have long known the health dangers 
associated
> with exposure to lead. It was banned 30 years ago as an additive in 
paint,
> and more recently removed from gasoline and other materials. 
However, there
> are thousands of facilities around the country, including some in 
Iowa, that
> still emit lead into the air. According the Natural Resource Defense
> Council, the Dexter Company in Fairfield emits the most lead in the 
state,
> over 1 pounds a year. 

***

Map of Iowa lead emitters:

http://tinyurl.com/5mx492

That's about a pound of lead per person in Fairfield -- that'll put 
some lead in yer pencil!!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[Vaj]

Hi New Morn:

On Jul 26, 2008, at 1:20 PM, new.morning wrote:


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



One may be simple translation. The word often used in the spiritual
sciences for the western word science is "vidya". However vidya has a
deeper meaning that the western term science, as it is less  
encumbered

by the taboo of subjectivity which stultifies western science. The
taboo of subjectivity


I Know! All that scientific, white-coat, pocket protector eggheads get
so riled up about cognitive biases and self-serving results. Whew.
When will they get a clue!


It's not so much a "clue" but an understanding and appreciation of  
subjective science. Since one is public and the other, subjective  
science is "private", it's a natural place for misunderstanding to  
arise.






in the west has a lot to do with the way the
scientific fundamentalism


You nailed it brother. What a bunch of literalists with massive
blinders on. I mean when they read their scientific journals, they
actually interpret each word in a precise and literal sense. No
creativity. No seeing the big picture of the Known View. No
understanding, a priori, of how things really are. I only pray to
Jesus that I will never fall into that abyss of ignorance.


Pray on dude.





came about but it is also a shared element
with religious fundamentalism, as both have placed a taboo on
subjectivity.


I Know! If they delve into subjectivity its only that intersubjective
validation crap -- where a whole lot of people need to agree that they
seez the same thing. I mean, GD it, I see what i see, and its the damn
Truth! no matter if anyone else seez it.


Well, that's not my point. It's only worth approaching any science-- 
subjective or materialistic--if we know the instrumentation we use is  
reliable. I would not assume "just because you said so" that your  
subjective "instrument" was reliable. In fact, I would assume, since  
refining an inner instrument to observe consciousness is an acquired  
trait, that you (or anyone) does not have the refined level of  
consciousness to observe subjective states. Like it's "outer" brother,  
it too requires training and established expertise.






Both believe they are heading towards an absolute truth,


Yes, if anything, you have hit the nail on the head. Their premier
tenent of modern science is the discovery and defense of Absolute
Truth, Once Absolute Truth is found, there's no looking back. No
counter theories, no debate, no critiques Specially if its MY absolute
truth.


Again, not my point. The point was not that science established  
indefensible, unfalsifiable absolute truths, but that public,  
materialistic truths are all we can know by science and inner truths  
are beyond the realm of scientific inquiry, in fact that they are taboo.


The reason science leans towards the absolute is because it's logical  
outcome, the defining of all of nature by scientific laws, could  
eventually mean that we could understand, scientifically, how  
everything works. This increasing knowledge of the physical world will  
therefore be the solution to all of man's problems. The idea of modern  
science as a search for absolutes actually is a prominent theme in  
Galileo and Newton and, as you point out, was replaced as new theories  
came about and were found to be more realistic ideas. But once  
established, such laws can not only be taken as absolute laws (e.g.,  
gravitation, "absolute" zero, etc.) it's also not unusual for  
scientific materialists to hold old onto their beliefs with the  
similar tenacity of religious fundamentalists. So therein lies the  
similarity.






one based on science's grokking of Nature, the other through the
absolute word of god.


I know! I hate that damn Journal of Scientific Groks. Scientists are
so confused that they all think Scientific Groking reveals Truth (the
ONE Truth)


Again, you miss the point. The point is that just as a scientific  
paper, that we must take on faith can be replicated, can move beyond  
mere faith by actually going through the steps to replicate and prove  
to our actual senses or extended senses (microscopes, telescopes,  
etc.) the validity of that paper; in an internal science we can also  
with a steady and refined instrument develop insights which can be  
replicated by following the same procedures or techniques by others.


The main split here is that one is inherently public (I can drop a  
bowling ball and a bag of feathers off the Leaning Tower of Pisa and  
invite all my friends to see it with their external senses); and  
another is, by nature, private. What I'm quietly thinking is generally  
known to me and not others. Just because it can generally not be known  
to others does not mean that it cannot be a valid medium for  
scientific inquiry.






The actual basis for what we call science is in fact based on Greek
and Hebrew religious and philosophical beliefs which all assert  
that a
god 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[Vaj]

On Jul 26, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Bhairitu wrote:

> Richard M wrote:
>>
>> (I once saw a documentary on the Kennedy assassination. It was  
>> alleged
>> that at the autopsy the Great Man was found to be very poorly endowed
>> with grey stuff. I have no idea whether that's true or not! But the
>> idea that we "explain" subjective experience by brain correlations
>> seems fishy to me)
>>
> This may be a bit too "woo-woo" for some folks here but I've often
> thought that maybe the brain is really only a transmitter receiver
> processor  for a larger cosmic brain.  Never made sense to me that you
> could store all those impression in such a tiny amount of matter.
> And
> then there's the little thing about if you get sick and part of the
> brain seems to shut down how the mind just seems to go on functioning
> regardless.


This also brings up the idea that if you can reach the source of  
consciousness through some internal process, can you separate  
consciousness from the body? And if yes, does that "prove" that  
consciousness is independent of matter and only interdependent with  
matter (i.e. the brain/nervous system)?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !

[Peter]

--- On Sat, 7/26/08, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 
> Swallows !
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, July 26, 2008, 11:50 AM
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Sat, 7/26/08, Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > 
> > From: Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop
> Circle grown from
> 3 to 5 Swallows !
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Saturday, July 26, 2008, 9:37 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard
> J. Williams
> > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 7:46 AM
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle
> grown from 3 to
> 5 Swallows !
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >But the area where the Oregon Shri Yantra appeared
> > was in the flight path of helicopters, and yet the
> > Shri Yantra seems to have been constructed overnight.
> > If you know anything about the psychology of
> perception, this is
> very easily explained, especially with a shape that is
> quite foreign
> to the pilot's' culture, which a sri yantra
> certainly is. The bottom
> line is that Bill W. and his friends made the sri yantra,
> so that is
> the foundation upon which everything else must be
> explained.
> 
> Well, if the aliens are smart enough to travel many many
> light years
> in short enough time to still be alive, and/or have
> conquored aging, 
> then doesn't it stand to reason that they may have
> disinformation
> methods that would blind and dazzle mere earth animals? 
> 
> Think man, think!
> 
> And if Bill had done it, wouldn't it be obvious from
> the big "earth
> shoe" foot prints he would have left?
> 
> And if mere earth teachers can make their students
> hallucinate,
> couldn't much more highly evolved aliens do at least
> this?
> 
> And have we proved that the pilots were not aliens also? 
> 
> And if anyone are aliens, its gotta be GWB and DC. I mean,
> just LOOK a
> them. And listen to them! If they let the 911 jets safely
> pass into
> protected air space, don't you think they could give
> brother aliens a
> free pass?
> 
> The truth is out there!

Somebody's having too many thoughts!




 
> 
> 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

  

[FairfieldLife] Astronaut Edgar Mitchell Experienced *Samadhi* in Space

[do.rflex]

>From The Discovery Channel:
http://dsc.discovery.com/space/qa/alien-ufo-edgar-mitchell.html


Apollo Astronaut Chats About UFO, Alien Belief [and His Experience of
*Samadhi* while in Space]

Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell returned from his mission to the moon
a changed man. He has spent the last 35 years trying to use the tools
of science to figure out what happened. Along the way, he says that
people knowledgeable about an alleged crash of an alien spaceship in
Roswell, N.M., shared the information with him.

He's been speaking out ever since, most recently on a radio talk show
that tripped off an unexpected wave of media attention. In a telephone
interview with Irene Klotz, Mitchell sets the record straight -- as he
sees it.

Irene Klotz: Hi Dr. Mitchell

Edgar Mitchell: Just a minute ... I'm sorry. My dog jumped in my lap
and knocked over my coffee cup. It's OK. Go ahead.

IK: What's your dog's name?

EM: Oh, that's Cutie (Q.T.?)

IK: Cutie?

EM: Yup, I've got two of them and right now they're telling me that
it's their suppertime and I must come in and fix their supper ... at
least that's what they want.

IK: Well first of all thanks very much for making a little time. I
wanted to ask you if there was anything about the radio interview you
did that was different from what you've said in the past.

EM: No, there's nothing different. Several of (the reports of the
interview) that I've seen come around have some flaws in them. Some of
the reports pushed it or spun it incorrectly. NASA had nothing to do
with anything I've done. I wasn't briefed by NASA. There haven't been
any sightings as a result of my flight service there, so if that part
of it comes out on anything you've seen it is just totally wrong.

IK: Yes, I did want to clarify that.

EM: My major knowledge comes from what I call the old-timers, people
who were at Roswell and subsequent who wanted to clear the things up
and tell somebody credible even though they were under severe threats
and things -- this was back in the Roswell days. Having gone to the
moon and being a local citizen out in the Roswell area some of them
thought I would be a safe choice to tell their story to, which they
did. Even though the government put real clamps on everybody, it got
out anyhow.

Subsequent to that, I did take my story to the Pentagon -- not NASA,
but the Pentagon -- and asked for a meeting with the Intelligence
Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and got it. And told them my
story and what I know and eventually had that confirmed by the admiral
that I spoke with, that indeed what I was saying was true.

IK: You mean what had been told to you was true?

EM: Yup, in other words. There was a UFO crash. There was an alien
spacecraft. This gentleman tried his damndest to get me in and like so
many others in the administration over the last 60 years, since JFK's
time, was unable to. He was told 'Admiral, you don't have a need to
know, and therefore go get lost,' essentially.

IK: Have you ever come out and said who this person was who briefed you?

EM: No, I have not.

IK: Would you at some point?

EM: No, it is out and around but I don't feel like I have the liberty
to do that.

IK: When did you have your meeting at the Pentagon?

EM: It was in the late '90s in Washington when I was there working
with The Disclosure Project, trying to get all those opened up with
another Naval officer by the name of Will Miller and Steven Greer, who
you probably heard of. 


SEE: http://www.disclosureproject.org/


Steven and I don't really work on this anymore together, but we did at
that point and getting to the Pentagon and seeing what we could do
there to try to get this opened up.

IK: Why do you think the government hasn't acknowledged that there is
life outside of Earth? I thought that was sort of the point of NASA.

EM: Well most people in government don't know. The government is
highly compartmentalized. You could work next door to somebody for 30
years not knowing what they're doing in certain areas. The whole point
of all of this ... goes back to World War II. This Roswell incident
took place right at the aftermath of World War II when the U.S. Army
Air Corps was split off and became the Air Force and the OSS (Office
of Strategic Services), which was the intelligence service of World
War II, was disbanded and eventually became the CIA. At that point the
Cold War was just starting to move under way and we were at odds with
the Soviets.

The Air Force was brand new and supposedly in control of the skies and
didn't know what they were doing, and the CIA didn't know what they
were doing, so Pres. Truman was in a big problem here: Here people
were telling him there were aliens around and nobody knew if they were
hostile or what they were and what was he going to do about it?

So he formed a committee, a very high-level military and academic and
intelligent people -- politically powerful people -- and said 'You
guys work on this.' And that was called ... the MAJIC 12

[FairfieldLife] 'Coming Out' about UFO's and Aliens - The Disclosure Project

[do.rflex]

The Disclosure Project is a nonprofit research project working to
fully disclose the facts about UFOs, extraterrestrial intelligence,
and classified advanced energy and propulsion systems. We have over
400 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses
testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs,
ETs, ET technology, and the cover-up that keeps this information secret.

On Wednesday, May 9th, 2001, over twenty military, intelligence,
government, corporate and scientific witnesses came forward at the
National Press Club in Washington, DC to establish the reality of UFOs
or extraterrestrial vehicles, extraterrestrial life forms, and
resulting advanced energy and propulsion technologies. The weight of
this first-hand testimony, along with supporting government
documentation and other evidence, will establish without any doubt the
reality of these phenomena.

Download or watch the press conference here: 
http://www.netro.ca/disclosure/npccmenu.htm 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Coming Out' about UFO's and Aliens - The Disclosure Project

[do.rflex]

MORE at website:   http://www.disclosureproject.org/



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> The Disclosure Project is a nonprofit research project working to
> fully disclose the facts about UFOs, extraterrestrial intelligence,
> and classified advanced energy and propulsion systems. We have over
> 400 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses
> testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs,
> ETs, ET technology, and the cover-up that keeps this information secret.
> 
> On Wednesday, May 9th, 2001, over twenty military, intelligence,
> government, corporate and scientific witnesses came forward at the
> National Press Club in Washington, DC to establish the reality of UFOs
> or extraterrestrial vehicles, extraterrestrial life forms, and
> resulting advanced energy and propulsion technologies. The weight of
> this first-hand testimony, along with supporting government
> documentation and other evidence, will establish without any doubt the
> reality of these phenomena.
> 
> Download or watch the press conference here: 
> http://www.netro.ca/disclosure/npccmenu.htm
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi New Morn:
> 
> On Jul 26, 2008, at 1:20 PM, new.morning wrote:

I am still not sure we are connecting here. First, per ground rules,
as you know, I hope, I am not satirizing you. I am taking some ideas
that, to me, don't seem "robust" -- and at some distinctions that are
not necessary, IMO. I use the technique, of moving the ideas to more
extreme applications to see if they hold up (for me) and if the more
extreme application is "funny" (to me), it tend the feel the
underlying idea needs more work. Thus, while I was having some fun, it
was not ridicule. It was taking some ideas out for a spin to see how
they take sharp corners.

And maybe I have gotten off on some sort detour, or into some sort of
satiric loop where I am missing some key points. I don't know. All of
this is an exploration for me (as with many of my posts) though the
path I take may seem odd and strange to others -- including myself
some days hence. 

For one thing, you appeared, to me, to be using a number of loaded
words. Which became the target of my half-wit brain. 

 
 sciences for the western word science is "vidya". However vidya has a
> >> deeper meaning that the western term science, as it is less  
> >> encumbered
> >> by the taboo of subjectivity which stultifies western science. The
> >> taboo of subjectivity

to me, loaded words: stultifies, taboo, even encumbered.

To me, what you are pointing out is that some knowledge is inside the
head, and some is outside the head.

 
> It's not so much a "clue" but an understanding and appreciation of  
> subjective science. Since one is public and the other, subjective  
> science is "private", it's a natural place for misunderstanding to  
> arise.
 
First, I don't accept the term science applied to the subjective realm
IF you are then redefining science to fit this inner realm of inquiry.   
I think modern science looks at a huge amount if inside the head
stuff. In modern "scientific" ways. Other investigators look at
internal stuff in ways outside of modern science. That doesn't  a
priori make one better than the other. But it doesn't make the other
means of investigation "science". 

> >> in the west has a lot to do with the way the
> >> scientific fundamentalism

Another loaded word -- that does not bring much meaning, IMO. But more
of an emotional response. if you feel science is fundamentalist --
first define fundamentalist -- because we may be taking different
things -- then point out examples where the majority of science -- not
  a few isolated cases are fundamentalist. Per my definitions if f.
and my view of science and its processes as I am aware if it, to me
this juxtaposition of words science and fundamentalism is looney. Thus
the satire of it. If you can make the aboe case, I am open to listening.

> >> came about but it is also a shared element
> >> with religious fundamentalism, as both have placed a taboo on
> >> subjectivity.

That there is a rift between various religious factions on the role of
personal experience vs grace and salvation for outside does not
"follow" or seem to apply to science which certainly does not reject
inside the head experience -- huge amount of research his indeed done
in that.


> > I Know! If they delve into subjectivity its only that intersubjective
> > validation crap -- where a whole lot of people need to agree that they
> > seez the same thing. I mean, GD it, I see what i see, and its the damn
> > Truth! no matter if anyone else seez it.
> 
> Well, that's not my point. It's only worth approaching any science-- 
> subjective or materialistic

Again, a false dicchotomy, and loaded words, IMO. materialism has
several meanings, a largly used one, which hangs over all uses of the
word, is a negative thing: crass, gross, superficial, shallow. I
hardly view science as that. 

--if we know the instrumentation we use is  
> reliable. I would not assume "just because you said so" that your  
> subjective "instrument" was reliable. In fact, I would assume, since  
> refining an inner instrument to observe consciousness is an acquired  
> trait, that you (or anyone) does not have the refined level of  
> consciousness to observe subjective states. Like it's "outer" brother,  
> it too requires training and established expertise.

OK. I have no problem that there are inside the head disciplines that
are able to get rid of (many) unreliable factors. As does science. But
I don't by, right off the shelf, any claim that some inside  the head
tradition has developed reliable instruments unless they run the
gaunlet of testing for unreliability that science (and the philosophy
of knowledge) have uncovered -- including, but not limited to
cognitive biases, logical fallacies, fluke and random events seen as
true and stable patterns, correlation seen as causation, etc.

As I said, I like what HHD.Lama said, and is doing, to reject tibetian
b. dogma that doesn't stand up to the gauntle

Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!

[Bhairitu]

Rick Archer wrote:
> When Obama was in FF, I asked him about impeaching Bush and Cheney. He said
> he felt it would be too disruptive - that Congress wouldn't get anything
> else accomplished - but he said that if elected, one of his first moves
> would be to have his attorney general review everything Bush and Cheney had
> done to erode the Constitution, and that he would reverse those decisions so
> as to repair the damage.
I think that is BS.  My Congressman says the same thing even with his 
constituency yelling at him when he says that.  They've all been bought 
and paid for, hence their behavior except for a few like Kucinich and 
Paul.   They'll all be in their paid for "safe places" when the shit 
hits the fan and the rest of us are running from the wolves.

[FairfieldLife] Naomi Klein on the "Extortionist in Chief"

[Bhairitu]

I was listening to her talk about Bush as the Extortionist in Chief on 
Laura Flander's show earlier today.  I always like Klein's clear 
analysis of the situation with the Rakshasa hoard that have stolen the 
White House:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/lookout

And we all know what eventually happens to rakshasas.

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[Bhairitu]

Yahoo Groups Post Counter
=
Start Date (UTC): Sat Jul 26 00:00:00 2008
End Date (UTC): Sat Aug  2 00:00:00 2008
-- Searching...

112 messages as of (UTC) Sun Jul 27 00:07:23 2008
Member   Posts

"new.morning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 13
"lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  10
"Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>10
"curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  9
"sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>7
Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>6
"Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   6
TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>5
Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5
Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4
Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   4
"do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  4
off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  3
cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  3
"R.G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>3
"turiya89" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  3
"authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  3
"shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2
"dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>2
"Brian Horsfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2
"sriswamijisadhaka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1
gullible fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1
"Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1
nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1
"boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>1
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com1
"Richard M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1
bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  1
posters: 28
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com

[FairfieldLife] Re: Real levitation ?

[shempmcgurk]

Since the only person on this forum that claims to have had any 
experience with "real" levitation (yeah, right) is Barry Wright, 
perhaps he will give us the poop on the authenticity of this photo.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Rick,
> 
> some of our sidhis are already heavy into
> science.
> 
> Since we where bored and fucked up of
> the possible results after some decades of
> "hopping", others, who never where in the
> direct meditating, took all mmy-news as
> complete reality, and took their road into
> the possibilities from other angles 
> This is from:
> http://www.creativecosmos.org/PlanetaryForum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?
f=3&t=1092
>  Image  
> Pic from - http://english.pravda.ru  
> 
> Levitation has been elevated from being pure science fiction to 
science
> fact, according to a study reported today by physicists.
> 
> In earlier work the same team of theoretical physicists showed that
> invisibility cloaks are feasible.
> 
> Now, in another report that sounds like it comes out of the pages 
of a Harry
> Potter book, the University of St Andrews team has created 
an 'incredible
> levitation effects' by engineering the force of nature which 
normally causes
> objects to stick together.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !

[new . morning]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 7/26/08, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > > >But the area where the Oregon Shri Yantra appeared
> > > was in the flight path of helicopters, and yet the
> > > Shri Yantra seems to have been constructed overnight.
> > > If you know anything about the psychology of
> > perception, this is
> > very easily explained, especially with a shape that is
> > quite foreign
> > to the pilot's' culture, which a sri yantra
> > certainly is. The bottom
> > line is that Bill W. and his friends made the sri yantra,
> > so that is
> > the foundation upon which everything else must be
> > explained.
> > 
> > Well, if the aliens are smart enough to travel many many
> > light years
> > in short enough time to still be alive, and/or have
> > conquored aging, 
> > then doesn't it stand to reason that they may have
> > disinformation
> > methods that would blind and dazzle mere earth animals? 
> > 
> > Think man, think!
> > 
> > And if Bill had done it, wouldn't it be obvious from
> > the big "earth
> > shoe" foot prints he would have left?
 
> > And if mere earth teachers can make their students
> > hallucinate,
> > couldn't much more highly evolved aliens do at least
> > this?
 
> > And have we proved that the pilots were not aliens also? 
> > 
> > And if anyone are aliens, its gotta be GWB and DC. I mean,
> > just LOOK a
> > them. And listen to them! If they let the 911 jets safely
> > pass into
> > protected air space, don't you think they could give
> > brother aliens a
> > free pass?
> > 
> > The truth is out there!
> 
> Somebody's having too many thoughts!

But at least they are funny thoughts! Did you ever see bill all
dressed up in SIMS attire, blues suit and all, wearing earth shoes?  
Others did this too. 

My dad went to a lecture bill gave on TM for Executives or some such
thing, and he commented on this too. Thought Bill was a good speaker
and nice guy in talking to him afterwards, but said the shoes made him
look a bit of the clown. 

(The point being if you are going to play the game enough to put on a
blue suit,red shirt and red tie -- you appear  pretty clueless if you
add earth shoes to the attire. A TM lecture is not the place to make
one's little "blows against the Empire" statements) 

In the above comments, poking fun at the logic of some that "it must
be Z since A does not explain it" also seems somewhat parallel to to
flying leaps we all made -- and lectured -- such as in recent
discussions -- "different sounds have different effects on the nervous
system" ERGO our special sound will make you healthy wealthy and wise. 

And/or, the dogmatic stance, or confirmational bias, of taking a
conclusion as given, and then only seeing stuff that fills in the dots
in the right way -- to confirm the prior conclusion. "Aliens must have
done it" ERGO here are are a bunch of dots, chosen from 10,000 other
possible dots that sort of make the conclusion possible. And this sort
of logic can be pretty prevalent, in my experience, even amongst quite
smart and educated people. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Naomi Klein on the "Extortionist in Chief"

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I was listening to her talk about Bush as the Extortionist in Chief 
on 
> Laura Flander's show earlier today.  I always like Klein's clear 
> analysis of the situation with the Rakshasa hoard that have stolen 
the 
> White House:
> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/lookout
> 
> And we all know what eventually happens to rakshasas.
>

They retire comfortably with annual speaking fees reaching the 10s of 
millions of dollars?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[Bhairitu]

curtisdeltablues wrote:
> I am aware of the math and physics behind music.  But when I was
> thinking of music theory I was thinking of harmony and melody and
> other aspects of composition.  It takes engineering to build a piano
> but we would say that studying piano involves engineering would we?
>
> I don't think people studying music theory are spending a lot of time
> working out sine wave analysis of string lengths, even though as you
> mention it lies as a core understanding of all string instruments. 
> Music theory like melody, and harmony, rhythm and scales are highly
> influenced by culture and I'm not sure it is referred to as a science.
>   
Counterpoint is a good example of something that can get somewhat 
mathematical.  You're working with tension and release of it over a 
pattern of notes.  Yes some musicians would hate for it to be referred 
to as a science but when I was in music school there were two groups: 
the performers and the composers.  The former often received tutoring 
from folks like me (the latter) to help them get through their theory 
courses.  I always enjoyed theory from my first music lesson when I was 
8.  So I kinda understand why performers don't often "get it."
> But again maybe some do, I don't have much contact with academics. 
> I'll ask my singing teacher who went the classical Peabody study route.  
>
>   
And ask a few others.  Another professor at the university I attended 
was William O. Smith who some may remember here as Dave Brubeck's 
clarinetist on his early stuff.   BTW, Bill was also a TM'er and on some 
of the residence courses I attended.  I did some experimental music with 
him while I was at the U.

However we're getting a bit offtrack here and most yogis will tell you 
that mantras on the aural level have the same effect at the mental level 
but are even more powerful there.  Again most of them who have given it 
much thought in terms of sound physics would say it is resonance and how 
the nervous system resonates with the mantra.  And that is why different 
mantras have different effects.  If there are people here who don't 
experience that well maybe later

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[boo_lives]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "boo_lives"  wrote:
> >
> Sorry your understanding of law is about as deep as your preferred
> > source of reading material.  You actually think everything rags like
> > the enquirer publish has been proven true or else they can be sued
> > successfully??
> >
> The article I read had details, video, interviews.  Start refuting.  
> This was not some hearsay article.  This account was specific dude.  
> Dates, exact times, eye witness reports.  Sorry.
>
My point is that you can't sue a paper for publishing allegations made
by someone else.  I don't know what Edwards did or didn't do, but I'm
not going to treat and publicize allegations in the Enquirer as fact.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Naomi Klein on the "Extortionist in Chief"

[Bhairitu]

shempmcgurk wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> I was listening to her talk about Bush as the Extortionist in Chief 
>> 
> on 
>   
>> Laura Flander's show earlier today.  I always like Klein's clear 
>> analysis of the situation with the Rakshasa hoard that have stolen 
>> 
> the 
>   
>> White House:
>> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/lookout
>>
>> And we all know what eventually happens to rakshasas.
>>
>> 
>
> They retire comfortably with annual speaking fees reaching the 10s of 
> millions of dollars?
Like Mussolini and Hitler?

[FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !

[Richard J. Williams]

> I'd like to see Dr.Peter and his friends 
> do a complicated design in less than 
> halfanhour in broad daylight... 
>
I'd like to see Dr. Peter and any of his
friends simply draw a Shri Yantra on a
piece of paper with a crayon in a month or 
two! 

The most complex yantra, like the Oragon 
yantra, is the Shri Yantra of the tantric 
school of Sri Vidya. The structure of this
yantra is described in Shankara's
Saundaryalahari (Wave of Beauty).

Construction of the Sri Yantra:
http://tinyurl.com/6btvys

> ...AND without being detected!
>
Dr. Pete probably can't even draw a simple 
rorschach!

Rorschach inkblot test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_inkblot_test

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
>  wrote:
> >
> > "boo_lives"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry your understanding of law is about as deep as your
> > > preferred source of reading material.  You actually think
> > > everything rags like the enquirer publish has been proven
> > > true or else they can be sued successfully??
> > >
> > The article I read had details, video, interviews.  Start
> > refuting. This was not some hearsay article.  This account
> > was specific dude. Dates, exact times, eye witness reports.
> >  Sorry.
> >
> My point is that you can't sue a paper for publishing
> allegations made by someone else.

Boo, you don't know what you're talking about. It's
the Enquirer making the allegations:

"SEN. JOHN EDWARDS CAUGHT WITH MISTRESS AND LOVE CHILD!

"Vice Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards was caught
visiting his mistress and secret love child at 2:40 this
morning in a Los Angeles hotel by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.

"The married ex-senator from North Carolina - whose wife
Elizabeth continues to battle cancer -- met with his
mistress, blonde divorcée Rielle Hunter, at the Beverly
Hilton on Monday night, July 21 - and the NATIONAL 
ENQUIRER was there! He didn't leave until early the next
morning"

Read more (if you can stomach it) at:
http://tinyurl.com/627m9s

  I don't know what
> Edwards did or didn't do, but I'm not going to treat
> and publicize allegations in the Enquirer as fact.

Fine, but at least get the facts straight about who's
making the allegations if you're going to criticize
somebody else for doing so.

Also note the date. This isn't an "old" story, as you
claimed.

[FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- On Sat, 7/26/08, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I'd like to see Dr.Peter and his friends do a
> > complicated design in 
> > less than halfanhour in broad daylight AND without being 
> > detected ! :-)
> 
> So the default position is that they're made by aliens?

The default position is that some of them don't
appear to have been made by humans.



> That is absurd logic if it is true. Why not claim they are made
> by Zantars or President Bush's penis? I mean, after all, there's
> no evidence proving they are NOT made by said penis or Zantar.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am aware of the math and physics behind music.  But when
> I was thinking of music theory I was thinking of harmony
> and melody and other aspects of composition.

Sure, but math and physics are involved in these.

  It takes engineering to build a piano
> but we would say that studying piano involves engineering
> would we?

Bad analogy. (And some piano builders/designers are
also pianists. Many piano tuners are pianists.)

> I don't think people studying music theory are spending a lot
> of time working out sine wave analysis of string lengths,
> even though as you mention it lies as a core understanding of
> all string instruments.

Depends on who it is. It's one of the aspects of
music theory. Some musicians get into the science
of it.

> Music theory like melody, and harmony, rhythm and scales are
> highly influenced by culture and I'm not sure it is referred
> to as a science.

There are aspects to it that are found across cultures.
As I say, there's a big area of overlap between music
as art and music as science.


 
> But again maybe some do, I don't have much contact with academics. 
> I'll ask my singing teacher who went the classical Peabody study
> route.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
>  wrote:
> >
> > "boo_lives"  wrote:
> > >
> > Sorry your understanding of law is about as deep as your preferred
> > > source of reading material.  You actually think everything rags 
like
> > > the enquirer publish has been proven true or else they can be 
sued
> > > successfully??
> > >
> > The article I read had details, video, interviews.  Start 
refuting.  
> > This was not some hearsay article.  This account was specific 
dude.  
> > Dates, exact times, eye witness reports.  Sorry.
> >
> My point is that you can't sue a paper for publishing allegations 
made
> by someone else.  I don't know what Edwards did or didn't do, but 
I'm
> not going to treat and publicize allegations in the Enquirer as 
fact.


Remember the movie "Absense of Malice" with Paul Newman and Sally 
Field?  It was about a newspaper printing unfounded allegations 
against someone but because there was, supposedly, no malice on the 
part of the paper in printing the story, the victim couldn't 
successfully sue.

[FairfieldLife] Bush Accused of Tyranny and Murder

[Robert]

 








Michael Collins: Bush Accused of Tyranny and Murder at Justice Hearings
by Michael Collins Page 1 of 2 page(s) 
 



 

Bush Accused of Tyranny and Murder

Star witnesses, legal scholar Bruce Fein and former
LA District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi. M. Collins cc


House Justice Committee Hears Kucinich Resolution
Direct from the hearing
Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News
Washington, DC Part 1
Today's hearing on the abuse of presidential powers before the House Committee 
on the Judiciary turned into a devastating political ambush by Chairman John 
Conyers (D-MI), committee Democrats, and the extraordinary panel of witnesses.. 
At least 12 Democratic Committee members were present plus the Chairman while 
only four Republicans bothered to show up.
Belying their casual appearance in the committee chambers, the Democrats 
presented a well coordinated, hard hitting case against President George W. 
Bush. This led to a double climax in the form of surgically erudite testimony 
by conservative legal scholar Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration 
official, and former Los Angeles District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi's stunning 
summary statement. The best the Republicans could offer was inappropriate humor 
by Rep. Don Lundgren (D-CA) and a request to clear the chambers when the 
audience cheered Mr. Bugliosi's remarks.
The hearing resulted from the non stop campaign for the impeachment of 
President George W. Bush by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). That effort received 
an overwhelming endorsement last week with the votes of a 238 majority in the 
U.S. House of Representatives. The 229 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted to 
refer the single count impeachment bill to the House or Representatives 
Committee on the Judiciary chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).
The Kucinich Resolution - H.R. 1345 outlines the case for the impeachment of 
President Bush. Specifically, as president, Bush:
"Deceived Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction 
(WMD) to fraudulently obtain support for an authorization for the use of force 
against Iraq and used that fraudulently obtained authorization, and then acting 
in his capacity under Article II, Section II of the Constitution as Commander 
in Chief, to commit US troops to combat in Iraq."
There was speculation prior to the hearing that the Republicans might scuttle 
the entire process due to House rules that prevent disparaging comments about 
the president. Apparently they failed to read the entirety of House Practice, 
Sec. 25 which lists a number of negative comments that House members have used 
in the past and makes clear that they're available in the present.
"Few Issues More Important"
Chairman Conyers opened the hearing by noting that there are "few issues more 
important" than the actions of Congress to curtail the abuse of presidential 
powers. As a member of the House committee that heard the Nixon Impeachment 
case, he speaks with a certain authority. He listed the various abuses of 
presidential power by Bush laying out the case that his fellow Democrats would 
elaborate. The senior member of the committee, Republican Lamar Smith (R-TX) 
responded that he'd seen a lot from this committee but today's hearing was like 
"hosting an anger management class."
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), a strong advocate for the hearings, responded by 
pointing out that given the evidence of high crimes, this isn't a Democratic or 
Republican issue, it's an American issue. The Democrats continued the theme of 
gravity with Cong. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) referring to Bush as "the worst president 
our country has ever suffered"
Cong. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-X) returned to what would lead to the most 
devastating and startling charges of the hearing - the basis for the invasion 
of Iraq and the disregard for civil liberties through the torture of foreigners 
and the domestic assault on privacy. Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) responded that 
the hearing was nothing but "a do-over that amuses our terrorist friends."
"If lying about casual sex" is an impeachment issue, "then certainly lying to 
the American people about invading Iraq" is, responded Rep. Hank Johnson 
(D-GA). Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), another strong supporter of impeachment, 
continued the hard hitting attack
The Republicans were still not taking the hearing seriously when Cong. Don 
Lundgren resorted to nothing more than wise cracks in response.
Murder & Tyranny


The peroration came from conservative legal scholar Bruce Fein's testimony 
about the Bush administration's descent into tyranny. Had Bush showed up at the 
Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, he would have been barred at the 
door by George Washington, Fein said with confidence. He made the comment in a 
fashion that betrayed contempt for any defense of the Bush administration's 
behavior. Bush was labeled a tyrant from one of the best and brightest of the 
United States' legal establishment.
The finale was the testimony of former Lo