Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Machinelike or Random?
just say We don't know but the event is analyzable . . . then go home and have dinner with the SO. Instead of calling it 'random' - which is just woo for science folks who are afraid the conversation might degrade into talking about spirits or the soul. But then, I'm a hard ass : )
[FairfieldLife] Re: Machinelike or Random?
Claiming some event is random just means the event is too complicated and we don't understand it yet. So there is no calling a thing random, that is only being lazy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why can’t the world’s greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness?
the article isn't asking "Why?" but "How" How or from where does consciousness arise? Or, what is the fundamental reality - which might have something to do with the "What" we do now/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe and Species
01010011011001110010011100100001
[FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe and Species
A few thoughts that may lead nowhere . . . At least some of the experiences we have, for example looking at the moon, are stored somehow in the brain. We know they are stored because we can recall them later.Also, if I first wish for a turkey sub but then prefer a veggie burrito, these processes are also stored in the brain and in principle can be verified. IOW, in principle, the contents of mind can be verified.OK, so if transcendental c-ness is a possible experience, lets describe as 'being aware of being aware', then, how would this experience be stored, what would be the contents of the brain that would be retrieved in verifying the experience?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Origin of the Universe and Species
What sucks for the vacuum cleaner is that it was created from other stuff - and it's in a constant state of flux - meaning it's subject to modification, and in fact, is falling apart right before your eyes. Imagine sitting on the edge of a wild camp fire where flames and sparks are sporting and popping - certainly those sparks exist, but a case could be made that the existence of a spark is 'borrowed' from the fire, and the existence of the fire is 'borrowed' from the wood, and the existence of the wood 'borrowed' from the tree. Existentially, there is no difference between a galaxy, a vacuum cleaner, a spark or a neutrino - we may place too heavy an emphasis on life span - but in the case of every object, it's existence is borrowed. IOW, from time to time, existence can take the form of an object.
[FairfieldLife] Re: To my atheist friends on FFL
We can (and maybe should, that's not for me to say) hold all sorts of beliefs, but when the rubber meets the road, are those beliefs reinforced or undermined by experience as we live our lives micro second by microsecond? IOW, I take a realist approach to the question re the existence of god: god is whatever is placed before you.
Re: [FairfieldLife] How does one decide if a person's testimony is valid?
I don't think Niz is making an appeal to truth, especially any truth with a capital "T" - - but certainly he's making an appeal to honesty - honesty as to what if anything persists and what can one say about the here and now . . . and BTW, this is an honesty that no Mother would share with a child, especially at a bus stop.
Re: [FairfieldLife] How does one decide if a person's testimony is valid?
Words have meanings from dictionaries and various wiki's, and words have meanings from convention; but in any case, words are defined by other words . . . unless one is lucky enough to get a gesture thrown in as well. As such, much of what goes on here in FFL is semantics. I could build a case that nearly all what is referred to as Philosophy is really semantics, but to build such a case is too ironical for a hump day. Now, I think that Edg's plea for a distinction between awareness and states of mind is important - the actual words we use far less so. Everyone knows what is meant by states of mind, we've all seen, heard, tasted, touched and smelled stuff, we've all felt happy or sad, remembered Grandma's cookies . . . and etc. And folks know what is meant by awareness, we all know we've got it by the mental states listed above. But most folks will not see a need for the distinction between awareness and states of mind - especially the hard core materialists (ie those who believe this world alone exists) IOW, most people will see making the distinction between awareness and states of mind as hand-waving - as making a plea for some supernatural force or soul, or so called hard problem of consciousness. Is this really an important distinction? Depends. Can an individual locate awareness, as in, being aware of being aware? And is this not just another state of mind.This gets to the heart of FFL, putting aside any specific issues with Maharishi and the TMO, is there a distinction between awareness and states of mind -and is this distinction not merely semantics?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marco Polo Arrives
My first meetings with Maharishi were unplanned and pleasant. I was on TTC Arosa in '75 Being a country-boy from WI and in Arosa in June it was like a second spring and I took opportunities to go gallivanting in the Alps. One time I returned from a walk to find Maharishi had flown in on helicopter and was in lobby 'doing a line', I was lil sweaty and not dressed right and without flowers but jumped in at end of line anyways . . . I did the Namaste thing and he gave me some flowers and said something very cheerful. The second time and on another day I was in a bit of a hurry and came around a corner and saw the elevator doors closing so ran and squeezed in sideways and thinking what a coup to make it in but to my horror I banged into Jerry Jarvis who then almost banged into Maharishi. Jerry did one of his lil laughs and Maharishi was quite impressed by my move. Maharishi was in his announcing of Dawn of Age of Enlightenment phase, and he had sites where others were experimenting with Sidhis and he was helicoptering all over Switzerland so I suspect he was in a good mood. Anyways, that was my best elevator ride evah!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ramayan in Human Physiology-with video links
I also began by watching the What is the Self VDO and two thoughts come to mind. Firstly, Tony is sticking with the Shankara traditional presentation/philosophy that Maharishi employed. Now, whether MMY packaged his message in vedic iconery out of compassion, as in, that's what we were looking for in the 60's and 70's, that perfect balance of insence/beads and science smartness so that's what he gave us, or, that's all MMY knew and we swallowed it up - - - that's not for me to say. Shankara's wisdom beats talking snakes but damn it's wordy - - - not only that, but we end up with a seven year journey to an intellectual construct when it should have been presented as intimate and immediate. Secondly, Tony is sticking with that waking state mentality that there has to be some reality behind our experience for it to have meaning . . . like I just can't have me some pure consciousness without pointing to quantum states to give it substance . . . quantum states are modern day golden calves.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Live Stream | 30th November
I didn't make it all the way thru the video - did Hammond mention the George Burns / John Denver project and if it was considered a success or not?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Real names of FFLers?
I commented on this last week - I have no idea who 'Barry' or 'Jim' are posting under (for example) It really only matters for folks who are referred to by names other than their user/post name. If I told you my real name it wouldn't mean a thang - I didn't make the Most Wanted List.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
You are very good at quoting scripture and contents of text books (and there is a value to that), but when you look to the honesty of your moment to moment experience - What do you find? Put aside traditions and ancient wisdom - they are not relevant today - today its What are you bringing to the table? BTW, you don't have to tell us . . .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Consciousness Is The Ultimate Reality, was Belief in God is a form of mental illness
This may be above my pay-grade, but if one is a transcendentalist/idealist, then belief in classic cause and effect is incompatible with that belief . . . or one has to significantly qualify what is meant by cause and effect. Many folks who refer to them selves as transcendentalists/idealists are actually dualists, or simply rebranded materialists (I am not suggesting you are) Regarding the 'illusion' - when you pick up an object, like an apple for example, what does your experience tell you?When I pick up an apple, I see it's color and shape, I feel the texture and if pressed with a fingernail - I can sense the sticky juice, I taste the tart sweetness . . . and I remember apple pies and so forth. My experience of the apple is passionate and lively - Where is the illusion? Toss in more awareness and all you get is more passion - there is no illusion. 'Illusion' is just India of old - we don't need no stinking illusion in the 21st century.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
I've been around FFL a while, but don't post often as conversations quickly become too personal (I don't know folks by their given names) - and although I can wade thru muck and mire, way too much bandwidth is used up on folks dealing with their own emotions. and I can't figure out the forum software, an awkward and inefficient interface in my opinion.The older forum made more sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
Yes you got the spirit of my thoughts, and thanks for chiming in.The heart of it was this sentence: ' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material.' especially the . . . "and anything that interacts with the physical/material" because believing in anything that does not interact with the physical seems foolish no matter how one slices it . . . . and if it interacts with the physical, then it should be within the prevalence of science. So, to pull off an honest belief in God - - - to be a believer in the nonphysical (spiritual), it sure looks to me like you got to believe there is no matter/physicality, its all mind or consciousness, and believing this is some hard task, especially since we get countless reminders every day how hard and edgy the world is. So it's best to skip the believing part and go straight to the knowing of it, it's one's only chance. Pretty much all of us here in FFL gave it a decent shot . . . and whether or not we felt any progress or not, we either gave it up or kept going (with TM or anything).I am keeping on but careful not to ascribe any meaning to anything I discover(therefore I am an atheist).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread: 1) is a belief in God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable. the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental illness is, but the question is believing in the efficacy of trickle-down economics a mental illness could be fun : ) Re the 2nd question, I'm skipping is there a proof for the existence of God since it's pretty clear no such proof exists - and I'm suggesting: is a belief in God justifiable? We may believe in many things where there is no direct evidence, or no proof, but yet that belief is justifiable. For example, we may believe someone lied to us, even though we have no proof. [BTW - I am very much an amateur philosopher] I am going to restate the 2nd question as:Is a believe in the existence of component or realm beyond the physical/material justified? When I use the expression 'physical/material' I include anything that is physical/material, or anything that interacts with the physical/material. An individual who did not believe a belief in God was justified, would believe that the material/physical world was sufficient to explain all observable phenomenon, including the existence of the of the physical/material world itself. For me, I think the question is a bit of a red herring, but I admit to having read and heard nuanced and elegant expressions regarding the need for the nonphysical (spiritual) to explain stuff like value, and the moment by moment appreciation of an otherwise brutish world.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Could astrology be correct? The season in which you were born may affect your personality, scientists claim
these studies, should they be valid claims - - - how are these 'astrology'? How are these claims tying planetary and lunar movements as cause and effect to events on earth?For example, we don't need Astrology to explain the seasons.
Re: [FairfieldLife] A Charlie Lutes audio 'The Highest Teaching'
Buck thanks for observation - I've been thinking similar recently that it's not about the sutras or powers but the locating of awareness between - so I mix up the order of sutras and make up a few of my own because as Hillary would say what difference does it make? It's easier and more clear to do eyes open (mindfulness?). . . locate awareness and look at what's in front of me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Link to the invitation for Nov 30th
Has anyone commented on this George Hammond? Anyone know him? I'm from Madison WI and I think he hails from the vaulted Hammond family in these parts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: 'There is no God'
It comes down to this: When we get 'to the bottom of this' what do we find . . . a brute fact, an inert material process, or, will we find value, a nature, an innate disposition . . .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hawking: 'There is no God'
In order to make the statement that mind is an emergence of physical matter/energy - one has to make the inference there is physical matter/energy - and this is an inference that can not be proven . . . thus, why the notion mind is an emergence of matter/energy is 'dogmatic'. Perhaps its a reasonable POV - but dogmatic none the less.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Adi Shankara
Kali Yuga?We've been in the Age of Enlightenment since 1975.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jerry Jarvis' Birthday
A few years back they were looking for a volunteer to drive Bevan from Milwaukee or Madison or vice verse and I sure was tempted to sign up and get up to speed, lock the doors and get the grillin' on but then I realized that could back fire and get stuck with 2 hours of cookie-dough conversation and I didn't know if I had the guts to bounce him out at Oconomowoc.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ultimate Heresy
A long winded stawman argument . . . that others are idolizing one state of attention over another state is in your own head. For example, if you go to the doctor 50 lbs over weight and a smoker, your doctor may recommend 'a different state of attention', whether you want to make a change or not is up to you.
