[FairfieldLife] Re: A Word On The Nature Of Film Criticism And Spiritual Belief
ruthsimplicity wrote: > I, of course, would love to see you levitate and then see what I would think > about it. Most likely I would think you had learned a cool trick. Ruth, Really? Merely a cool trick? WTF? The red-flag aspect of all levitation reports is that the exhibition of such is done in a non-scientific venuesuch as that employed by Criss Angel who shows himself levitating high in the air with a crowd of onlookers -- but it turns out, he was on a wire and the crowd was entirely made up of paid shills, and the whole thing is a sham from the get-go and breaks the once-highly-held moral intent of magicians to not use camera tricks. Turq keeps insisting that he was in a crowd that saw "the Rama guy" levitate, and, yep, there's Turq saying "ain't no big thang...yawn." To me that's Turq's "tell" that he's not being on the up and up with us. It is one thing for him to tell us he's seen levitation one time, but he says he's seen it many times, and that's where the story becomes a tale told instead of a factual accounting. Why? Cuz think about it. If someone can levitate and do so "at will," it represents a complete annihilation of many foundational axioms of hard-won scientific conclusions. It means "gravity control" is possible. Tell someone at the CIA that you've got gravity control down pat, show them an act of levitation, and see if they don't hustle you off to a prison while they study you and see if they can make it work for their war machines. Tell NASA you got it, and they'll say, "Now we can explore the stars FAST." Why didn't Turq or any of the many smart folks who Turq says saw acts of levitation not "get it" that the demonstrated levitation was not merely a spiritual miracle but also represented a technology that foretold the complete collapse of the industries of oil, auto, highway construction, military complex and on and on it goes? If levitation is real, then all of physics must be reexamined. Turq and others should have known this -- should have told Rama to save all of humanity with this knowledge. To put it simply: levitation is a weapon of mass destruction. The power is so incredible, that no aspect of civilization would be untouched by its application to the real world. Yet no one in the crowd saw fit to ask Rama why he wasn't being kidnapped by some government and water-boarded until he told the secrets he must know to have obtained such power. If true levitation were to be performed, there would be an immediate, massive, world-wide shift of consciousness as it "sank in" that such an ability was real. Overnight, religions would gel around the concept and immediate start getting some of the people power back from those who'd been grabbed by scientific thought instead. The fact that the Rama guy wasn't kidnapped is a huge tell that he was simply faking. You simply cannot levitate for real in today's world with today's educated folks and expect that a clamor would not immediately arise that the levitation be investigated -- since it simply promises "miracles for the asking." It indicates that panacea-thought is practical. In other words, Ruth, not merely a neat trick. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Word On The Nature Of Film Criticism And Spiritual Belief
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > I wouldn't. I know that I saw it, whatever it was > that I saw. Hundreds of times. Among groups of > hundreds of other people, who also saw the same > things. > > But does that make what we saw a "fact?" I think > not. It only makes what we saw an *experience*, > one that can be interpreted many ways. I should > know...I have interpreted those experiences many > ways myself. Still do. I have always appreciated that you know that your experience could have a number of causes. I lean towards favoring causes that are consistent with what we know about the world and what we know about people. But I also know that we do not know everything about the world and everything about people. I also know that sometimes we are wrong. But in general, science is a building block process and what we learn is built on what we already know. We always can be wrong but we have to live in the physical world and make decisions so I make many decisions based on probability, not on the claim that anything is possible. I would not place a bet on the fact of levitation. If I was betting it would be on another explanation, from magic tricks, to group hysteria or some combination. I, of course, would love to see you levitate and then see what I would think about it. Most likely I would think you had learned a cool trick.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Word On The Nature Of Film Criticism And Spiritual Belief
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > Interestingly, I have *seen* levitation, many times, > > > but I make no assumptions as to whether it can be > > > done physically. I know only what I and hundreds > > > of other people SAW, and that could be explained > > > by having "seen" into a "parallel dimensional" > > > kinda reality in which the levitation was taking > > > place, whereas it wasn't in this physical dimension. > > > That, in fact, is how I've come to consider the > > > experience, because it explains *other* odd exper- > > > iences I had around the Rama guy. > > > > > > It could *also* have been some kind of placebo > > > belief-based experience, although I don't believe > > > in that as an explanation because there was never > > > any suggestion as to what one was "supposed" to see > > > or experience. Or it could be as Vaj has suggested, > > > and some siddhi that allows the person who has > > > mastered it to project a kind of Jedi "These are > > > not the droids you're looking for" brain-fog on > > > people and "make" them see things that aren't really > > > there. I am open to *all* of these possibilities. > > > The only thing I'm not open to is that I and all > > > these hundreds of others didn't experience what > > > we experienced. We did. Now we're stuck with trying > > > to make sense of what they might have been. > > > > snip, > > Isn't lack of understanding of fact the only reason for > > debate. > > Not at all. Personally, I think the only "reason > for debate" is a bad one. That is, "I am trying > to assert than my opinion is 'fact.'" > > Debate is usually a form of EVANGELISM, an > attempt to get others to "buy into" your world > view or belief system. The whole *idea* of debate > in most cases is that there may be *one and only > one* "right answer" to the question, and that one > answer is The One. It's the "final answer," the > "thought-stopper" answer, the "real" answer. > ++ I had thought of the debate as an opportunity to get more information on a subject and so have a more informed opinion. > I don't believe that there is such a thing as the > "real" answer. To much of anything, let alone > issues of belief and faith and philosophy. The > whole *idea* of debating these things as if one > could "win" the debate makes me LOL. > > > I would think that Turq's observation on levitating, and, > > his being a qualified observer, would make it a fact. > > Do you? > > I wouldn't. I know that I saw it, whatever it was > that I saw. Hundreds of times. Among groups of > hundreds of other people, who also saw the same > things. > > But does that make what we saw a "fact?" I think > not. It only makes what we saw an *experience*, > one that can be interpreted many ways. I should > know...I have interpreted those experiences many > ways myself. Still do. > > I would say that my OPINION about levitation, > having witnessed it, remains just that, an > OPINION. I know that Shemp would probably > agree with me that it's not a fact, except that > he would probably categorize it instead as the > result of cult brainwashing. :-) > > See what I mean about "different strokes for > different folks." YOU might believe my stories, > and lend them enough credence to consider them > "fact." But others, such as Shemp and Ruth, are > under no such obligation. > > Interestingly enough, neither am I. I saw these > things; I experienced them. But the only "fact" > in that sentence is that I experienced them, not > that they happened. > Different people have different internal programs running that enable them to process various inputs in their own way. What is obvious to one, will be nonsense to another etc. I just get a somewhat different conclusion from your observation- probably from a different RAM backup.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Word On The Nature Of Film Criticism And Spiritual Belief
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > Interestingly, I have *seen* levitation, many times, > > but I make no assumptions as to whether it can be > > done physically. I know only what I and hundreds > > of other people SAW, and that could be explained > > by having "seen" into a "parallel dimensional" > > kinda reality in which the levitation was taking > > place, whereas it wasn't in this physical dimension. > > That, in fact, is how I've come to consider the > > experience, because it explains *other* odd exper- > > iences I had around the Rama guy. > > > > It could *also* have been some kind of placebo > > belief-based experience, although I don't believe > > in that as an explanation because there was never > > any suggestion as to what one was "supposed" to see > > or experience. Or it could be as Vaj has suggested, > > and some siddhi that allows the person who has > > mastered it to project a kind of Jedi "These are > > not the droids you're looking for" brain-fog on > > people and "make" them see things that aren't really > > there. I am open to *all* of these possibilities. > > The only thing I'm not open to is that I and all > > these hundreds of others didn't experience what > > we experienced. We did. Now we're stuck with trying > > to make sense of what they might have been. > > snip, > Isn't lack of understanding of fact the only reason for > debate. Not at all. Personally, I think the only "reason for debate" is a bad one. That is, "I am trying to assert than my opinion is 'fact.'" Debate is usually a form of EVANGELISM, an attempt to get others to "buy into" your world view or belief system. The whole *idea* of debate in most cases is that there may be *one and only one* "right answer" to the question, and that one answer is The One. It's the "final answer," the "thought-stopper" answer, the "real" answer. I don't believe that there is such a thing as the "real" answer. To much of anything, let alone issues of belief and faith and philosophy. The whole *idea* of debating these things as if one could "win" the debate makes me LOL. > I would think that Turq's observation on levitating, and, > his being a qualified observer, would make it a fact. Do you? I wouldn't. I know that I saw it, whatever it was that I saw. Hundreds of times. Among groups of hundreds of other people, who also saw the same things. But does that make what we saw a "fact?" I think not. It only makes what we saw an *experience*, one that can be interpreted many ways. I should know...I have interpreted those experiences many ways myself. Still do. I would say that my OPINION about levitation, having witnessed it, remains just that, an OPINION. I know that Shemp would probably agree with me that it's not a fact, except that he would probably categorize it instead as the result of cult brainwashing. :-) See what I mean about "different strokes for different folks." YOU might believe my stories, and lend them enough credence to consider them "fact." But others, such as Shemp and Ruth, are under no such obligation. Interestingly enough, neither am I. I saw these things; I experienced them. But the only "fact" in that sentence is that I experienced them, not that they happened.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Word On The Nature Of Film Criticism And Spiritual Belief
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" wrote: > > > > > > Wouldn't an opinion based on sufficient experience and > > > observation be as good as a fact? > > > > I don't know about "as good as fact" but sometimes it is > > all you can get. For example, lawyers give opinions based > > the state of the law as applied to the facts. It is still > > an opinion and can be wrong, but their experience leads > > you to rely on that opinion. > > > > Other opinions are given based on knowledge of probabilities > > of something happening. These opinions are well grounded in > > knowledge of facts and often justify reliance. I bang my head > > on the wall, odds are my head will start to hurt. My blood > > pressure is high, odds are that a diuretic will lower my blood > > pressure. By lowering my blood pressure, odds are that I > > reduced my risk of a stroke. > > > > The nature of spirituality is that we are short of facts. No > > one knows what happens when you die. There is no heaven or hell > > test nor any reincarnation test. There is no test to show your > > consciousness is something separate from your body. All you have > > are many many opinions. Your opinion may have been held by others > > historically, but that is just more opinions and myths collected > > from the past. There might be mental experiences that are > > interpreted as spiritual, but there is no test to show that it > > means anything spiritual. So, in my opinion, based upon the lack > > of evidence, is that there are no spiritual experts so no one's > > spiritual opinion is more valid than another. > > Thank you for weighing in, Ruth. That was > really the purpose of my little troll, if > it had one. I find this stuff *liberating* > to think about, not challenging. > > So many of us spent so many years bowing > to and following the words of "authorities," > but just a *little* thought reveals that > none of these so-called "authorities" have > any more *basis* for their authority than > we do. And that's liberating, not scary. > > > But I have a caveat. Someone may hold a religious view that is > > subsequently shown by science to be unlikely. For example, that > > the earth is the center of the universe. In that case, I believe > > that the opinion that the earth is the center of the universe is > > not as valid as scientific evidence about the universe. > > Technically, I'm not sure we know that Earth > is not the "center of the universe." Sure, it's > just one tiny planet out on the rim of a double- > spiral galaxy in the middle of galactic nowhere, > but if the universe were big enough, maybe it > could be somewhere near the Brahmastan of that > universe. :-) Not that that would mean anything. > > > There never is absolute proof of anything, but "odds are" the > > earth is not the center of the universe. > > Yup. > > The only thing I think we can say with absolute > certainty is that if there is intelligent life > on any planet in the universe, there is an Elvis > Fan Club there. :-) > > > I personally believe that people cannot levitate. > > Interestingly, I have *seen* levitation, many times, > but I make no assumptions as to whether it can be > done physically. I know only what I and hundreds > of other people SAW, and that could be explained > by having "seen" into a "parallel dimensional" > kinda reality in which the levitation was taking > place, whereas it wasn't in this physical dimension. > That, in fact, is how I've come to consider the > experience, because it explains *other* odd exper- > iences I had around the Rama guy. > > It could *also* have been some kind of placebo > belief-based experience, although I don't believe > in that as an explanation because there was never > any suggestion as to what one was "supposed" to see > or experience. Or it could be as Vaj has suggested, > and some siddhi that allows the person who has > mastered it to project a kind of Jedi "These are > not the droids you're looking for" brain-fog on > people and "make" them see things that aren't really > there. I am open to *all* of these possibilities. > The only thing I'm not open to is that I and all > these hundreds of others didn't experience what > we experienced. We did. Now we're stuck with trying > to make sense of what they might have been. > > snip, Isn't lack of understanding of fact the only reason for debate. I would think that Turq's observation on levitating,and, his being a qualified observer, would make it a fact.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Word On The Nature Of Film Criticism And Spiritual Belief
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" wrote: > > > > Wouldn't an opinion based on sufficient experience and > > observation be as good as a fact? > > I don't know about "as good as fact" but sometimes it is > all you can get. For example, lawyers give opinions based > the state of the law as applied to the facts. It is still > an opinion and can be wrong, but their experience leads > you to rely on that opinion. > > Other opinions are given based on knowledge of probabilities > of something happening. These opinions are well grounded in > knowledge of facts and often justify reliance. I bang my head > on the wall, odds are my head will start to hurt. My blood > pressure is high, odds are that a diuretic will lower my blood > pressure. By lowering my blood pressure, odds are that I > reduced my risk of a stroke. > > The nature of spirituality is that we are short of facts. No > one knows what happens when you die. There is no heaven or hell > test nor any reincarnation test. There is no test to show your > consciousness is something separate from your body. All you have > are many many opinions. Your opinion may have been held by others > historically, but that is just more opinions and myths collected > from the past. There might be mental experiences that are > interpreted as spiritual, but there is no test to show that it > means anything spiritual. So, in my opinion, based upon the lack > of evidence, is that there are no spiritual experts so no one's > spiritual opinion is more valid than another. Thank you for weighing in, Ruth. That was really the purpose of my little troll, if it had one. I find this stuff *liberating* to think about, not challenging. So many of us spent so many years bowing to and following the words of "authorities," but just a *little* thought reveals that none of these so-called "authorities" have any more *basis* for their authority than we do. And that's liberating, not scary. > But I have a caveat. Someone may hold a religious view that is > subsequently shown by science to be unlikely. For example, that > the earth is the center of the universe. In that case, I believe > that the opinion that the earth is the center of the universe is > not as valid as scientific evidence about the universe. Technically, I'm not sure we know that Earth is not the "center of the universe." Sure, it's just one tiny planet out on the rim of a double- spiral galaxy in the middle of galactic nowhere, but if the universe were big enough, maybe it could be somewhere near the Brahmastan of that universe. :-) Not that that would mean anything. > There never is absolute proof of anything, but "odds are" the > earth is not the center of the universe. Yup. The only thing I think we can say with absolute certainty is that if there is intelligent life on any planet in the universe, there is an Elvis Fan Club there. :-) > I personally believe that people cannot levitate. Interestingly, I have *seen* levitation, many times, but I make no assumptions as to whether it can be done physically. I know only what I and hundreds of other people SAW, and that could be explained by having "seen" into a "parallel dimensional" kinda reality in which the levitation was taking place, whereas it wasn't in this physical dimension. That, in fact, is how I've come to consider the experience, because it explains *other* odd exper- iences I had around the Rama guy. It could *also* have been some kind of placebo belief-based experience, although I don't believe in that as an explanation because there was never any suggestion as to what one was "supposed" to see or experience. Or it could be as Vaj has suggested, and some siddhi that allows the person who has mastered it to project a kind of Jedi "These are not the droids you're looking for" brain-fog on people and "make" them see things that aren't really there. I am open to *all* of these possibilities. The only thing I'm not open to is that I and all these hundreds of others didn't experience what we experienced. We did. Now we're stuck with trying to make sense of what they might have been. We *could* have taken the "easy way out" and decided, "Oh...I didn't really experience what I just exper- ienced. I'm going to forget about it entirely and go back to my life the way it was, because that life was unchallenging." Many people did. Many people do this every day. Me, I prefer to deal with the exper- iences themselves and try to make sense of them, whatever the fuck they were. > My opinion is based on the knowledge of how the laws of nature > operate. I would rephrase that as, "My opinion is based on a consensus of opinion about the laws of nature and how that consensus group believes that they work." If you're honest with yourself, that is a more accurate statement. Your "knowledge," based on science, is no more authoritative than th
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Word On The Nature Of Film Criticism And Spiritual Belief
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" wrote: > > Wouldn't an opinion based on sufficient experience and observation be as > good as a fact? > I don't know about "as good as fact" but sometimes it is all you can get. For example, lawyers give opinions based the state of the law as applied to the facts. It is still an opinion and can be wrong, but their experience leads you to rely on that opinion. Other opinions are given based on knowledge of probabilities of something happening. These opinions are well grounded in knowledge of facts and often justify reliance. I bang my head on the wall, odds are my head will start to hurt. My blood pressure is high, odds are that a diuretic will lower my blood pressure. By lowering my blood pressure, odds are that I reduced my risk of a stroke. The nature of spirituality is that we are short of facts. No one knows what happens when you die. There is no heaven or hell test nor any reincarnation test. There is no test to show your consciousness is something separate from your body. All you have are many many opinions. Your opinion may have been held by others historically, but that is just more opinions and myths collected from the past. There might be mental experiences that are interpreted as spiritual, but there is no test to show that it means anything spiritual. So, in my opinion, based upon the lack of evidence, is that there are no spiritual experts so no one's spiritual opinion is more valid than another. But I have a caveat. Someone may hold a religious view that is subsequently shown by science to be unlikely. For example, that the earth is the center of the universe. In that case, I believe that the opinion that the earth is the center of the universe is not as valid as scientific evidence about the universe. There never is absolute proof of anything, but "odds are" the earth is not the center of the universe. I personally believe that people cannot levitate. My opinion is based on the knowledge of how the laws of nature operate. I could be wrong, but my opinion is at least grounded in some fact. I can't prove that levitation cannot happen. That isn't the nature of proof. But I do not put a lot of stock in claims that are inconsistent with how the natural world operates. Others disagree and say that we just don't know enough. Fine by me, but I view it as a long shot. When it comes to the ultimate question: are we more than flesh and blood, I am not going to say that anyone's opinion is more valid than anyone else's. Too much a mystery. When it comes to movies, music, art and the like, which are totally a matter of personal taste, I look for opinions from people who have taste similar to mine. No opinion would be "wrong" or "right." And that's all she wrote.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Word On The Nature Of Film Criticism And Spiritual Belief
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > So this post is a troll in that I am offering > > > people an opportunity to WEIGH IN on this > > > generalized subject. If you feel like it, WEIGH > > > IN and tell us whether you feel that your opinion, > > > or that of your preferred spiritual teacher or > > > spiritual tradition, **IS** "better," "more > > > correct," or "more authoritative" than anyone > > > else's. > > > > > > IMO, it's OK to believe this. The whole *history* > > > of spiritual belief and spiritual practice is based > > > on the belief that one POV or opinion is "better," > > > "more correct," or "more authoritative" than any > > > other. It's OK to believe that this is a forum > > > NOT composed of equals, and that some posters > > > here -- and their opinions -- **ARE** "better," > > > "more correct," and "more authoritative" than > > > others. > > > > > > On the other hand, I don't personally believe that > > > believing this makes it so. Me, I tend to believe > > > that IT'S ALL JUST OPINION, and that > > > none of those opinions are any "better," "more > > > correct," or "more authoritative" than any other. > > > > > > But that's just my OPINION. > > > > > > What's yours? > > > > > > WEIGH IN. If you feel like it. > > > > snip, > > Wouldn't an opinion based on sufficient experience and > > observation be as good as a fact? > > Assuming this is not a troll in itself :-), > I'll WEIGH IN. > > I don't see how anyone could assume that. > Although this is Just My Opinion, here are > my reasons for holding it. > > 1. Define "sufficient" experience. Have you > ever seen those consumer-protection TV shows > where they take a car with one fouled spark > plug that would cost $5 to replace to 30 > different auto repair shops and get estimates > from all of them? ALL of the repair shops are > "factory certified." ALL of the mechanics are > "suitably experienced." And yet the estimates > come back ranging in cost from $500 to $5000 > needed to repair the problem. Which one of > these opinions is the "fact?" > > 2. What would "experience and observation" > have to do with "fact" if it doesn't take into > account the point of view and state of consci- > ousness of the observer? > snip, Curious- are facts dependent on pov- I would have thought they were not open to debate. I notice that when I go out without heavy enough clothes in zero (F) weather I can be at risk of freezing and, I believe my experience points out a fact and, I believe in the same situation, you will freeze regardless of your point of view. Typing with two fingers, I probably should know better than cross swords with an expert. :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Word On The Nature Of Film Criticism And Spiritual Belief
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > 1. Define "sufficient" experience. Have you > ever seen those consumer-protection TV shows > where they take a car with one fouled spark > plug that would cost $5 to replace to 30 > different auto repair shops and get estimates > from all of them? ALL of the repair shops are > "factory certified." ALL of the mechanics are > "suitably experienced." And yet the estimates > come back ranging in cost from $500 to $5000 > needed to repair the problem. Which one of > these opinions is the "fact?" The fact is that this is what they've said they'll charge you to replace the spark plug. Their experience and observation of what it *should* cost to replace the plug may be entirely unrelated to what they tell you they're going to charge. And it's your experience and observation of what it really costs to replace the plug that tells you they're trying to take advantage of you. > 2. What would "experience and observation" > have to do with "fact" if it doesn't take into > account the point of view and state of consci- > ousness of the observer? > > Take a simple example: I was just walking along > the beach and saw two girls walking along the > boardwalk. Based on my experience and this > observation, can I state "Two girls are walking > along the beach" as a "fact?" > > Well, not in Sitges I can't. One or both of > them could be a man in drag. :-) Is the fact that one or both of them could be a man in drag based on your experience and observation? > And that just takes into account the problems > with "observation." Now let's throw POV and SOC > into the mix. If the two girls really *are* > girls and I say the same sentence above, is that > a "fact?" Well, yes, you might say it is if I am > in waking state or even Maharishi's CC. But now > assume that I am instead in Maharishi's BC. At > that point, do I still see "two girls" and "a > beach," or do I see one field of Blazing Brahman, > with no differences between the two girls, or > the girls and the beach? Both, according to MMY.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Word On The Nature Of Film Criticism And Spiritual Belief
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > So this post is a troll in that I am offering > > people an opportunity to WEIGH IN on this > > generalized subject. If you feel like it, WEIGH > > IN and tell us whether you feel that your opinion, > > or that of your preferred spiritual teacher or > > spiritual tradition, **IS** "better," "more > > correct," or "more authoritative" than anyone > > else's. > > > > IMO, it's OK to believe this. The whole *history* > > of spiritual belief and spiritual practice is based > > on the belief that one POV or opinion is "better," > > "more correct," or "more authoritative" than any > > other. It's OK to believe that this is a forum > > NOT composed of equals, and that some posters > > here -- and their opinions -- **ARE** "better," > > "more correct," and "more authoritative" than > > others. > > > > On the other hand, I don't personally believe that > > believing this makes it so. Me, I tend to believe > > that IT'S ALL JUST OPINION, and that > > none of those opinions are any "better," "more > > correct," or "more authoritative" than any other. > > > > But that's just my OPINION. > > > > What's yours? > > > > WEIGH IN. If you feel like it. > > snip, > Wouldn't an opinion based on sufficient experience and > observation be as good as a fact? Assuming this is not a troll in itself :-), I'll WEIGH IN. I don't see how anyone could assume that. Although this is Just My Opinion, here are my reasons for holding it. 1. Define "sufficient" experience. Have you ever seen those consumer-protection TV shows where they take a car with one fouled spark plug that would cost $5 to replace to 30 different auto repair shops and get estimates from all of them? ALL of the repair shops are "factory certified." ALL of the mechanics are "suitably experienced." And yet the estimates come back ranging in cost from $500 to $5000 needed to repair the problem. Which one of these opinions is the "fact?" 2. What would "experience and observation" have to do with "fact" if it doesn't take into account the point of view and state of consci- ousness of the observer? Take a simple example: I was just walking along the beach and saw two girls walking along the boardwalk. Based on my experience and this observation, can I state "Two girls are walking along the beach" as a "fact?" Well, not in Sitges I can't. One or both of them could be a man in drag. :-) And that just takes into account the problems with "observation." Now let's throw POV and SOC into the mix. If the two girls really *are* girls and I say the same sentence above, is that a "fact?" Well, yes, you might say it is if I am in waking state or even Maharishi's CC. But now assume that I am instead in Maharishi's BC. At that point, do I still see "two girls" and "a beach," or do I see one field of Blazing Brahman, with no differences between the two girls, or the girls and the beach? I'm just fuckin' with the concepts here to have fun with them, Nelson. And as far as I'm concerned, it's just FINE if you believe that given sufficient experience and observation you or someone else could say something and have it be a "fact." Me, I don't believe that. I think that EVERYONE, *no matter what their experience and observation* merely has an OPINION about what they are describing, and that that OPINION is not necessarily "fact." This applies to the simple example of the two girls (I think they were both girls) walking along the beach, but now think of the complexities involved when someone who believes that they have "sufficient experience and observation" to do so declares another kind of "fact" -- "TM is the fastest, most effective method of realizing enlightenment on the planet." Or "A person in UC will definitely be able to levitate." You can go with "facts" if you want, but I'm gonna stick with pretty much everything that ANYONE says -- and for me that *includes* the enlight- ened -- merely being Just Their Opinion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Word On The Nature Of Film Criticism And Spiritual Belief
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > This post was a troll. > > I could just sit back and see who responds to > it, and how. But instead, for a change, rather > than allowing everyone to project into the post > what they believe my *intent* was in posting it, > I will spell it out for you. It was a troll. > > It was a "generalized rant" not just about the > arcane subject of film criticism, but about what > I perceive as the fundamental difference between > two approaches to spirituality, and to posting > about spirituality on Fairfield Life. > > The *intent* of this post hearkens back to an > earlier post of mine, in which I compared FFL to > both a playground and a battleground. Some who > post here clearly perceive it as a playground. > When they post, they *rarely* declare their > opinions "better" than other people's, or "more > correct," or "more authoritative." > > Others -- and I do not need to name them, because > you knew exactly who I was referring to the mom- > ent you saw the word "Others" -- clearly feel that > this place is a battleground. Their whole ACT on > this forum is to declare their opinions, or the > opinions of their preferred spiritual teacher or > spiritual tradition "better," "more correct," > and "more authoritative." > > So this post is a troll in that I am offering > people an opportunity to WEIGH IN on this > generalized subject. If you feel like it, WEIGH > IN and tell us whether you feel that your opinion, > or that of your preferred spiritual teacher or > spiritual tradition, **IS** "better," "more > correct," or "more authoritative" than anyone > else's. > > IMO, it's OK to believe this. The whole *history* > of spiritual belief and spiritual practice is based > on the belief that one POV or opinion is "better," > "more correct," or "more authoritative" than any > other. It's OK to believe that this is a forum > NOT composed of equals, and that some posters > here -- and their opinions -- **ARE** "better," > "more correct," and "more authoritative" than > others. > > On the other hand, I don't personally believe that > believing this makes it so. Me, I tend to believe > that IT'S ALL JUST OPINION, and that > none of those opinions are any "better," "more > correct," or "more authoritative" than any other. > > But that's just my OPINION. > > What's yours? > > WEIGH IN. If you feel like it. > snip, Wouldn't an opinion based on sufficient experience and observation be as good as a fact?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A Word On The Nature Of Film Criticism And Spiritual Belief
This post was a troll.
I could just sit back and see who responds to
it, and how. But instead, for a change, rather
than allowing everyone to project into the post
what they believe my *intent* was in posting it,
I will spell it out for you. It was a troll.
It was a "generalized rant" not just about the
arcane subject of film criticism, but about what
I perceive as the fundamental difference between
two approaches to spirituality, and to posting
about spirituality on Fairfield Life.
The *intent* of this post hearkens back to an
earlier post of mine, in which I compared FFL to
both a playground and a battleground. Some who
post here clearly perceive it as a playground.
When they post, they *rarely* declare their
opinions "better" than other people's, or "more
correct," or "more authoritative."
Others -- and I do not need to name them, because
you knew exactly who I was referring to the mom-
ent you saw the word "Others" -- clearly feel that
this place is a battleground. Their whole ACT on
this forum is to declare their opinions, or the
opinions of their preferred spiritual teacher or
spiritual tradition "better," "more correct,"
and "more authoritative."
So this post is a troll in that I am offering
people an opportunity to WEIGH IN on this
generalized subject. If you feel like it, WEIGH
IN and tell us whether you feel that your opinion,
or that of your preferred spiritual teacher or
spiritual tradition, **IS** "better," "more
correct," or "more authoritative" than anyone
else's.
IMO, it's OK to believe this. The whole *history*
of spiritual belief and spiritual practice is based
on the belief that one POV or opinion is "better,"
"more correct," or "more authoritative" than any
other. It's OK to believe that this is a forum
NOT composed of equals, and that some posters
here -- and their opinions -- **ARE** "better,"
"more correct," and "more authoritative" than
others.
On the other hand, I don't personally believe that
believing this makes it so. Me, I tend to believe
that IT'S ALL JUST OPINION, and that
none of those opinions are any "better," "more
correct," or "more authoritative" than any other.
But that's just my OPINION.
What's yours?
WEIGH IN. If you feel like it.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
>
> That word is "opinion."
>
> Recently on this forum, a discussion...uh...arose
> that I perceived as a kind of "dick-size contest."
> Someone mentioned a film that he'd liked, describing
> it as "very trippy," although "probably WAY too
> weird for Joe and Jane Public."
>
> Because I was out of posts, I responded to that
> poster in email saying that I had recently seen
> the movie and found it "unwatchable." Said poster
> then...uh...reacted by taunting me in a later
> post to "share my 'expert critic' analysis on the
> film with folks here." He was obviously affronted
> by the fact that my opinion about the film
> differed from his.
>
> Because I love rapping about films, I did so. I
> used the taunt as an opportunity to write up a
> Tantric melding of that film ("Synecdoche, New
> York") with something no one else on Earth would
> probably compare to it, the TV series "Dollhouse."
> In that rap, I explained a little *why* I found
> it unwatchable, carefully peppering my rap with
> the words (in capital letters) "FOR ME," trying
> my best to indicate that this *was* pure opinion,
> not a declaration of fact or "truth" about the
> film. I then had fun rapping about other aspects
> of film and television that I found fascinating,
> *as opinion*.
>
> The original poster seems to have reacted strongly
> enough to the expression of OPINION that differed
> from *his* OPINION to have written a long "resume"
> of his experience and "track record" with regard
> to appreciation of the film arts, in which he
> found the need to refer to himself 69 times. He
> then challenged me to present MY "credentials."
>
> I bowed out of the contest. Several here "piled on"
> to accuse me of cowardice for bowing out. At the
> time, I thought that this was the right way to go,
> because I really have VERY little interest in dick-
> size contests, whether they are about declaring
> one's OPINION about a film "better" than another,
> or about declaring one's OPINION about a spiritual
> teacher "better" or "more authoritative" than
> another, or about declaring one's understanding
> of a point of philosophy or belief (*by definition*
> OPINION) "better" or "more correct" than someone
> else's.
>
> Mea culpa. I just don't think those things are
> worth my time. I know that *anything* I believe --
> about a film, about a spiritual teacher, or about
> a point of philosophy or belief -- is OPINION.
> Call me a wuss, but I don't think it's worth
> getting into dick-size contests with those who
> feel that *their* OPINIONS are "better" (or, to
> call a spade a spade, "longer") than mine.
>
> But just for fun, here is my "resume" as a film
> critic:
>
> I'M JUST A GUY W
