[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/38mf3l > ++ It is not logical to say something is not so just because you have not expierienced it. N.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
I don't think this is what Sam is challenging. He is one of the few skeptics who validates transcendent experiences. The experience is real, and he has had them too. What he is challenging is what people conclude after the experience involving what the experience "means". Experiencing the feeling of being one with the universe doesn't give anyone the epistemological authority to claim that they "know" that Jesus died for their sins, or that the Vedic recitations contain the blueprint of creation. He is advocating that we start our inquiry into the study of human consciousness with humility rather then as a "knower of complete knowledge." That we know the differences between what we "know" and what we have decided to believe from stuff we have heard or read, or even imposed onto our abstract experiences as their meaning. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" wrote: > > > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/38mf3l > > > ++ It is not logical to say something is not so just because you have > not expierienced it. N. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think this is what Sam is challenging. He is one of the few > skeptics who validates transcendent experiences. The experience is > real, and he has had them too. What he is challenging is what people > conclude after the experience involving what the experience "means". > Experiencing the feeling of being one with the universe doesn't give > anyone the epistemological authority to claim that they "know" that > Jesus died for their sins, or that the Vedic recitations contain the > blueprint of creation. He is advocating that we start our inquiry > into the study of human consciousness with humility rather then as a > "knower of complete knowledge." That we know the differences between > what we "know" and what we have decided to believe from stuff we have > heard or read, or even imposed onto our abstract experiences as their > meaning. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" wrote: > > > > > > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/38mf3l > > > > > ++ It is not logical to say something is not so just because you have > > not expierienced it. N. > > > Direct perception and innocence are the keys here. Not intepretation or conclusion or imposition. Just as images of the universe from the Hubble space telescope are the result of innocence and direct perception, so is it possible to have such descriptions of our inner universe. And just as the Hubble had to be launched into space in order to produce its images free from the distortions of earth's atmosphere, so must we travel deeply into inner space to have direct and profound experiences, beyond a sense of silence, or a moment of peace, to the direct and unvarnished universe within, as vast and infinite as anything seen through Hubble.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > I don't think this is what Sam is challenging. He is one of the > few > > skeptics who validates transcendent experiences. The experience is > > real, and he has had them too. What he is challenging is what > people > > conclude after the experience involving what the > experience "means". > > Experiencing the feeling of being one with the universe doesn't > give > > anyone the epistemological authority to claim that they "know" that > > Jesus died for their sins, or that the Vedic recitations contain > the > > blueprint of creation. He is advocating that we start our inquiry > > into the study of human consciousness with humility rather then as > a > > "knower of complete knowledge." That we know the differences > between > > what we "know" and what we have decided to believe from stuff we > have > > heard or read, or even imposed onto our abstract experiences as > their > > meaning. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/38mf3l > > > > > > > ++ It is not logical to say something is not so just because you > have > > > not expierienced it. N. > > > > > > Direct perception and innocence are the keys here. Not intepretation > or conclusion or imposition. Just as images of the universe from the > Hubble space telescope are the result of innocence and direct > perception, so is it possible to have such descriptions of our inner > universe. And just as the Hubble had to be launched into space in > order to produce its images free from the distortions of earth's > atmosphere, so must we travel deeply into inner space to have direct > and profound experiences, beyond a sense of silence, or a moment of > peace, to the direct and unvarnished universe within, as vast and > infinite as anything seen through Hubble. > Of course, those beutiful images are enhanced and manipulatedin many ways before we ever see them. Everything I have heard and read says the raw images are very boring unless you're an astronomer.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
I think it would be hard for anyone to know what Sam has experienced through his meditation practice. It might be more than a sense of silence or a moment of peace. Perhaps, like me, he has had experiences like the kind of detail you are describing and decided not to attach the same meaning to it that you have. The strength of our experiences and our beliefs are not an indication of their accuracy. No matter how compelling. On the other hand, if you do have specific knowledge about the structure of the constellations that could be verified with the knowledge gathered from the Hubble telescope, that would be great. That is a testable claim about reality outside ourselves. Once we make claims about how the world actually is outside our own inner experiences, we are bound by the detailed rules that have guided mankind out of the dark ages of knowledge. We owe it to the experience to allow it to benefit from all that mankind has learned about how to be confident in our knowledge. Some humans have been wrong about things that they felt absolutely certain about. I sure have. Of course everyone is certainly free to attach any meaning to their inner experiences that they choose. Sam's only point is that some people have gone deep within and their God tells them that the absolutely right and correct thing to do is to strap on some bombs and go to a crowded place to blow themselves up. And they are absolutely certain that they are they are doing what is right. Absolutely certain. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > I don't think this is what Sam is challenging. He is one of the > few > > skeptics who validates transcendent experiences. The experience is > > real, and he has had them too. What he is challenging is what > people > > conclude after the experience involving what the > experience "means". > > Experiencing the feeling of being one with the universe doesn't > give > > anyone the epistemological authority to claim that they "know" that > > Jesus died for their sins, or that the Vedic recitations contain > the > > blueprint of creation. He is advocating that we start our inquiry > > into the study of human consciousness with humility rather then as > a > > "knower of complete knowledge." That we know the differences > between > > what we "know" and what we have decided to believe from stuff we > have > > heard or read, or even imposed onto our abstract experiences as > their > > meaning. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/38mf3l > > > > > > > ++ It is not logical to say something is not so just because you > have > > > not expierienced it. N. > > > > > > Direct perception and innocence are the keys here. Not intepretation > or conclusion or imposition. Just as images of the universe from the > Hubble space telescope are the result of innocence and direct > perception, so is it possible to have such descriptions of our inner > universe. And just as the Hubble had to be launched into space in > order to produce its images free from the distortions of earth's > atmosphere, so must we travel deeply into inner space to have direct > and profound experiences, beyond a sense of silence, or a moment of > peace, to the direct and unvarnished universe within, as vast and > infinite as anything seen through Hubble. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think this is what Sam is challenging. He is one of the few > skeptics who validates transcendent experiences. The experience is > real, and he has had them too. What he is challenging is what people > conclude after the experience involving what the experience "means". > Experiencing the feeling of being one with the universe doesn't give > anyone the epistemological authority to claim that they "know" that > Jesus died for their sins, or that the Vedic recitations contain the > blueprint of creation. How can you possibly know that? Isn't it an epistemological statement in itself that you can't possibly back up? Who are you to put limits on what a person can know on the basis of inner experience? Harris dismisses Sullivan's assertion that he always believed in God and insists Sullivan's parents told him God existed when he was very young. But Harris can't possibly know that. I've read many accounts, from ordinary people as well as spiritual luminaries, that their earliest memories were infused with a sense of God's presence. In some of these cases their parents weren't even religious. They can't *prove* their memories are accurate, of course, but neither can anyone else prove they aren't. And obviously even if their memories *were* valid, it wouldn't prove God's existence. But Harris is very wrong to claim all such memories are really culturally inspired. He is advocating that we start our inquiry > into the study of human consciousness with humility rather then as a > "knower of complete knowledge." I don't think anybody starts such an inquiry with that idea. Sullivan in particular is quite open in saying that there is a great deal that he not only does not know but *cannot* know. (And it strikes me that what is being called "humility" in this context is almost certainly the same as what MMY calls "innocence." I'll bet he considered and rejected the term "humility" because *it* has more cultural connotations than "innocence." You can get into heavy moodmaking with "humility," but it's a lot harder with "innocence.") That we know the differences between > what we "know" and what we have decided to believe from stuff we > have heard or read, or even imposed onto our abstract experiences > as their meaning. But this is just what Harris claims to "know" on behalf of others!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think it would be hard for anyone to know what Sam has experienced > through his meditation practice. It might be more than a sense of > silence or a moment of peace. Perhaps, like me, he has had > experiences like the kind of detail you are describing and decided not > to attach the same meaning to it that you have. The strength of our > experiences and our beliefs are not an indication of their accuracy. > No matter how compelling. > > On the other hand, if you do have specific knowledge about the > structure of the constellations that could be verified with the > knowledge gathered from the Hubble telescope, that would be great. > That is a testable claim about reality outside ourselves. What if you have the experience that reality is within yourself? When you get right down to it, the only experience *any* of us have is that within ourselves. We have no way of proving there *is* a reality outside ourselves. The most fundamental claim we make about the nature of reality is not empirical, not testable. Once we make > claims about how the world actually is outside our own inner > experiences, we are bound by the detailed rules that have guided > mankind out of the dark ages of knowledge. We owe it to the > experience to allow it to benefit from all that mankind has learned > about how to be confident in our knowledge. Some humans have been > wrong about things that they felt absolutely certain about. I sure have. > > Of course everyone is certainly free to attach any meaning to their > inner experiences that they choose. Sam's only point is that some > people have gone deep within and their God tells them that the > absolutely right and correct thing to do is to strap on some bombs and > go to a crowded place to blow themselves up. And they are absolutely > certain that they are they are doing what is right. Absolutely certain.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" wrote: > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/38mf3l > > ++ It is not logical to say something is not so just because > you have not expierienced it. N. If you were a TM teacher, did you ever say in lectures, as you were taught to do, that it is impossible to transcend via concentration? Or that TM was the best, most effective method of meditation in the world, without having ever tried any other types of meditation, much less all of them? Was that logical? The claim of "logic" tends to be the lipstick that True Believers (of any ilk) put on the pig of their unsubstantiated yet deeply held beliefs.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" wrote: > > > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/38mf3l > > > > ++ It is not logical to say something is not so just because > > you have not expierienced it. N. > > If you were a TM teacher, did you ever say in > lectures, as you were taught to do, that it > is impossible to transcend via concentration? > Or that TM was the best, most effective method > of meditation in the world, without having ever > tried any other types of meditation, much less > all of them? > > Was that logical? > > The claim of "logic" tends to be the lipstick > that True Believers (of any ilk) put on the pig > of their unsubstantiated yet deeply held beliefs. > I'm 99.% certain that what you call "transcend" via concentrative techniques is NOT what TMers call "transcend," regardless of how it "feels" to you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think this is what Sam is challenging. He is one > of the few skeptics who validates transcendent experiences. > The experience is real, and he has had them too. What he > is challenging is what people conclude after the experience > involving what the experience "means". Bingo. The experience itself is transcendent, indescribable (if it *is* describable, it cannot be classed as 'transcendent' in the sense in which MMY uses the term). But how do you *interpret* that indescribable experience and *describe* it mentally and in words after the fact? There is a great deal of evidence within the study of the history of religions and spirituality that we ascribe 'meaning' to such experiences *as we have been taught to*. Very, very few approach such experiences (or interpret them later) with what Harris calls a "clean glass." > Experiencing the feeling of being one with the universe > doesn't give anyone the epistemological authority to claim > that they "know" that Jesus died for their sins, or that > the Vedic recitations contain the blueprint of creation. Actually, it does. In the sense that subjective experience is pretty much All We've Got in this domain. They have the "authority" to 'take a stand' (which is what epistemology means) as to what their experiences "mean" to them; that's a matter of personal belief. It's just that they do not have the authority to declare those beliefs cosmic truth and impose them on others *as* cosmic truth. The exception to my last sentence above is...uh... pretty much all of human history. People in every age and every culture have *given* themselves the authority to declare their beliefs cosmic truth and impose those beliefs on others. That is precisely why it is so difficult to approach one's *own* subjective experiences with a "clean glass" -- we've been forced to drink from Other People's Glasses since the day we were born. > He is advocating that we start our inquiry into the study > of human consciousness with humility rather then as a "knower > of complete knowledge." That we know the differences between > what we "know" and what we have decided to believe from stuff > we have heard or read, or even imposed onto our abstract > experiences as their meaning. A noble quest. If it were so, the study of the history of religion and spirituality probably wouldn't be so synonymous with the history of oppression and war. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" wrote: > > > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/38mf3l > > > > ++ It is not logical to say something is not so just > > because you have not expierienced it. N. To follow up on what I said on this earlier, I don't believe that "logic" has anything to do with it. I'm a *huge* fan of subjective experience and basing one's beliefs and assumptions about life on it. I personally go so far as to trust my subjective experience more than the theories about it or interpretations of it from any external authority. *Any* external authority. However, I do not for a moment call my beliefs "truth." I don't even know if they're true. And I probably never will. They are just what this particular self chooses to believe at a particular moment in time. They may change tomorrow, or sooner. They have done so so many times that I'm no longer particularly attached to the beliefs. They're just things that come and go, like leaves blowing by on the winds of autumn. You enjoy the leaves as they pass, but they *do* pass. So what's to be attached to? Having such an attitude towards my personal beliefs -- that they come and go and that I have no way of declaring any of these transitory beliefs "truth" -- is in a way a *reliance* on humility. To declare any of them some kind of eternal, cosmic truth would be the opposite of humility.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Direct perception and innocence are the keys here. Not > intepretation or conclusion or imposition. Just as > images of the universe from the Hubble space telescope > are the result of innocence and direct perception, so > is it possible to have such descriptions of our inner > universe. And just as the Hubble had to be launched > into space in order to produce its images free from the > distortions of earth's atmosphere, so must we travel > deeply into inner space to have direct and profound > experiences, beyond a sense of silence, or a moment of > peace, to the direct and unvarnished universe within, > as vast and infinite as anything seen through Hubble. Your choice of metaphor is interesting, Jim. Do you remember the *history* of the Hubble telescope. It was delivered into orbit with astigmatism, its main mirror suffering from spherical aberration such that its perceptions of the universe were useless. It took a service mission to correct the problem so that the photos it took had anything whatsoever to do with reality. You speak of "traveling into inner space" to have "unvarnished" experiences, free of "intepretation or conclusion or imposition." Do you feel that your experiences are of this variety? To come back to a simple point, the importance of which you still have not gotten, when you declared that Buddha believed that "God is love," was that an "unvarnished" experience, free of "intepretation or conclusion or imposition," or could it possibly be a limited self imposing its belief in God upon someone whose whole philosophy of life was founded upon not acknowledging the *existence* of such a God? I'm suggesting that your mirror is as abnormal as any other, and that its reflections of the universe are as distorted as anyone else's. Can you accept that, in...dare I use the term...humility, or do you hold that your perceptions reflect some kind of "truth?" Just curious...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > > > Direct perception and innocence are the keys here. Not > > intepretation or conclusion or imposition. Just as > > images of the universe from the Hubble space telescope > > are the result of innocence and direct perception, so > > is it possible to have such descriptions of our inner > > universe. And just as the Hubble had to be launched > > into space in order to produce its images free from the > > distortions of earth's atmosphere, so must we travel > > deeply into inner space to have direct and profound > > experiences, beyond a sense of silence, or a moment of > > peace, to the direct and unvarnished universe within, > > as vast and infinite as anything seen through Hubble. > > Your choice of metaphor is interesting, Jim. > Do you remember the *history* of the Hubble > telescope. It was delivered into orbit with > astigmatism, its main mirror suffering from > spherical aberration such that its perceptions > of the universe were useless. It took a service > mission to correct the problem so that the photos > it took had anything whatsoever to do with reality. > > You speak of "traveling into inner space" to have > "unvarnished" experiences, free of "intepretation > or conclusion or imposition." Do you feel that your > experiences are of this variety? > > To come back to a simple point, the importance of > which you still have not gotten, when you declared > that Buddha believed that "God is love," was that > an "unvarnished" experience, free of "intepretation > or conclusion or imposition," or could it possibly > be a limited self imposing its belief in God upon > someone whose whole philosophy of life was founded > upon not acknowledging the *existence* of such a God? > > I'm suggesting that your mirror is as abnormal as > any other, and that its reflections of the universe > are as distorted as anyone else's. Can you accept > that, in...dare I use the term...humility, or do you > hold that your perceptions reflect some kind of > "truth?" Just curious... A demonstration of just how illusory our perceptions can be: http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html?gray or http://tinyurl.com/2rsnow
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your choice of metaphor is interesting, Jim. > Do you remember the *history* of the Hubble > telescope. It was delivered into orbit with > astigmatism, its main mirror suffering from > spherical aberration such that its perceptions > of the universe were useless. It took a service > mission to correct the problem so that the photos > it took had anything whatsoever to do with reality. Fact-check time: Actually the Hubble pre-repair was far from "useless." It was *limited*, but still able to perform certain types of very useful observations with little difficulty. Interestingly, the mirror repair involved not fixing the flawed mirror, but installing new mirrors with the *opposite* flaws, so that the flaws in the first mirror were canceled out. What that may have to do with the appropriateness of Jim's metaphor or the validity of Barry's comment, I leave as an exercise for the reader...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, I do not for a moment call my beliefs "truth." > I don't even know if they're true. And I probably never > will. They are just what this particular self chooses > to believe at a particular moment in time. They may > change tomorrow, or sooner. They have done so so many > times that I'm no longer particularly attached to the > beliefs. They're just things that come and go, like > leaves blowing by on the winds of autumn. You enjoy the > leaves as they pass, but they *do* pass. So what's to > be attached to? Some beliefs, it would seem, take a great deal longer to pass than others. You've held the same beliefs about the TMO, MMY, and TMers for at least the past 12 years, for example. If one hadn't been told they were just passing autumn leaves, one might think they'd been welded onto your brain.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
Sam Harris is such a great conversation starter! I think my statement was an epistemological assessment of the claim that one can have a subjective experience that can then make you confident that you "know" that Jesus is Lord". Of course people do it all the time. But in the systems of modern epistemology that I studied, this connection is not valid. If you are a pure rationalist or even a solipsist, you can make this case, but neither of those positions have survived as supportable philosophical positions for decades. They do continue in the form of archaic philosophies like the Vedic tradition. Perhaps my statement lacked a bit of the humility that I claimed was needed! I think Sam's point is that cultures that follow this type of philosophical tradition need the same epistemological oil change that has dominated the development of liberal democracies. These ideas need to be challenged the same way we challenge a claim that someone is selling a magic pill that keeps you from ever dying. It is taboo in society to challenge the basis on which someone asserts that they "know" that Jesus is Lord., and even worse, what that means about how other people should behave. I think we are shaped by the religious societies that we live in. I don't know how that influence could be avoided by a child not raised by wolves. I know a few non religious parents who end up having to take their kids to church so that they can fit in with the cultural expectations. One sweet little 6 year old walked by a huge statue of Jesus in a garden center with lawn art and said "I wonder how he died?" It got her mom thinking she needed to fill in some gaps! As long as our money has "In God We Trust" on it and out president invokes the name of God as a political tool, I feel pretty confident that these ideas are going to shape a person's subjective experiences if they fall into one of the cooler transcendent subjective states. To say I "know" this may be a stretch, I agree. I agree with your connection of MMY's term innocence as less loaded than humility. I don't think he pulls off his own goal because he always combines the experiences his techniques invoke with a detailed understanding. But in the context of meditation is seems like a useful term. The fact that Sam is provoking this discussion in as wide an audience as he does makes me really happy. Sullivan's willingness to discuss it makes him cool in my book. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > I don't think this is what Sam is challenging. He is one of the few > > skeptics who validates transcendent experiences. The experience is > > real, and he has had them too. What he is challenging is what > people > > conclude after the experience involving what the > experience "means". > > Experiencing the feeling of being one with the universe doesn't give > > anyone the epistemological authority to claim that they "know" that > > Jesus died for their sins, or that the Vedic recitations contain the > > blueprint of creation. > > How can you possibly know that? Isn't it an > epistemological statement in itself that you > can't possibly back up? Who are you to put > limits on what a person can know on the basis > of inner experience? > > Harris dismisses Sullivan's assertion that he > always believed in God and insists Sullivan's > parents told him God existed when he was very > young. > > But Harris can't possibly know that. I've read > many accounts, from ordinary people as well as > spiritual luminaries, that their earliest > memories were infused with a sense of God's > presence. In some of these cases their parents > weren't even religious. They can't *prove* > their memories are accurate, of course, but > neither can anyone else prove they aren't. And > obviously even if their memories *were* valid, > it wouldn't prove God's existence. > > But Harris is very wrong to claim all such > memories are really culturally inspired. > > He is advocating that we start our inquiry > > into the study of human consciousness with humility rather then as a > > "knower of complete knowledge." > > I don't think anybody starts such an inquiry > with that idea. Sullivan in particular is quite > open in saying that there is a great deal that he > not only does not know but *cannot* know. > > (And it strikes me that what is being called > "humility" in this context is almost certainly the > same as what MMY calls "innocence." I'll bet he > considered and rejected the term "humility" > because *it* has more cultural connotations > than "innocence." You can get into heavy > moodmaking with "humility," but it's a lot harder > with "innocence.") > > That we know the differences between > > what we "know" and what we have decided to believe from stuff we > > have heard or read, or even imposed onto our abstract experiences > > as th
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
I'm glad you responded too Turq. There is so much in this material. I will have to think about the line between how we use tools for being confident in our knowledge in philosophy and how we use them in our personal belief systems. At first I thought I just disagreed with you about what we can be confident about in our knowledge from subjective experience, but then I felt like you were making a different distinction concerning how we form our own beliefs. It is quite a vigerous dance with a lots of stomped toes! No one lives any pure ideal of though and even if they did, there are so many systems let alone people's personal mix of ideas. I'm just glad these topics are getting discussed outside thoughtful forums like this one. Of course people on this type of forum has given these topics a lot of thought, but Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan are broadening the discussion in society. I think we really need it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > I don't think this is what Sam is challenging. He is one > > of the few skeptics who validates transcendent experiences. > > The experience is real, and he has had them too. What he > > is challenging is what people conclude after the experience > > involving what the experience "means". > > Bingo. The experience itself is transcendent, > indescribable (if it *is* describable, it cannot > be classed as 'transcendent' in the sense in which > MMY uses the term). But how do you *interpret* that > indescribable experience and *describe* it mentally > and in words after the fact? > > There is a great deal of evidence within the study > of the history of religions and spirituality that > we ascribe 'meaning' to such experiences *as we > have been taught to*. Very, very few approach such > experiences (or interpret them later) with what > Harris calls a "clean glass." > > > Experiencing the feeling of being one with the universe > > doesn't give anyone the epistemological authority to claim > > that they "know" that Jesus died for their sins, or that > > the Vedic recitations contain the blueprint of creation. > > Actually, it does. In the sense that subjective > experience is pretty much All We've Got in this > domain. They have the "authority" to 'take a stand' > (which is what epistemology means) as to what their > experiences "mean" to them; that's a matter of > personal belief. It's just that they do not have > the authority to declare those beliefs cosmic truth > and impose them on others *as* cosmic truth. > > The exception to my last sentence above is...uh... > pretty much all of human history. People in every age > and every culture have *given* themselves the authority > to declare their beliefs cosmic truth and impose those > beliefs on others. That is precisely why it is so > difficult to approach one's *own* subjective experiences > with a "clean glass" -- we've been forced to drink from > Other People's Glasses since the day we were born. > > > He is advocating that we start our inquiry into the study > > of human consciousness with humility rather then as a "knower > > of complete knowledge." That we know the differences between > > what we "know" and what we have decided to believe from stuff > > we have heard or read, or even imposed onto our abstract > > experiences as their meaning. > > A noble quest. If it were so, the study of the history > of religion and spirituality probably wouldn't be so > synonymous with the history of oppression and war. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" wrote: > > > > > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/38mf3l > > > > > > ++ It is not logical to say something is not so just > > > because you have not expierienced it. N. > > To follow up on what I said on this earlier, I don't > believe that "logic" has anything to do with it. I'm > a *huge* fan of subjective experience and basing one's > beliefs and assumptions about life on it. I personally > go so far as to trust my subjective experience more > than the theories about it or interpretations of it > from any external authority. *Any* external authority. > > However, I do not for a moment call my beliefs "truth." > I don't even know if they're true. And I probably never > will. They are just what this particular self chooses > to believe at a particular moment in time. They may > change tomorrow, or sooner. They have done so so many > times that I'm no longer particularly attached to the > beliefs. They're just things that come and go, like > leaves blowing by on the winds of autumn. You enjoy the > leaves as they pass, but they *do* pass. So what's to > be attached to? > > Having such an attitude towards my personal beliefs -- > that they come and go and that I have no way of declaring > any of these transitory beliefs "truth"
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
curtis writes snipped: At first I thought I just disagreed with you about what we can be confident about in our knowledge from subjective experience, but then I felt like you were making a different distinction concerning how we form our own beliefs. It is quite a vigerous dance with a lots of stomped toes! Tom T As Byron Katies asks, How do I know any of this is true?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > > > Direct perception and innocence are the keys here. Not > > intepretation or conclusion or imposition. Just as > > images of the universe from the Hubble space telescope > > are the result of innocence and direct perception, so > > is it possible to have such descriptions of our inner > > universe. And just as the Hubble had to be launched > > into space in order to produce its images free from the > > distortions of earth's atmosphere, so must we travel > > deeply into inner space to have direct and profound > > experiences, beyond a sense of silence, or a moment of > > peace, to the direct and unvarnished universe within, > > as vast and infinite as anything seen through Hubble. > > Your choice of metaphor is interesting, Jim. > Do you remember the *history* of the Hubble > telescope. It was delivered into orbit with > astigmatism, its main mirror suffering from > spherical aberration such that its perceptions > of the universe were useless. It took a service > mission to correct the problem so that the photos > it took had anything whatsoever to do with reality. > > You speak of "traveling into inner space" to have > "unvarnished" experiences, free of "intepretation > or conclusion or imposition." Do you feel that your > experiences are of this variety? > > To come back to a simple point, the importance of > which you still have not gotten, when you declared > that Buddha believed that "God is love," was that > an "unvarnished" experience, free of "intepretation > or conclusion or imposition," or could it possibly > be a limited self imposing its belief in God upon > someone whose whole philosophy of life was founded > upon not acknowledging the *existence* of such a God? > > I'm suggesting that your mirror is as abnormal as > any other, and that its reflections of the universe > are as distorted as anyone else's. Can you accept > that, in...dare I use the term...humility, or do you > hold that your perceptions reflect some kind of > "truth?" Just curious... > I remember the repair of the Hubble telescope. In the response I gave I was not speaking solely about my inner experience, though my opinion on the subject is influenced by my experience. Why do you insist I respond to your query about Buddha or that I admit that my perceptions are flawed, as a sign to you that I am humble? If you see me living in a fool's paradise, then think about why you think that, rather than insisting I conform to your vision of the world.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think it would be hard for anyone to know what Sam has experienced > through his meditation practice. It might be more than a sense of > silence or a moment of peace. Perhaps, like me, he has had > experiences like the kind of detail you are describing and decided not > to attach the same meaning to it that you have. The strength of our > experiences and our beliefs are not an indication of their accuracy. > No matter how compelling. > > On the other hand, if you do have specific knowledge about the > structure of the constellations that could be verified with the > knowledge gathered from the Hubble telescope, that would be great. > That is a testable claim about reality outside ourselves. Once we make > claims about how the world actually is outside our own inner > experiences, we are bound by the detailed rules that have guided > mankind out of the dark ages of knowledge. We owe it to the > experience to allow it to benefit from all that mankind has learned > about how to be confident in our knowledge. Some humans have been > wrong about things that they felt absolutely certain about. I sure have. > > Of course everyone is certainly free to attach any meaning to their > inner experiences that they choose. Sam's only point is that some > people have gone deep within and their God tells them that the > absolutely right and correct thing to do is to strap on some bombs and > go to a crowded place to blow themselves up. And they are absolutely > certain that they are they are doing what is right. Absolutely certain. > I agree with you 100%. I have long had an adage that I have lived by with regard to my inner experiences, that they are true until they are not. Period. There is no hanging my hat on them or building further constructs from them. They just are what they are, until further knowledge proves them otherwise. Of course this is a slower process with the suicide bomber since they must wait for another cycle of life to judge whether or not what they did was the word of God. What this entire question does is reaffirm the reality that we as humans will believe what we want and do what we want until circumstances make it impossible to continue doing so. There is no amount of logic that can convince us to do otherwise. Each of us is on our own soul journey to learn our own specific lessons, and whether we choose to discern the truth of the moment by logical inference or by direct experience or brainwashing, that is the truth we must honor until our reality changes for us, and we then believe something else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > I don't think this is what Sam is challenging. He is one of the > > few > > > skeptics who validates transcendent experiences. The experience is > > > real, and he has had them too. What he is challenging is what > > people > > > conclude after the experience involving what the > > experience "means". > > > Experiencing the feeling of being one with the universe doesn't > > give > > > anyone the epistemological authority to claim that they "know" that > > > Jesus died for their sins, or that the Vedic recitations contain > > the > > > blueprint of creation. He is advocating that we start our inquiry > > > into the study of human consciousness with humility rather then as > > a > > > "knower of complete knowledge." That we know the differences > > between > > > what we "know" and what we have decided to believe from stuff we > > have > > > heard or read, or even imposed onto our abstract experiences as > > their > > > meaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/38mf3l > > > > > > > > > ++ It is not logical to say something is not so just because you > > have > > > > not expierienced it. N. > > > > > > > > > Direct perception and innocence are the keys here. Not intepretation > > or conclusion or imposition. Just as images of the universe from the > > Hubble space telescope are the result of innocence and direct > > perception, so is it possible to have such descriptions of our inner > > universe. And just as the Hubble had to be launched into space in > > order to produce its images free from the distortions of earth's > > atmosphere, so must we travel deeply into inner space to have direct > > and profound experiences, beyond a sense of silence, or a moment of > > peace, to the direct and unvarnished universe within, as vast and > > infinite as anything seen through Hubble. > > > > Of course, those beutiful images are enhanced and manipulatedin many ways before we > ever see them. Everything I have heard and read says the raw images are very boring > unless you're an astronomer. > Ha-Ha- Yes, just as the inner experiences can be boring unless you're a meditator...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
Nice quote, I think that Sam's point is that the line has been crossed in society from "mind your own business about my personal beliefs" to a need to challenge the type of beliefs that is supporting some pretty hideous actions. There are too many tribes of monkeys for this to work but it makes me feel sane to see these issues raised. Today some car bombs killed 71 in Baghdad. Does anyone else think that the guys who did it believed that this action would be rewarded in heaven? In fact I'll go further, these guys "knew" this fact was literally true so compellingly that they bet their lives on it. Think of the congruence of a belief that would allow you to calmly drive to a public area and ignite a bomb. With all of our social programming not to kill each other, they "knew" it was the right and moral thing to do to blow innocent people to bits. The clusters of beliefs that had to be in place to make this happen, against the natural instinct for self-preservation is mind boggling! We have watched people oppress women because it was their right to religious freedom and the religious moderates said we couldn't attack their beliefs protected by the concept of "religion". Now it is time to say "I don't care where you got this idea,, scripture, mystical experience or tradition, it is barbaric and wrong. In most cases slippery slope arguments are so lame, but in this case we are already all the way down the slope! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > curtis writes snipped: > At first I thought I just disagreed with you > about what we can be confident about in our knowledge from subjective > experience, but then I felt like you were making a different > distinction concerning how we form our own beliefs. It is quite a > vigerous dance with a lots of stomped toes! > > Tom T > As Byron Katies asks, How do I know any of this is true? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think it would be hard for anyone to know what Sam has experienced > through his meditation practice. It might be more than a sense of > silence or a moment of peace. Perhaps, like me, he has had > experiences like the kind of detail you are describing and decided not > to attach the same meaning to it that you have. The strength of our > experiences and our beliefs are not an indication of their accuracy. > No matter how compelling. > snip ++ If you drive off the road and hit a tree, you would have a strong expierience- would you not be qualified to have an accurate comment on it? N.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" wrote: > > > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/38mf3l > > > > ++ It is not logical to say something is not so just because > > you have not expierienced it. N. > > If you were a TM teacher, did you ever say in > lectures, as you were taught to do, that it > is impossible to transcend via concentration? > Or that TM was the best, most effective method > of meditation in the world, without having ever > tried any other types of meditation, much less > all of them? > > Was that logical? > > The claim of "logic" tends to be the lipstick > that True Believers (of any ilk) put on the pig > of their unsubstantiated yet deeply held beliefs. > ++ You are right - I should have said It doesn't make sense or, it's BS. N.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > I think it would be hard for anyone to know what Sam has experienced > > through his meditation practice. It might be more than a sense of > > silence or a moment of peace. Perhaps, like me, he has had > > experiences like the kind of detail you are describing and decided not > > to attach the same meaning to it that you have. The strength of our > > experiences and our beliefs are not an indication of their accuracy. > > No matter how compelling. > > > snip > ++ If you drive off the road and hit a tree, you would have a strong > expierience- would you not be qualified to have an accurate comment on > it? N. > But would this be an accurate account of the *typical* driving experience?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" wrote: > > > > > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/38mf3l > > > > > > ++ It is not logical to say something is not so just because > > > you have not expierienced it. N. > > > > If you were a TM teacher, did you ever say in > > lectures, as you were taught to do, that it > > is impossible to transcend via concentration? > > Or that TM was the best, most effective method > > of meditation in the world, without having ever > > tried any other types of meditation, much less > > all of them? > > > > Was that logical? > > > > The claim of "logic" tends to be the lipstick > > that True Believers (of any ilk) put on the pig > > of their unsubstantiated yet deeply held beliefs. > > > ++ You are right - I should have said It doesn't make sense or, it's > BS. N. > Heh. Given what we know now about what samadhi is, it is indeed, by the very nature of the nervous system, impossible to be in samadhi due to effortful concentration, save as the end-result of exhaustion. It's a physiological fact. Get over it already.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
> snip > ++ If you drive off the road and hit a tree, you would have a strong > expierience- would you not be qualified to have an accurate comment on > it? N. The guy watching you hit the tree who didn't get his bell rung might be a better source of information about what happened that caused the crash. In fact if you got a few people who saw it and they all agreed on certain facts that would be even better. Even better would be a video of the event reviewed by experts who where not emotionally effected by seeing the crash live . If the tree crash was actually conducted as an experiment in lab with sensors connected everywhere you might get an even better understanding of exactly what happened in the crash. Now lets go back to the guy who got a huge rap on his noggin. Compared to those other observers of the event, he is the worst possible source for what happened in the crash. I am not saying personal experience isn't an important source for our knowledge, it is just important to know its limitations. People often confuse the compelling nature of their experience with legitimate criteria for truth or even accuracy. Sometimes people are passionately wrong. That is what the field of epistemology in philosophy studies. How we can be confident about our knowledge. It is not an absolute, perfect magical system. Just a set of guidelines to help us deceive ourselves less often. Humans are extremely vulnerable to deception, don't you think? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > I think it would be hard for anyone to know what Sam has experienced > > through his meditation practice. It might be more than a sense of > > silence or a moment of peace. Perhaps, like me, he has had > > experiences like the kind of detail you are describing and decided not > > to attach the same meaning to it that you have. The strength of our > > experiences and our beliefs are not an indication of their accuracy. > > No matter how compelling. > > > snip > ++ If you drive off the road and hit a tree, you would have a strong > expierience- would you not be qualified to have an accurate comment on > it? N. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > snip > > ++ If you drive off the road and hit a tree, you would have a > > strong expierience- would you not be qualified to have an > > accurate comment on it? N. > > The guy watching you hit the tree who didn't get his bell rung might > be a better source of information about what happened that caused > the crash. But not about what it's like to be in a car crash.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > snip > > > ++ If you drive off the road and hit a tree, you would have a > > > strong expierience- would you not be qualified to have an > > > accurate comment on it? N. > > > > The guy watching you hit the tree who didn't get his bell rung might > > be a better source of information about what happened that caused > > the crash. > > But not about what it's like to be in a car crash. > I've been in 5 near-fatal (would have been fatal without seat-belts) car crashes. There's no underlying similarities save confusion and perhaps, panic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > snip > > > > ++ If you drive off the road and hit a tree, you would have a > > > > strong expierience- would you not be qualified to have an > > > > accurate comment on it? N. > > > > > > The guy watching you hit the tree who didn't get his bell rung might > > > be a better source of information about what happened that caused > > > the crash. > > > > But not about what it's like to be in a car crash. > > > > I've been in 5 near-fatal (would have been fatal without seat- belts) car crashes. There's no > underlying similarities save confusion and perhaps, panic. Not about what it's like to be in *that* car crash. Unless I'm way off track, the poster is making a point about the *experience* of the crash, not about exactly what happened to cause the crash.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > snip > > > > > ++ If you drive off the road and hit a tree, you would have a > > > > > strong expierience- would you not be qualified to have an > > > > > accurate comment on it? N. > > > > > > > > The guy watching you hit the tree who didn't get his bell rung > might > > > > be a better source of information about what happened that > caused > > > > the crash. > > > > > > But not about what it's like to be in a car crash. > > > > > > > I've been in 5 near-fatal (would have been fatal without seat- > belts) car crashes. There's no > > underlying similarities save confusion and perhaps, panic. > > Not about what it's like to be in *that* car crash. > > Unless I'm way off track, the poster is making a > point about the *experience* of the crash, not > about exactly what happened to cause the crash. > I was making a point about the underlying similarities between the experience found during one car crash and the next: confusion and panic. In fact, the ONLY experience that is memorable is confusion and panic. Bits and pieces of watching the world spin around, or grabbing my grandmother and keeping her from going through the windshield, and so on, pop up, but the main experience is:... *(&(*Y&@#$%
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
I agree with your point. I think the same principles apply. It was probably a bad example of an intense experience to use. Someone having a non traumatic intense experience might be a better witness, but still all the other stuff pertains. Having an intense experience doesn't even make you an expert in that intense experience. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > snip > > > > > ++ If you drive off the road and hit a tree, you would have a > > > > > strong expierience- would you not be qualified to have an > > > > > accurate comment on it? N. > > > > > > > > The guy watching you hit the tree who didn't get his bell rung > might > > > > be a better source of information about what happened that > caused > > > > the crash. > > > > > > But not about what it's like to be in a car crash. > > > > > > > I've been in 5 near-fatal (would have been fatal without seat- > belts) car crashes. There's no > > underlying similarities save confusion and perhaps, panic. > > Not about what it's like to be in *that* car crash. > > Unless I'm way off track, the poster is making a > point about the *experience* of the crash, not > about exactly what happened to cause the crash. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
"I've been in 5 near-fatal (would have been fatal without seat-belts) car crashes. There's no underlying similarities save confusion and perhaps, panic." Spraig, I don't care if you haven't been drinking, you are not my designated driver! That sounds so intense, I have never been in an accident. Luck of the draw I'm sure cuz sometimes I have been a bad, bad boy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > snip > > > > ++ If you drive off the road and hit a tree, you would have a > > > > strong expierience- would you not be qualified to have an > > > > accurate comment on it? N. > > > > > > The guy watching you hit the tree who didn't get his bell rung might > > > be a better source of information about what happened that caused > > > the crash. > > > > But not about what it's like to be in a car crash. > > > > I've been in 5 near-fatal (would have been fatal without seat-belts) car crashes. There's no > underlying similarities save confusion and perhaps, panic. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
" But not about what it's like to be in a car crash." I am not denying the value of subjective experiences in the context of trying to figure out life. For some things it is the only value. But once you have one you can't tell me that now you "know" that all the women under your control must submit to your will. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > snip > > > ++ If you drive off the road and hit a tree, you would have a > > > strong expierience- would you not be qualified to have an > > > accurate comment on it? N. > > > > The guy watching you hit the tree who didn't get his bell rung might > > be a better source of information about what happened that caused > > the crash. > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "I've been in 5 near-fatal (would have been fatal without seat-belts) car > crashes. There's no > underlying similarities save confusion and perhaps, panic." > > Spraig, I don't care if you haven't been drinking, you are not my > designated driver! That sounds so intense, I have never been in an > accident. Luck of the draw I'm sure cuz sometimes I have been a bad, > bad boy. ADHD was far worse in my youth. Like I keep tellling people: you should have seen the before picture.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sam Harris is such a great conversation starter!
>
> I think my statement was an epistemological assessment of the
> claim that one can have a subjective experience that can then
> make you confident that you "know" that Jesus is Lord". Of
> course people do it all the time. But in the systems of modern
> epistemology that I studied, this connection is not valid.
But again, is that not an epistemological claim
("this connection is not valid") that you can't
possibly back up? In that sense, what's the
difference between the claim that Jesus is Lord
and the epistemological claim that the first
claim isn't valid?
> If you are a pure rationalist or even a solipsist, you can make this
> case, but neither of those positions have survived as supportable
> philosophical positions for decades.
Solipsism--in the broader sense I mentioned earlier,
that we have no empirical means of determining whether
there's really anything "out there" that exists
independently of our minds--is irrefutable. It
doesn't *require* any support; it's an obvious fact.
What is *not* an obvious fact is the claim that there
*is* nothing "out there." It's important to make that
distinction.
> They do continue in the form of
> archaic philosophies like the Vedic tradition.
Actually, a number of researchers and philosophers
struggling with the question of consciousness make
the observation I just made above.
Perhaps my statement
> lacked a bit of the humility that I claimed was needed! I think
Sam's
> point is that cultures that follow this type of philosophical
> tradition need the same epistemological oil change that has
dominated
> the development of liberal democracies.
But let's make sure we're not changing it for oil
that doesn't have the qualities we think it does.
These ideas need to be
> challenged the same way we challenge a claim that someone is
selling a
> magic pill that keeps you from ever dying.
How would you challenge the claim I made above, that
there is no empirical means of determining whether
there's anything "out there"?
That's where epistemological humility has to begin,
it seems to me. If we take the independent existence
of "out there" as an axiom, something we "know," it
throws all the rest of the epistemological exercise
in question.
It is taboo in society to
> challenge the basis on which someone asserts that they "know" that
> Jesus is Lord., and even worse, what that means about how other
> people should behave.
As far as I'm concerned, the first belief (or any of
its competitors) is inarguable. As to the second, a
person's belief that they should get to determine how
I should behave is likewise inarguable *as a belief*,
but they're going to have a very hard time implementing
it, because I'm going to resist it with all my might.
> I think we are shaped by the religious societies that we live
> in. I don't know how that influence could be avoided by a child
> not raised by wolves.
Well, of course. But that doesn't necessarily
mean that it's the *only* influence. As I said,
I think it's quite wrong for Harris to insist
that Sullivan must have picked up his initial
belief in God from that source. He may well have,
but Harris can't possibly *know* that.
Try this: go back over some of Harris's posts
and see how many statements he makes that he
can't back up in the way he insists Sullivan
should be able to back up his. There are quite
a few of them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of TurquoiseB > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 5:09 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07 > > > > > > I'm suggesting that your mirror is as abnormal as > > any other, and that its reflections of the universe > > are as distorted as anyone else's. Can you accept > > that, in...dare I use the term...humility, or do you > > hold that your perceptions reflect some kind of > > "truth?" Just curious... > > Is everyone's mirror equally abnormal? In my opinion, yes. > If so, what's normal? A guy named Abby Normal...unfortunately deceased. They used his brain to make the creature in "Young Frankenstein." :-) > Why couldn't Jim's mirror be clearer than > most, though still not perfect? He certainly believes that it is. He's unwilling to consider any other possibility. That unwillingness is what I'm commenting on. > I think clarity of human perception is a > spectrum ranging from extremely distorted to > almost crystal clear. Very possibly, but who do you trust to judge the clarity or the distortion?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of TurquoiseB > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 5:09 AM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07 > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting that your mirror is as abnormal as > > > any other, and that its reflections of the universe > > > are as distorted as anyone else's. Can you accept > > > that, in...dare I use the term...humility, or do you > > > hold that your perceptions reflect some kind of > > > "truth?" Just curious... > > > > Is everyone's mirror equally abnormal? > > In my opinion, yes. > > > If so, what's normal? > > A guy named Abby Normal...unfortunately deceased. > They used his brain to make the creature in > "Young Frankenstein." :-) > > > Why couldn't Jim's mirror be clearer than > > most, though still not perfect? > > He certainly believes that it is. He's unwilling > to consider any other possibility. > > That unwillingness is what I'm commenting on. > > > I think clarity of human perception is a > > spectrum ranging from extremely distorted to > > almost crystal clear. > > Very possibly, but who do you trust to judge > the clarity or the distortion? > And why do you think it is your job to do so? You say I am unwilling to consider the possibility that my perception is not clear. So what? I am not trying to convince you of it. What do you know of my perception except that which has been shared here? For example, I have seen angels countless times, and see them whenever I choose to. To the point that it is no longer interesting for me to comment on such a thing. Am I trying to convince anyone here of the validity of that perception or that it is accurate for them too? The answer is not at all. So what is the issue with me stating these things that yes are unequivocally true for the moment? What is your problem with it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Behalf Of TurquoiseB > > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 5:09 AM > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07 > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting that your mirror is as abnormal as > > > > any other, and that its reflections of the universe > > > > are as distorted as anyone else's. Can you accept > > > > that, in...dare I use the term...humility, or do you > > > > hold that your perceptions reflect some kind of > > > > "truth?" Just curious... > > > > > > Is everyone's mirror equally abnormal? > > > > In my opinion, yes. > > > > > If so, what's normal? > > > > A guy named Abby Normal...unfortunately deceased. > > They used his brain to make the creature in > > "Young Frankenstein." :-) > > > > > Why couldn't Jim's mirror be clearer than > > > most, though still not perfect? > > > > He certainly believes that it is. He's unwilling > > to consider any other possibility. > > > > That unwillingness is what I'm commenting on. > > > > > I think clarity of human perception is a > > > spectrum ranging from extremely distorted to > > > almost crystal clear. > > > > Very possibly, but who do you trust to judge > > the clarity or the distortion? > > And why do you think it is your job to do so? You say I > am unwilling to consider the possibility that my perception > is not clear. So what? I am not trying to convince you of it. > What do you know of my perception except that which has been > shared here? For example, I have seen angels countless times, > and see them whenever I choose to. To the point that it is > no longer interesting for me to comment on such a thing. Am > I trying to convince anyone here of the validity of that > perception... Desperately, as far as I can tell. > ...or that it is accurate for them too? Almost never, to your credit. > The answer is not at all. That, as far as I can tell, is only the answer to the second question. > So what is the issue with me stating these things that > yes are unequivocally true for the moment? What is your > problem with it? No problem at all. I'm just curious as to whether you can admit the *possibility* that your perceptions might be illusory or flawed. I've had some pretty interesting perceptions as well. As far as I can tell, I'm the only person here who has seen someone levitate. We're talkin' seeing some- one rise up off his chair and just hang ten on thin air for minutes at a time, or in the desert, step up off the sand and dance in mid-air. I saw it. I was there, completely sober and under the influence of neither suggestion nor drugs. But at the same time, I am open to the possibility that what I saw would not have been captured by video cameras, had they been running (which makes what I saw as levitation a very subjective experience), or that I was somehow mistaken, and no levitation was going on at all. I have NO PROBLEM saying this. I similarly have NO PROBLEM with the possibility that any of my other perceptions of extraordinary siddhis or other paranormal events might have been the after- effects of a bad pepperoni pizza. Anything is possible. For now, barring any evidence to the contrary, I have to go with my perceptions being accurate, even though in some cases the person performing the siddhis was, in many ways, a low-vibe slime. In others, he was the most extra- ordinary teacher it has been my good fortune to meet in this lifetime. But it could all be illusion. I would never claim it as "truth." So far in these discussions, I have never heard you make such a statement. Whenever I have asked whether there might be another interpretation for the things that you consider "truth" (and which, when challenged, you tend to refer to as absolute truth), you 1) bristle, 2) tell me to get lost and not to bother you with such inanities again (and then, within a day or so, are writing to me again expecting me to reply), and 3) keep claiming that your perceptions basically EQUAL truth. I've just become curious, that's all. Can you possibly admit the possibility that your perceptions just *might* be inaccurate?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
Thanks for going into so much depth Judy. I wrote out a response from
my point of view, but I want to take another look at Sam's discussion
from your point of view if I can get there through my own biases of
thinking. Good exercise and not too easy! This is is a great
discussion.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > Sam Harris is such a great conversation starter!
> >
> > I think my statement was an epistemological assessment of the
> > claim that one can have a subjective experience that can then
> > make you confident that you "know" that Jesus is Lord". Of
> > course people do it all the time. But in the systems of modern
> > epistemology that I studied, this connection is not valid.
>
> But again, is that not an epistemological claim
> ("this connection is not valid") that you can't
> possibly back up? In that sense, what's the
> difference between the claim that Jesus is Lord
> and the epistemological claim that the first
> claim isn't valid?
>
> > If you are a pure rationalist or even a solipsist, you can make this
> > case, but neither of those positions have survived as supportable
> > philosophical positions for decades.
>
> Solipsism--in the broader sense I mentioned earlier,
> that we have no empirical means of determining whether
> there's really anything "out there" that exists
> independently of our minds--is irrefutable. It
> doesn't *require* any support; it's an obvious fact.
>
> What is *not* an obvious fact is the claim that there
> *is* nothing "out there." It's important to make that
> distinction.
>
> > They do continue in the form of
> > archaic philosophies like the Vedic tradition.
>
> Actually, a number of researchers and philosophers
> struggling with the question of consciousness make
> the observation I just made above.
>
> Perhaps my statement
> > lacked a bit of the humility that I claimed was needed! I think
> Sam's
> > point is that cultures that follow this type of philosophical
> > tradition need the same epistemological oil change that has
> dominated
> > the development of liberal democracies.
>
> But let's make sure we're not changing it for oil
> that doesn't have the qualities we think it does.
>
>These ideas need to be
> > challenged the same way we challenge a claim that someone is
> selling a
> > magic pill that keeps you from ever dying.
>
> How would you challenge the claim I made above, that
> there is no empirical means of determining whether
> there's anything "out there"?
>
> That's where epistemological humility has to begin,
> it seems to me. If we take the independent existence
> of "out there" as an axiom, something we "know," it
> throws all the rest of the epistemological exercise
> in question.
>
> It is taboo in society to
> > challenge the basis on which someone asserts that they "know" that
> > Jesus is Lord., and even worse, what that means about how other
> > people should behave.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, the first belief (or any of
> its competitors) is inarguable. As to the second, a
> person's belief that they should get to determine how
> I should behave is likewise inarguable *as a belief*,
> but they're going to have a very hard time implementing
> it, because I'm going to resist it with all my might.
>
> > I think we are shaped by the religious societies that we live
> > in. I don't know how that influence could be avoided by a child
> > not raised by wolves.
>
> Well, of course. But that doesn't necessarily
> mean that it's the *only* influence. As I said,
> I think it's quite wrong for Harris to insist
> that Sullivan must have picked up his initial
> belief in God from that source. He may well have,
> but Harris can't possibly *know* that.
>
> Try this: go back over some of Harris's posts
> and see how many statements he makes that he
> can't back up in the way he insists Sullivan
> should be able to back up his. There are quite
> a few of them.
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Behalf Of TurquoiseB > > > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 5:09 AM > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting that your mirror is as abnormal as > > > > > any other, and that its reflections of the universe > > > > > are as distorted as anyone else's. Can you accept > > > > > that, in...dare I use the term...humility, or do you > > > > > hold that your perceptions reflect some kind of > > > > > "truth?" Just curious... > > > > > > > > Is everyone's mirror equally abnormal? > > > > > > In my opinion, yes. > > > > > > > If so, what's normal? > > > > > > A guy named Abby Normal...unfortunately deceased. > > > They used his brain to make the creature in > > > "Young Frankenstein." :-) > > > > > > > Why couldn't Jim's mirror be clearer than > > > > most, though still not perfect? > > > > > > He certainly believes that it is. He's unwilling > > > to consider any other possibility. > > > > > > That unwillingness is what I'm commenting on. > > > > > > > I think clarity of human perception is a > > > > spectrum ranging from extremely distorted to > > > > almost crystal clear. > > > > > > Very possibly, but who do you trust to judge > > > the clarity or the distortion? > > > > And why do you think it is your job to do so? You say I > > am unwilling to consider the possibility that my perception > > is not clear. So what? I am not trying to convince you of it. > > What do you know of my perception except that which has been > > shared here? For example, I have seen angels countless times, > > and see them whenever I choose to. To the point that it is > > no longer interesting for me to comment on such a thing. Am > > I trying to convince anyone here of the validity of that > > perception... > > Desperately, as far as I can tell. > > > ...or that it is accurate for them too? > > Almost never, to your credit. > > > The answer is not at all. > > That, as far as I can tell, is only the answer > to the second question. > > > So what is the issue with me stating these things that > > yes are unequivocally true for the moment? What is your > > problem with it? > > No problem at all. I'm just curious as to whether > you can admit the *possibility* that your perceptions > might be illusory or flawed. > > I've had some pretty interesting perceptions as well. > As far as I can tell, I'm the only person here who > has seen someone levitate. We're talkin' seeing some- > one rise up off his chair and just hang ten on thin > air for minutes at a time, or in the desert, step up > off the sand and dance in mid-air. > > I saw it. I was there, completely sober and under the > influence of neither suggestion nor drugs. But at the > same time, I am open to the possibility that what I > saw would not have been captured by video cameras, had > they been running (which makes what I saw as levitation > a very subjective experience), or that I was somehow > mistaken, and no levitation was going on at all. I have > NO PROBLEM saying this. > > I similarly have NO PROBLEM with the possibility that > any of my other perceptions of extraordinary siddhis > or other paranormal events might have been the after- > effects of a bad pepperoni pizza. Anything is possible. > > For now, barring any evidence to the contrary, I have > to go with my perceptions being accurate, even though in > some cases the person performing the siddhis was, in many > ways, a low-vibe slime. In others, he was the most extra- > ordinary teacher it has been my good fortune to meet in > this lifetime. But it could all be illusion. I would > never claim it as "truth." > > So far in these discussions, I have never heard you make
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > snip > > ++ If you drive off the road and hit a tree, you would have a strong > > expierience- would you not be qualified to have an accurate comment on > > it? N. > > > The guy watching you hit the tree who didn't get his bell rung might > be a better source of information about what happened that caused the > crash. In fact if you got a few people who saw it and they all agreed > on certain facts that would be even better. Even better would be a > video of the event reviewed by experts who where not emotionally > effected by seeing the crash live . If the tree crash was actually > conducted as an experiment in lab with sensors connected everywhere > you might get an even better understanding of exactly what happened in > the crash. > > Now lets go back to the guy who got a huge rap on his noggin. > Compared to those other observers of the event, he is the worst > possible source for what happened in the crash. > > I am not saying personal experience isn't an important source for our > knowledge, it is just important to know its limitations. People often > confuse the compelling nature of their experience with legitimate > criteria for truth or even accuracy. Sometimes people are > passionately wrong. That is what the field of epistemology in > philosophy studies. How we can be confident about our knowledge. It > is not an absolute, perfect magical system. Just a set of guidelines > to help us deceive ourselves less often. Humans are extremely > vulnerable to deception, don't you think? +++snip Yes, quite right, I was thinking tho, that the individual having the expierience was entitled to his view of it without someone finding fault with it. N.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you were a TM teacher, did you ever say in > lectures, as you were taught to do, that it > is impossible to transcend via concentration? > Or that TM was the best, most effective method > of meditation in the world, without having ever > tried any other types of meditation, much less > all of them? > Meditation Book Grant to Dr. Jonathan Shear of Virginia > Commonwealth University Dr. Jonathan Shear's Book on the Major Meditation Systems of the World I. The Project Meditation has become mainstream in America, as a part of many health programs, as a method of relaxation, and for spiritual growth, and as a topic in college courses around the country. There are, of course, already many books on the subject of meditation. Some discuss practices within a given tradition in a serious way. Others discuss meditation in a general way, but these are often superficial and misleading, if not simply inaccurate. But to date there is no book that presents in a clear, comprehensive, and systematic way the mechanics, theories and effects of the various major meditation systems now practiced and discussed in America. The book sponsored by this grant should fill this gap. Its contents and structure should enable it to serve as a readily accessible, cross-traditional textbook for a wide variety of college courses (e.g., religion, psychology, philosophy, multicultural studies, etc.), and as an authoritative reference for scholars. In addition, the book should be of interest to the many people who practice various forms of meditation and would like to know something about procedures other than their own, as well as those who are simply curious about the topic. The Infinity Foundation is delighted to announce its support of this project. Each of the chapters will deal with a single tradition of meditation. In order to facilitate inter-traditional comparisons, each chapter will cover the following topics: (1) historical background (2) mechanics of the techniques (3) basic experiences and states (4) further results (psychological and/or behavioral effects, higher states, etc.) (5) interpretations and implications The book will be edited by Dr. Jonathan Shear, who will also write an essay for inclusion within it. The authors and topics of the chapters are expected to include: Robert Thurman and David Gray (Tibetan meditation traditions) Georg Feuerstein (Sankhya/Yoga) Jeffrey Schwartz (Therevada Vipasana) Don Salmon (Sri Aurobindo) Sri Daya Mata (Kriya Yoga/Yogananda) Liang Shou Yu and Wu Wen-Ching (Taoism/Qigong) Llewelyn Vaughn Lee (Sufism) Basil Pennington (Centering Prayer) Jonathan Shear (Transcendental Meditation) II. About the Editor Jonathan Shear received a BA in Philosophy and Mathematics summa cum laude from Brandeis University, and was a Woodrow Wilson Fellow in Philosophy at the University of California at Berkeley where he received his Ph.D. While a Fulbright Scholar in Philosophy of Science at the London School of Economics in the early 1960's, Dr. Shear became interested in Eastern accounts of aspects of mind not ordinarily discussed by Western philosophers and psychologists. This led to examination of how Eastern experiential procedures could provide an expanded empirical base for our Western theories of mind, knowledge and values, as well as regular practice of such procedures themselves, and the significance of such procedures and the experiences they produce has remained the focus of Prof. Shear's work for nearly forty years. He is author of The Inner Dimension: Philosophy and the Experience of Consciousness (Peter Lang), coeditor of The View from Within: First-Person Methodologies (Imprint Academic), coeditor of Models of the Self (Imprint Academic), and editor of Explaining Consciousness: The Hard Problem (MIT). Prof. Shear is also a founding Editor of the multi-disciplinary Journal of Consciousness Studies, and an Affiliated Associate Professor of philosophy at Virginia Commonwealth University. > Was that logical? > > The claim of "logic" tends to be the lipstick > that True Believers (of any ilk) put on the pig > of their unsubstantiated yet deeply held beliefs. > ++ You are right - I should have said It doesn't make sense or, it's BS. N. - Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 5:09 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Latest from Sam Harris, 2-8-07 I'm suggesting that your mirror is as abnormal as any other, and that its reflections of the universe are as distorted as anyone else's. Can you accept that, in...dare I use the term...humility, or do you hold that your perceptions reflect some kind of "truth?" Just curious... Is everyone's mirror equally abnormal? If so, what's normal? Why couldn't Jim's mirror be clearer than most, though still not perfect? I think clarity of human perception is a spectrum ranging from extremely distorted to almost crystal clear.
