Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
LBS = LB Shriver, who posted here a lot in the past and espoused a "process = product" philosophy. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for your reply. No I'm not LBS (really), but maybe I should > > take that as a compliment. Anyway, please excuse any stupidity on > > my part. This seems to be ending amicably. > > Don't want to interrupt, but what's LBS? No, its not "liberal-biased sleazeball". Its the initials of a long-time esteemed poster to FFL, who has been inactive for a bit. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for your reply. No I'm not LBS (really), but maybe I should > take that as a compliment. LBS would probably hold that it as the highest of compliments. (joke) Actually, I hold it as a pretty high compliment. :) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for your reply. No I'm not LBS (really), but maybe I should > take that as a compliment. Anyway, please excuse any stupidity on > my part. This seems to be ending amicably. Don't want to interrupt, but what's LBS? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
Thanks for your reply. No I'm not LBS (really), but maybe I should take that as a compliment. Anyway, please excuse any stupidity on my part. This seems to be ending amicably. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frankly I don't think we are really disagreeing on much of anything. > > The issue, quite minor, appears to be in one or both parties not fully > seeing the point the other is making. And this can lead to claims that > the counter points are not relevant to the prior point made -- though > relevant in the grand scheme of things. Or one not seeing the > relevance of such. Or any number of other percieved slights on either > side. > > I think the catalyst of such petty diversions, on both sides, can be > percieved tone (intended or not) -- and not the points of knowledge > themselves. > > I hate it too when discussions devolve to such. > > And I assume you are LBS. And we have both been here before. :) > > I have actually learned from some of our past discussions and feel > (perhaps falsely) that I am more alert as to not falling into such > diversions. Or at least detouring them by staying on the points of > knowledge. I suspect you have too. Though getting better, neither of > us appear to be at optimal state yet. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry Akasha, > > > > This is the point at which a conversation via the web gets tiresome > > and nit-picky. First I claim the irrelevance of your contribution, > > then you claim the irrelevance of mine. > > > > This reply is in no way an attempt at rebuttal. > > > > Perhaps, if we had been in the same room we would have enjoyed a > > mutually enriching conversation. Sorry it didn't work out that way. > > > > As I stated originally, I normally really enjoy the astuteness of > > your contributions. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Your history of science lecture is a all good and fine. I agree > > with > > > the essentials of everything your wrote. Making a lot of good > > points > > > does not however make a good counter to the two points in question. > > > They are not relevant, per my view, of the two quesions at hand. > > > > > > 1) Elements or predictions of the model or hypothesis, need > > not "yet" > > > be observable phenomenon (e.g. 13 dimensions of string theory) for > > the > > > model to be useful, e.,g., after explaining observed phenomenon, > > > they suggest or make testable predictions. (However, it is best if > > > these model elements can themselves be observed someday -- a > > problem > > > that string theory has. ) > > > > > > This first point came out of a discussion whereby a devic model was > > > suggested to explain SV. Peter said this would be difficult to be > > > accepted by science "until observed". While not disagreeing with > > his > > > endpoint, I suggested that theoretical models often have components > > > that are not "yet" observed when the theory is proposed and cited > > many > > > examples from the history of science. A small yet important > > distinction. > > > > > > More specifically, the distinction I was making suggested that a > > model > > > that proposes "energy and information intense structures" (aka > > devas) > > > to explain SV effects should and would not be rejected out of hand > > > just because the model itself involves some yet to be observed > > > phenomenon (beyond the yet to be unobserved SV effects that it is > > > trying to explain). The key is whether the primary effects are > > > observed by rigorous studies. If they are, then the theory > > deserves a > > > closer look. > > > > > > Per my point #1, you stated "But Einstein's ideas evolved out of > > the > > > very science that later embraced them and much later found evidence > > > for them. The SV mythology does not arise from such an evolution. > > > Scientists do not necessarily want to take any old pie in the sky > > > explanation for how things work and test it rigorously." > > > > > > OK, but a bit off the point. You are countering points I never > > made or > > > disagreed with. Since the discussion was about explanatory models, > > I > > > keyed on the one relevant point you made on this topic: how ideas > > for > > > such explanatory models arise. > > > > > > Thus my point #2: > > > > > > 2) It doesn't matter from where the inspiration for a scientific > > model > > > / hypthesis / explanation comes from -- it could come from a > > dream, an > > > drugs, ritam, a thought experiment, OR from more traditional means. > > > What matters is that the idea embodied in an explanatory model > > itself > > > provides a reasonable explaination for results arising from > > rigorously > > > conducted, well designed research. And that it provides a basis for > > > further research by making pre
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides > > > > a basis for quantification. From it we can construct > > > > testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes > > > > with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages > > > > than those in homes with entrances facing in other > > > > directions. > > > > > > Yes but... > > > > > > You can do research that shows a correlation between factors, > and > > even > > > gives an indication of which factors may be causal. This is > > important > > > preliminary research. But, when faced with overwhelming > opposition > > to > > > your ideas due to their not fitting with mainstream paradigms, > you > > > need to follow up this research with studies that demonstrate > the > > > actual causal mechanisms for the results being observed. > > > > I'm not sure you can actually *demonstrate* causal > > mechanisms. Rather, you make causal *assumptions* > > to a greater or lesser confidence level, no? > > *** > Yeh, sure. To be technically correct. But this doesn't change the > nature of the research. One kind of research finds correlations, > without looking at what may cause the correlations. Another kind of > research focuses more directly on the processes involved. On another front, I have been looking at the correlation / causation question. At times I do a lot of multi-variate regression work where say, 10 independent variables clearly "explain" most of the variations in the dependent variable. This can lull one into believing that this demonstrates causality. As a proof it does not, though it may still be a causal relationship and the relationships can be mapped out using influence diagrams. Some interesting links on loosely and formally proving causality are below: http://b-course.hiit.fi/naive_cause.html The scientific research community has adopted rigorous methods to eliminate the need for subjective judgments about many things, but when it comes to testing whether X causes Y, they revert to intuition and hand-waving. This book makes a strong argument that we shouldn't accept that. It demonstrates that it is possible to turn intuitions about causation into hypotheses that are unambiguous and testable. http://www.psych.uni-goettingen.de/abt/1/waldmann/cog_sci00.pdf http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521773628/102-3865279-2055340?v=glance online version of the above: http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/book-toc.html Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
Frankly I don't think we are really disagreeing on much of anything. The issue, quite minor, appears to be in one or both parties not fully seeing the point the other is making. And this can lead to claims that the counter points are not relevant to the prior point made -- though relevant in the grand scheme of things. Or one not seeing the relevance of such. Or any number of other percieved slights on either side. I think the catalyst of such petty diversions, on both sides, can be percieved tone (intended or not) -- and not the points of knowledge themselves. I hate it too when discussions devolve to such. And I assume you are LBS. And we have both been here before. :) I have actually learned from some of our past discussions and feel (perhaps falsely) that I am more alert as to not falling into such diversions. Or at least detouring them by staying on the points of knowledge. I suspect you have too. Though getting better, neither of us appear to be at optimal state yet. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry Akasha, > > This is the point at which a conversation via the web gets tiresome > and nit-picky. First I claim the irrelevance of your contribution, > then you claim the irrelevance of mine. > > This reply is in no way an attempt at rebuttal. > > Perhaps, if we had been in the same room we would have enjoyed a > mutually enriching conversation. Sorry it didn't work out that way. > > As I stated originally, I normally really enjoy the astuteness of > your contributions. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Your history of science lecture is a all good and fine. I agree > with > > the essentials of everything your wrote. Making a lot of good > points > > does not however make a good counter to the two points in question. > > They are not relevant, per my view, of the two quesions at hand. > > > > 1) Elements or predictions of the model or hypothesis, need > not "yet" > > be observable phenomenon (e.g. 13 dimensions of string theory) for > the > > model to be useful, e.,g., after explaining observed phenomenon, > > they suggest or make testable predictions. (However, it is best if > > these model elements can themselves be observed someday -- a > problem > > that string theory has. ) > > > > This first point came out of a discussion whereby a devic model was > > suggested to explain SV. Peter said this would be difficult to be > > accepted by science "until observed". While not disagreeing with > his > > endpoint, I suggested that theoretical models often have components > > that are not "yet" observed when the theory is proposed and cited > many > > examples from the history of science. A small yet important > distinction. > > > > More specifically, the distinction I was making suggested that a > model > > that proposes "energy and information intense structures" (aka > devas) > > to explain SV effects should and would not be rejected out of hand > > just because the model itself involves some yet to be observed > > phenomenon (beyond the yet to be unobserved SV effects that it is > > trying to explain). The key is whether the primary effects are > > observed by rigorous studies. If they are, then the theory > deserves a > > closer look. > > > > Per my point #1, you stated "But Einstein's ideas evolved out of > the > > very science that later embraced them and much later found evidence > > for them. The SV mythology does not arise from such an evolution. > > Scientists do not necessarily want to take any old pie in the sky > > explanation for how things work and test it rigorously." > > > > OK, but a bit off the point. You are countering points I never > made or > > disagreed with. Since the discussion was about explanatory models, > I > > keyed on the one relevant point you made on this topic: how ideas > for > > such explanatory models arise. > > > > Thus my point #2: > > > > 2) It doesn't matter from where the inspiration for a scientific > model > > / hypthesis / explanation comes from -- it could come from a > dream, an > > drugs, ritam, a thought experiment, OR from more traditional means. > > What matters is that the idea embodied in an explanatory model > itself > > provides a reasonable explaination for results arising from > rigorously > > conducted, well designed research. And that it provides a basis for > > further research by making predictions. > > > > You then decided to further ignore the points of the debate up to > that > > point, and based on two sentences of contribution up to that point > and > > proclaim THE new definition of the discussion "The question is not > by > > what mental mechanisms scientists come up with new ideas. I was > > addressing what makes a particular set of ideas be considered > > worthwhile to follow up on." Ok, no one was arguing that, but if > you > > want to make some points on it then fine. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
This came from a talk given by an expert on Vastu sent by MMY to the MUM campus to review the campus some years ago. Actually, I think it may have been asuras, and not devas. I don't remember very well. Anyway, this seemed to be coming, not from MMY, but from the traditional understanding of Vastu that predated MMY's interest in it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IN all honesty, Ihave yet to hear an official TM explanation of SV > that involved devas. Orientation to the sun is all Ihave heard. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon > > > as > > > > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got problems > > > > Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm > > > > dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs > > > in > > > > the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And > > > we > > > > are very far from that right now! > > > > > > But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides > > > a basis for quantification. From it we can > > > construct > > > testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes > > > with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages > > > than those in homes with entrances facing in other > > > directions. > > > > I think two things are confounded here. There are the > > empirical findings that correlate south facing > > entranced homes with greater diseases, deaths, etc., > > compared to north facing entranced homes. These are > > empirical facts if the research is done right. Then > > there are the explanatory concepts that either link > > the empirical findings back into known science or a > > new explanatory construct is created (such as in the > > 1% stuff) because it is the best and only way to > > explain the findings. This, of course, is much more > > difficult to do (and what the TMO has failed to do > > with the 1% research. But the new construct must > > attempt to link or bridge known science to the new > > explanatory paradigm. The new construct must "make > > sense" within a scientific zeitgeist. The new > > explanatory construct is a myth and functions as a > > metaphor if this is not done. Right now, to talk about > > self-conscious, non-physical entities (i.e., devas) > > governing directional quadrants on a piece of property > > is just a cultural belief from India. It is very, very > > far away from explaining research findings that > > haven't even been completed yet! > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides > > > a basis for quantification. From it we can construct > > > testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes > > > with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages > > > than those in homes with entrances facing in other > > > directions. > > > > Yes but... > > > > You can do research that shows a correlation between factors, and > even > > gives an indication of which factors may be causal. This is > important > > preliminary research. But, when faced with overwhelming opposition > to > > your ideas due to their not fitting with mainstream paradigms, you > > need to follow up this research with studies that demonstrate the > > actual causal mechanisms for the results being observed. > > I'm not sure you can actually *demonstrate* causal > mechanisms. Rather, you make causal *assumptions* > to a greater or lesser confidence level, no? *** Yeh, sure. To be technically correct. But this doesn't change the nature of the research. One kind of research finds correlations, without looking at what may cause the correlations. Another kind of research focuses more directly on the processes involved. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
Sorry Akasha, This is the point at which a conversation via the web gets tiresome and nit-picky. First I claim the irrelevance of your contribution, then you claim the irrelevance of mine. This reply is in no way an attempt at rebuttal. Perhaps, if we had been in the same room we would have enjoyed a mutually enriching conversation. Sorry it didn't work out that way. As I stated originally, I normally really enjoy the astuteness of your contributions. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your history of science lecture is a all good and fine. I agree with > the essentials of everything your wrote. Making a lot of good points > does not however make a good counter to the two points in question. > They are not relevant, per my view, of the two quesions at hand. > > 1) Elements or predictions of the model or hypothesis, need not "yet" > be observable phenomenon (e.g. 13 dimensions of string theory) for the > model to be useful, e.,g., after explaining observed phenomenon, > they suggest or make testable predictions. (However, it is best if > these model elements can themselves be observed someday -- a problem > that string theory has. ) > > This first point came out of a discussion whereby a devic model was > suggested to explain SV. Peter said this would be difficult to be > accepted by science "until observed". While not disagreeing with his > endpoint, I suggested that theoretical models often have components > that are not "yet" observed when the theory is proposed and cited many > examples from the history of science. A small yet important distinction. > > More specifically, the distinction I was making suggested that a model > that proposes "energy and information intense structures" (aka devas) > to explain SV effects should and would not be rejected out of hand > just because the model itself involves some yet to be observed > phenomenon (beyond the yet to be unobserved SV effects that it is > trying to explain). The key is whether the primary effects are > observed by rigorous studies. If they are, then the theory deserves a > closer look. > > Per my point #1, you stated "But Einstein's ideas evolved out of the > very science that later embraced them and much later found evidence > for them. The SV mythology does not arise from such an evolution. > Scientists do not necessarily want to take any old pie in the sky > explanation for how things work and test it rigorously." > > OK, but a bit off the point. You are countering points I never made or > disagreed with. Since the discussion was about explanatory models, I > keyed on the one relevant point you made on this topic: how ideas for > such explanatory models arise. > > Thus my point #2: > > 2) It doesn't matter from where the inspiration for a scientific model > / hypthesis / explanation comes from -- it could come from a dream, an > drugs, ritam, a thought experiment, OR from more traditional means. > What matters is that the idea embodied in an explanatory model itself > provides a reasonable explaination for results arising from rigorously > conducted, well designed research. And that it provides a basis for > further research by making predictions. > > You then decided to further ignore the points of the debate up to that > point, and based on two sentences of contribution up to that point and > proclaim THE new definition of the discussion "The question is not by > what mental mechanisms scientists come up with new ideas. I was > addressing what makes a particular set of ideas be considered > worthwhile to follow up on." Ok, no one was arguing that, but if you > want to make some points on it then fine. > > So if you want to argue these two points I was actually making, I > would be happy to read your critique. I may be wrong and well welcome > sound analysis of such. > > If you want to introduce some new points and point out their relevance > to the disuccion, thats great. I simply suggest that a highly > dismissive tone is not so consucive for such. > > If you would rather write a lot of well-written, yet irreleveant (to > the points in question), summaries from the history of science, > perhaps to demonstrated to us your knowledge of such, thats fine to. > Just don't suggest you are effectively addresing the two points in > question. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > omg, I mean Akasha: > > > > You usually have very astute observations to make on FFL. In this > > case, I am quite disappointed. The question is not by what mental > > mechanisms scientists come up with new ideas. I was addressing what > > makes a particular set of ideas be considered worthwhile to follow > > up on. > > > > In the case of August Kekule, he was already a chemist. He was > > exploring the question of the structure of the benzene molecule in > > his waking hours because he considered the q
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides > > > a basis for quantification. From it we can construct > > > testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes > > > with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages > > > than those in homes with entrances facing in other > > > directions. > > > > Yes but... > > > > You can do research that shows a correlation between factors, and > even > > gives an indication of which factors may be causal. This is > important > > preliminary research. But, when faced with overwhelming opposition > to > > your ideas due to their not fitting with mainstream paradigms, you > > need to follow up this research with studies that demonstrate the > > actual causal mechanisms for the results being observed. > > I'm not sure you can actually *demonstrate* causal > mechanisms. Rather, you make causal *assumptions* > to a greater or lesser confidence level, no? > Its all mythical. There's no such thing as scientific "explanation" in the logical/legal sense of the word. Scientists talk about "underlying mechanisms" because its convenient and makes it easier to deal with things, but just as someone who is fully enlightened is supposed to perceive the world without intellectual analysis getting inthe way, scientific reality is assumed to be unknowable. The best you can hope for is that your stories (theories) about the world have some relationship to reality. The working assumption is merely that your predictions won't prove incorrect. THEN you're supposed to try to knock holes in your own assumption. > > > At this time, > > no one has a clue how to study the causal relationship between > devas > > that can't be seen and anything else. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides > > a basis for quantification. From it we can construct > > testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes > > with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages > > than those in homes with entrances facing in other > > directions. > > Yes but... > > You can do research that shows a correlation between factors, and even > gives an indication of which factors may be causal. This is important > preliminary research. But, when faced with overwhelming opposition to > your ideas due to their not fitting with mainstream paradigms, you > need to follow up this research with studies that demonstrate the > actual causal mechanisms for the results being observed. I'm not sure you can actually *demonstrate* causal mechanisms. Rather, you make causal *assumptions* to a greater or lesser confidence level, no? At this time, > no one has a clue how to study the causal relationship between devas > that can't be seen and anything else. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Judy, > > Your comments sound like a description of an idealized scientific > world, where science is conducted in a sociological vacuum. Yes, I'm talking about how the scientific method is *supposed* to work. It's supposed to be independent of the sociological context, because today's pie in the sky just might be tomorrow's new paradigm. Interestingly, this is just what the editor of the Journal of Conflict Resolution pointed out when he published the Jerusalem ME study: this is how it's *supposed* to work--a study that is methodologically sound is published no matter how repugnant the hypothesis--but usually doesn't. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon > > as > > > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got problems > > > Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm > > > dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs > > in > > > the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And > > we > > > are very far from that right now! > > > > But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides > > a basis for quantification. From it we can > > construct > > testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes > > with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages > > than those in homes with entrances facing in other > > directions. > > I think two things are confounded here. There are the > empirical findings that correlate south facing > entranced homes with greater diseases, deaths, etc., > compared to north facing entranced homes. These are > empirical facts if the research is done right. Then > there are the explanatory concepts that either link > the empirical findings back into known science or a > new explanatory construct is created (such as in the > 1% stuff) because it is the best and only way to > explain the findings. I'm not sure how you think I "confounded" these two. You said it was a myth until it could be "quantified"; I was pointing out that the myth itself was a means of quantification in that it could be used to generate testable hypotheses; studies to test the hypotheses would then generate data, empirical facts. You now appear to be referring to a later stage of the process, one I wasn't addressing at all. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Cliff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Modern scientific thought is based on Newtonian Gravity? Not for the > last 90 years or so. Ever heard of Einsteinian Relativity? > > Newtonian Gravitational theory was quite fundamental for hundreds of > years, but has been proven to be a "good approximation" of reality as > long as nothing is moving too quickly relative to the observer. But to > consider it fundamental today is equivalent to considering horse and > buggy to being the latest in ground transportation technology. > > The modern scientific method got its start working with Newtonian Gravity. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
This only goes to prove the point. "South" is only south because the first mapmakers lived in what is now called the northern hemisphere. They decided they wanted to be on top (probably men), so they drew maps with their countries above all those nasty, dark-skinned people who lived "below" them. It's a totally arbitrary direction from the point of view of the cosmos. If SV claims some specialness for south without regard to where the sun actually lies (north, for most of the year, when in most of the southern hemisphere), then it is as arbitrary as I suspect it to be. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Cliff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > "Vedic reasoning" is an oxymoron, just like "silent cry" or "Dodge > > Ram". > > > There is no such thing. It's a system of belief, pure and simple. > > > > > > I'll buy Sparaig's cultural reason - the Aryan invaders came from > > the > > > north, and I bet the Dravidian's were pissed off enough at being > > > slaughtered and having their women raped that they frequently fought > > > back from the south. I certainly would have. > > > > > > As for the "scientific reason", that would imply that northern > > entrances > > > would be verboten in the in the southern hemisphere, since that's > > where > > > the sun would lie. But since Vedic civilization had no notion of a > > > southern hemisphere, there is no mention of this. Same reason > > there's > > > no mention of Neptune, Uranus and Pluto - no one saw them before the > > > invention of the telescope. > > > > > > Out of sight, out of belief system, when the belief system is hung > > on > > > something tangible like direction or a visible planet. > > > > > > > > > In fact, I can't find anyone who knows the answer to the question: > > should we reversethe roles of North and South in SV when dealing with > > buildings south of the Equator? > > > > Until I hear a definitive answer from the TMO, I reserve judgement on > > how inflexable the SV interpretation is. > > I am not the TMO, but I have heard MMY and the TMO say without > equivication that its still southern entrances in the southern hemisphere. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
Modern scientific thought is based on Newtonian Gravity? Not for the last 90 years or so. Ever heard of Einsteinian Relativity? Newtonian Gravitational theory was quite fundamental for hundreds of years, but has been proven to be a "good approximation" of reality as long as nothing is moving too quickly relative to the observer. But to consider it fundamental today is equivalent to considering horse and buggy to being the latest in ground transportation technology. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [...] > These are > > empirical facts if the research is done right. Then > > there are the explanatory concepts that either link > > the empirical findings back into known science or a > > new explanatory construct is created (such as in the > > 1% stuff) because it is the best and only way to > > explain the findings. This, of course, is much more > > difficult to do (and what the TMO has failed to do > > with the 1% research. But the new construct must > > attempt to link or bridge known science to the new > > explanatory paradigm. The new construct must "make > > sense" within a scientific zeitgeist. The new > > explanatory construct is a myth and functions as a > > metaphor if this is not done. Right now, to talk about > > self-conscious, non-physical entities (i.e., devas) > > governing directional quadrants on a piece of property > > is just a cultural belief from India. It is very, very > > far away from explaining research findings that > > haven't even been completed yet! > > I don't know where you learned your "scientific theory" but its just > plain wrong. It doesn't cover such fundamental scientific theories as > Newtonian Gravity for instance, which is what modern scientific > thoguht is based on. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Cliff" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > "Vedic reasoning" is an oxymoron, just like "silent cry" > or "Dodge > > > Ram". > > > > There is no such thing. It's a system of belief, pure and > simple. > > > > > > > > I'll buy Sparaig's cultural reason - the Aryan invaders came > from > > > the > > > > north, and I bet the Dravidian's were pissed off enough at being > > > > slaughtered and having their women raped that they frequently > fought > > > > back from the south. I certainly would have. > > > > > > > > As for the "scientific reason", that would imply that northern > > > entrances > > > > would be verboten in the in the southern hemisphere, since > that's > > > where > > > > the sun would lie. But since Vedic civilization had no notion > of a > > > > southern hemisphere, there is no mention of this. Same reason > > > there's > > > > no mention of Neptune, Uranus and Pluto - no one saw them > before the > > > > invention of the telescope. > > > > > > > > Out of sight, out of belief system, when the belief system is > hung > > > on > > > > something tangible like direction or a visible planet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > In fact, I can't find anyone who knows the answer to the > question: > > > should we reversethe roles of North and South in SV when dealing > with > > > buildings south of the Equator? > > > > > > Until I hear a definitive answer from the TMO, I reserve > judgement on > > > how inflexable the SV interpretation is. > > > > I am not the TMO, but I have heard MMY and the TMO say without > > equivication that its still southern entrances in the southern > hemisphere. > > COuld you point me to where thisis said? This would go against the > claimthat it is sunlight that is the determining factor in these > matters. I understand the contradiction, but I heard tapes of such. And some in print interivews in some TMO publications, but I cannot cite. Sorry. Just passing on what I heard. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Cliff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > "Vedic reasoning" is an oxymoron, just like "silent cry" or "Dodge > > Ram". > > > There is no such thing. It's a system of belief, pure and simple. > > > > > > I'll buy Sparaig's cultural reason - the Aryan invaders came from > > the > > > north, and I bet the Dravidian's were pissed off enough at being > > > slaughtered and having their women raped that they frequently fought > > > back from the south. I certainly would have. > > > > > > As for the "scientific reason", that would imply that northern > > entrances > > > would be verboten in the in the southern hemisphere, since that's > > where > > > the sun would lie. But since Vedic civilization had no notion of a > > > southern hemisphere, there is no mention of this. Same reason > > there's > > > no mention of Neptune, Uranus and Pluto - no one saw them before the > > > invention of the telescope. > > > > > > Out of sight, out of belief system, when the belief system is hung > > on > > > something tangible like direction or a visible planet. > > > > > > > > > In fact, I can't find anyone who knows the answer to the question: > > should we reversethe roles of North and South in SV when dealing with > > buildings south of the Equator? > > > > Until I hear a definitive answer from the TMO, I reserve judgement on > > how inflexable the SV interpretation is. > > I am not the TMO, but I have heard MMY and the TMO say without > equivication that its still southern entrances in the southern hemisphere. COuld you point me to where thisis said? This would go against the claimthat it is sunlight that is the determining factor in these matters. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- sparaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > But Einstein's ideas evolved out of the very > > science that later > > > embraced them and much later found evidence for > > them. > > > > > > The SV mythology does not arise from such an > > evolution. Scientists > > > do not necessarily want to take any old pie in the > > sky explanation > > > for how things work and test it rigorously. > > > > "Deva" is merely a place-holder word. You can > > substitute any set of > > scientific terms you want. Science, the methodology, > > doesn't "care" > > about terminology, only about results. > > No, you are completely wrong here. The explanatory > concepts must make sense by having quantifiable > properties (i.e., open to measurement) and not be > simple metaphors or "placeholders". Placeholders for > what, reality? Parts of the theory must be open to falsifiability of some kind, yes... Placeholder is a perfectly accurate term to use here, of course. Elsewise, why name something a "quark" instead of "breakfast cereal" or "nonsense poem?" [the latter being the source of the term 'quark' and the former being named in honor of the arbitrarily named elementary particle] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Cliff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > "Vedic reasoning" is an oxymoron, just like "silent cry" or "Dodge > Ram". > > There is no such thing. It's a system of belief, pure and simple. > > > > I'll buy Sparaig's cultural reason - the Aryan invaders came from > the > > north, and I bet the Dravidian's were pissed off enough at being > > slaughtered and having their women raped that they frequently fought > > back from the south. I certainly would have. > > > > As for the "scientific reason", that would imply that northern > entrances > > would be verboten in the in the southern hemisphere, since that's > where > > the sun would lie. But since Vedic civilization had no notion of a > > southern hemisphere, there is no mention of this. Same reason > there's > > no mention of Neptune, Uranus and Pluto - no one saw them before the > > invention of the telescope. > > > > Out of sight, out of belief system, when the belief system is hung > on > > something tangible like direction or a visible planet. > > > > > In fact, I can't find anyone who knows the answer to the question: > should we reversethe roles of North and South in SV when dealing with > buildings south of the Equator? > > Until I hear a definitive answer from the TMO, I reserve judgement on > how inflexable the SV interpretation is. I am not the TMO, but I have heard MMY and the TMO say without equivication that its still southern entrances in the southern hemisphere. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- sparaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > But Einstein's ideas evolved out of the very > science that later > > embraced them and much later found evidence for > them. > > > > The SV mythology does not arise from such an > evolution. Scientists > > do not necessarily want to take any old pie in the > sky explanation > > for how things work and test it rigorously. > > "Deva" is merely a place-holder word. You can > substitute any set of > scientific terms you want. Science, the methodology, > doesn't "care" > about terminology, only about results. No, you are completely wrong here. The explanatory concepts must make sense by having quantifiable properties (i.e., open to measurement) and not be simple metaphors or "placeholders". Placeholders for what, reality? > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as > soon as > > > > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got > problems > > > > Houston within a scientific paradigm. > > > > > > Because there are elements in the theory that > are not (yet) > > > observable? That does not seem to be a problem > for hard core > > science. > > > > > > Black holes were predicted by Einstein's (and > other's) work in the > > > early 20's but were not "observed", albeit > indirectly -- by > > > implication, for 60-70 years. String theory's 13 > dimensions have > > not > > > been observed, but a lot of high level physics > focuses on such. A > > > mechanism like DNA was postulated for some time, > but was not > > > "observed" until 1953. The Big Bang was not > observed, but its a > > model > > > that fits the observable evidence. > > > > > > Why then should a model of energy / information > structures (aka > > devas) > > > that "explain" observed phenomenon be > rejected? I know that > > there is > > > "no" observed phenomenon yet, but if research > did show a SV > effect, > > > then a model of priordial energy / information > structures is > not > > so > > > wierd. And perhaps Science will then someday > actual "observe" > > these > > > energy / information structures. Stranger things > have happened in > > science. > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ~--> > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make > Yahoo! your home page > http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM > ~-> > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > __ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Cliff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Vedic reasoning" is an oxymoron, just like "silent cry" or "Dodge Ram". > There is no such thing. It's a system of belief, pure and simple. > > I'll buy Sparaig's cultural reason - the Aryan invaders came from the > north, and I bet the Dravidian's were pissed off enough at being > slaughtered and having their women raped that they frequently fought > back from the south. I certainly would have. > > As for the "scientific reason", that would imply that northern entrances > would be verboten in the in the southern hemisphere, since that's where > the sun would lie. But since Vedic civilization had no notion of a > southern hemisphere, there is no mention of this. Same reason there's > no mention of Neptune, Uranus and Pluto - no one saw them before the > invention of the telescope. > > Out of sight, out of belief system, when the belief system is hung on > something tangible like direction or a visible planet. > In fact, I can't find anyone who knows the answer to the question: should we reversethe roles of North and South in SV when dealing with buildings south of the Equator? Until I hear a definitive answer from the TMO, I reserve judgement on how inflexable the SV interpretation is. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] These are > empirical facts if the research is done right. Then > there are the explanatory concepts that either link > the empirical findings back into known science or a > new explanatory construct is created (such as in the > 1% stuff) because it is the best and only way to > explain the findings. This, of course, is much more > difficult to do (and what the TMO has failed to do > with the 1% research. But the new construct must > attempt to link or bridge known science to the new > explanatory paradigm. The new construct must "make > sense" within a scientific zeitgeist. The new > explanatory construct is a myth and functions as a > metaphor if this is not done. Right now, to talk about > self-conscious, non-physical entities (i.e., devas) > governing directional quadrants on a piece of property > is just a cultural belief from India. It is very, very > far away from explaining research findings that > haven't even been completed yet! I don't know where you learned your "scientific theory" but its just plain wrong. It doesn't cover such fundamental scientific theories as Newtonian Gravity for instance, which is what modern scientific thoguht is based on. / Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
IN all honesty, Ihave yet to hear an official TM explanation of SV that involved devas. Orientation to the sun is all Ihave heard. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon > > as > > > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got problems > > > Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm > > > dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs > > in > > > the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And > > we > > > are very far from that right now! > > > > But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides > > a basis for quantification. From it we can > > construct > > testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes > > with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages > > than those in homes with entrances facing in other > > directions. > > I think two things are confounded here. There are the > empirical findings that correlate south facing > entranced homes with greater diseases, deaths, etc., > compared to north facing entranced homes. These are > empirical facts if the research is done right. Then > there are the explanatory concepts that either link > the empirical findings back into known science or a > new explanatory construct is created (such as in the > 1% stuff) because it is the best and only way to > explain the findings. This, of course, is much more > difficult to do (and what the TMO has failed to do > with the 1% research. But the new construct must > attempt to link or bridge known science to the new > explanatory paradigm. The new construct must "make > sense" within a scientific zeitgeist. The new > explanatory construct is a myth and functions as a > metaphor if this is not done. Right now, to talk about > self-conscious, non-physical entities (i.e., devas) > governing directional quadrants on a piece of property > is just a cultural belief from India. It is very, very > far away from explaining research findings that > haven't even been completed yet! > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides > > a basis for quantification. From it we can construct > > testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes > > with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages > > than those in homes with entrances facing in other > > directions. > > Yes but... > > You can do research that shows a correlation between factors, and even > gives an indication of which factors may be causal. This is important > preliminary research. But, when faced with overwhelming opposition to > your ideas due to their not fitting with mainstream paradigms, you > need to follow up this research with studies that demonstrate the > actual causal mechanisms for the results being observed. At this time, > no one has a clue how to study the causal relationship between devas > that can't be seen and anything else. So what "causes" gravity? You seem to think that science invoves "explanations" in some logical sense. All a scientific "explanations" is, is a prediction derived from theory rather than directly from any observations that led to the theory. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But Einstein's ideas evolved out of the very science that later > embraced them and much later found evidence for them. > > The SV mythology does not arise from such an evolution. Scientists > do not necessarily want to take any old pie in the sky explanation > for how things work and test it rigorously. "Deva" is merely a place-holder word. You can substitute any set of scientific terms you want. Science, the methodology, doesn't "care" about terminology, only about results. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as > > > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got problems > > > Houston within a scientific paradigm. > > > > Because there are elements in the theory that are not (yet) > > observable? That does not seem to be a problem for hard core > science. > > > > Black holes were predicted by Einstein's (and other's) work in the > > early 20's but were not "observed", albeit indirectly -- by > > implication, for 60-70 years. String theory's 13 dimensions have > not > > been observed, but a lot of high level physics focuses on such. A > > mechanism like DNA was postulated for some time, but was not > > "observed" until 1953. The Big Bang was not observed, but its a > model > > that fits the observable evidence. > > > > Why then should a model of energy / information structures (aka > devas) > > that "explain" observed phenomenon be rejected? I know that > there is > > "no" observed phenomenon yet, but if research did show a SV effect, > > then a model of priordial energy / information structures is not > so > > wierd. And perhaps Science will then someday actual "observe" > these > > energy / information structures. Stranger things have happened in > science. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh, I see. I jumped into this conversation without having read any > of its preamble. I thought you wanted to know how SV justifies > itself. What I gave you is from the mythology that comes with the > Vastu package prior to its adoption by MMY. On the other hand, it is > a reasonable first place to look for an explanation. Why would > anyone else have a justification for it all. > > So scientific research on SV, if it occurs at all, will be stuck in > the realm of correlation of results rather than being able to focus > on demonstration of causality. Much like the limitations of TM > research. You can't talk about "causality" until you've demonstrated correlation, and what makes you think that there aren't more involved theories of the physiology of TM kicking around? Do you read post-PhD level stuff on neuroscience? > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as > > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got problems > > Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm > > dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs in > > the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And we > > are very far from that right now! > > > > --- anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Something along the following lines: > > > > > > A piece of land gets arbitrarily separated from > > > everything else by > > > some human being who puts a fence around it. Having > > > done this, that > > > property gets divided on a grid such that different > > > squares on the > > > grid are "governed" by different devas. Why this > > > should be the case, > > > I don't know. > > > > > The entries into the building on the property will > > > sit on top of > > > these abstract squares and therefore be under the > > > influence of one > > > or more of these devas. Having a southern entrance > > > will increase > > > problems in the direction of death because the devas > > > that hang out > > > on that side are Yama (god of death) and other > > > related henchmen. > > > Just what the devas are that hang out on the north > > > side, I don't > > > know. But they are supposed to support prosperity > > > and having > > > children, I think. The devas on the east side are > > > supposed to > > > support spiritual growth. > > > > > > Incidentally, Keith Wallace recently told the MUM > > > students the > > > official explanation for the following change of > > > policy. In the > > > past, the teacher always faced east in the > > > classroom, while the > > > students faced west. The logic was that the teacher > > > needed to be the > > > most coherent person present, being the one that > > > everyone was paying > > > attention to, and facing east produced the most > > > coherence. Now, the > > > policy is reversed. The logic is that it makes no > > > difference which > > > direction someone who is enlightened faces, but it > > > matters for those > > > who are not. The implication is that the faculty of > > > MUM are all > > > enlightened, while the students are not. > > > > > > So why all this emphasis on SV in the first place? > > > Why not just > > > focus on the enlightenment of individuals as in the > > > original plan. > > > It might have been more successful at transforming > > > the world than > > > all these impersonal plans to save humanity that > > > seem to go nowhere. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Could someone tell me what is the vedic reasoning > > > > behind why a northern facing entrance to a > > > building > > > > lowers the crime rate, sickness, etc. of those > > > living > > > > in such a building? Can a functional hypothesis > > > even > > > > be created that makes rational sense? Also, you > > > will > > > > be fined 12 points if the term "natural law" comes > > > up > > > > in your answer! Please use the term, IUWEROQWF, > > > > instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > > Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina > > > relief effort. > > > > http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > > ~--> > > > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make > > > Yahoo! your home page > > > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM > > > > > -- - > -~-> > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Or go to: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > > and click 'Join This Group!' > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got problems > Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm > dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs in > the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And we > are very far from that right now! Actually, it doesn't matter if a scientific theory "hangs in the air." Gravity is the ultimate "hangs i nthe air" theory and in fact, gravitational theory launched modern scientific thought specifically BECAUSE it "hangs in the air." In other words, there's no theory to "explain" gravitation besides gravitation, whether you're talking Newtonian or Einstein's General Relativity: they "hang in the air" by themselves with no relationship to the rest of physics that we can come up with. That was Newton's REAL contribution to science: science doesn't need "first causes," but only needs to make testable predictions. If the Deva Theory of Vastu makes testable (falsifiable) predictions, then its at least potentially scientific. If the predictions turn out to have somesemblence of correctness, so much the better. If someone were willing to modify the Deva Theory of Vastu based on testing, than it would BE scientific. I'm not holding my breath about this last stage, however. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Cliff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Vedic reasoning" is an oxymoron, just like "silent cry" or "Dodge Ram". > There is no such thing. It's a system of belief, pure and simple. Um, perhaps there are some flaws in vedic logic and reasoning systems that can be argued. But to hold that they do not exist, simply means that such an observer is, um, "in the void". :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyaya Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One of those great words that you don't get to use too > often but it really captures your intent at times. Zeitgeist of theory. Many conceptual Gestalts. I said Gesundheit. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
"Vedic reasoning" is an oxymoron, just like "silent cry" or "Dodge Ram". There is no such thing. It's a system of belief, pure and simple. I'll buy Sparaig's cultural reason - the Aryan invaders came from the north, and I bet the Dravidian's were pissed off enough at being slaughtered and having their women raped that they frequently fought back from the south. I certainly would have. As for the "scientific reason", that would imply that northern entrances would be verboten in the in the southern hemisphere, since that's where the sun would lie. But since Vedic civilization had no notion of a southern hemisphere, there is no mention of this. Same reason there's no mention of Neptune, Uranus and Pluto - no one saw them before the invention of the telescope. Out of sight, out of belief system, when the belief system is hung on something tangible like direction or a visible planet. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Could someone tell me what is the vedic reasoning > > behind why a northern facing entrance to a building > > lowers the crime rate, sickness, etc. of those living > > in such a building? Can a functional hypothesis even > > be created that makes rational sense? Also, you will > > be fined 12 points if the term "natural law" comes up > > in your answer! Please use the term, IUWEROQWF, > > instead. > > > > The cultural answer isthat the invaders didn't like the guys who lived > south of them. > > The "scientific" answer is that having sunlight hit the entrance of > your building non-stop all day somehow effectsthe people who enter and > leave your building--maybe its too hot or blinding? > > IN the case of the old U of AZ student union entrance, with its south- > facing brick-encased alcove and 8-foot tall aluminum statue by the > door, no-one in their right mind would use the main entrance anyway. I > escorted John Hagelin around campus many years ago and commented that > we were going to use the main entrance just so he would get a "real" > idea what an Arizona summer was like. His comment on being hit by the > 150 degree temperature at the door was "Oh my." > > Very presidential of him, I thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. > > http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides > > a basis for quantification. From it we can construct > > testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes > > with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages > > than those in homes with entrances facing in other > > directions. > > Yes but... > > You can do research that shows a correlation between factors, and even > gives an indication of which factors may be causal. This is important > preliminary research. But, when faced with overwhelming opposition to > your ideas due to their not fitting with mainstream paradigms, you > need to follow up this research with studies that demonstrate the > actual causal mechanisms for the results being observed. At this time, > no one has a clue how to study the causal relationship between devas > that can't be seen and anything else. I agree that a devic model -- even if cast as "intense energy and information structures" is not a good starting point. The first step is to actually produce some well designed, cleanly conducted and well analyzed research on SV showing some results. (Difficult as several have pointed out to get funding for such, but that, while difficult, is not an unsurmountable obstacle.) Positive results, may or may not occur. But if they did, a full blown explanatory model is not required to publish the results. They can be cast as anomalous, perhaps related to magnetic directional sensibilites of birds and some mammals. And the traditional explanation could be given -- with the acknowledgement that while empirically hard to fathom, such a tradional explanation may lead to intestigation of subtle energy and information strucutres. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
Your history of science lecture is a all good and fine. I agree with the essentials of everything your wrote. Making a lot of good points does not however make a good counter to the two points in question. They are not relevant, per my view, of the two quesions at hand. 1) Elements or predictions of the model or hypothesis, need not "yet" be observable phenomenon (e.g. 13 dimensions of string theory) for the model to be useful, e.,g., after explaining observed phenomenon, they suggest or make testable predictions. (However, it is best if these model elements can themselves be observed someday -- a problem that string theory has. ) This first point came out of a discussion whereby a devic model was suggested to explain SV. Peter said this would be difficult to be accepted by science "until observed". While not disagreeing with his endpoint, I suggested that theoretical models often have components that are not "yet" observed when the theory is proposed and cited many examples from the history of science. A small yet important distinction. More specifically, the distinction I was making suggested that a model that proposes "energy and information intense structures" (aka devas) to explain SV effects should and would not be rejected out of hand just because the model itself involves some yet to be observed phenomenon (beyond the yet to be unobserved SV effects that it is trying to explain). The key is whether the primary effects are observed by rigorous studies. If they are, then the theory deserves a closer look. Per my point #1, you stated "But Einstein's ideas evolved out of the very science that later embraced them and much later found evidence for them. The SV mythology does not arise from such an evolution. Scientists do not necessarily want to take any old pie in the sky explanation for how things work and test it rigorously." OK, but a bit off the point. You are countering points I never made or disagreed with. Since the discussion was about explanatory models, I keyed on the one relevant point you made on this topic: how ideas for such explanatory models arise. Thus my point #2: 2) It doesn't matter from where the inspiration for a scientific model / hypthesis / explanation comes from -- it could come from a dream, an drugs, ritam, a thought experiment, OR from more traditional means. What matters is that the idea embodied in an explanatory model itself provides a reasonable explaination for results arising from rigorously conducted, well designed research. And that it provides a basis for further research by making predictions. You then decided to further ignore the points of the debate up to that point, and based on two sentences of contribution up to that point and proclaim THE new definition of the discussion "The question is not by what mental mechanisms scientists come up with new ideas. I was addressing what makes a particular set of ideas be considered worthwhile to follow up on." Ok, no one was arguing that, but if you want to make some points on it then fine. So if you want to argue these two points I was actually making, I would be happy to read your critique. I may be wrong and well welcome sound analysis of such. If you want to introduce some new points and point out their relevance to the disuccion, thats great. I simply suggest that a highly dismissive tone is not so consucive for such. If you would rather write a lot of well-written, yet irreleveant (to the points in question), summaries from the history of science, perhaps to demonstrated to us your knowledge of such, thats fine to. Just don't suggest you are effectively addresing the two points in question. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > omg, I mean Akasha: > > You usually have very astute observations to make on FFL. In this > case, I am quite disappointed. The question is not by what mental > mechanisms scientists come up with new ideas. I was addressing what > makes a particular set of ideas be considered worthwhile to follow > up on. > > In the case of August Kekule, he was already a chemist. He was > exploring the question of the structure of the benzene molecule in > his waking hours because he considered the question to be > meaningful. Why? Because he knew that benzene existed as a chemical > and that there was a growing body of understanding of how chemicals > are made of molecules, which in turn are made of atoms. This was the > understanding that chemists had (still do). On the basis of that > understanding, his thought processes proceeded, some in waking some > in a dream. Why did he follow up on his dream? Because he knew on > the basis of all his preparation as a chemist and all his thought on > this particular topic, that he was on to a solution. > > In Einstein's case, it would be quite naïve to suppose that his > background in physics had nothing to do with the thought experiments > that he chose to make. For example, con
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
One of those great words that you don't get to use too often but it really captures your intent at times. --- anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Love that word: "zeitgeist" > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I think two things are confounded here. There are > the > > empirical findings that correlate south facing > > entranced homes with greater diseases, deaths, > etc., > > compared to north facing entranced homes. These > are > > empirical facts if the research is done right. > Then > > there are the explanatory concepts that either > link > > the empirical findings back into known science or > a > > new explanatory construct is created (such as in > the > > 1% stuff) because it is the best and only way to > > explain the findings. This, of course, is much > more > > difficult to do (and what the TMO has failed to do > > with the 1% research. But the new construct must > > attempt to link or bridge known science to the new > > explanatory paradigm. The new construct must > "make > > sense" within a scientific zeitgeist. The new > > explanatory construct is a myth and functions as a > > metaphor if this is not done. Right now, to talk > about > > self-conscious, non-physical entities (i.e., > devas) > > governing directional quadrants on a piece of > property > > is just a cultural belief from India. It is very, > very > > far away from explaining research findings that > > haven't even been completed yet! > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ~--> > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make > Yahoo! your home page > http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM > ~-> > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > __ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
Love that word: "zeitgeist" --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think two things are confounded here. There are the > empirical findings that correlate south facing > entranced homes with greater diseases, deaths, etc., > compared to north facing entranced homes. These are > empirical facts if the research is done right. Then > there are the explanatory concepts that either link > the empirical findings back into known science or a > new explanatory construct is created (such as in the > 1% stuff) because it is the best and only way to > explain the findings. This, of course, is much more > difficult to do (and what the TMO has failed to do > with the 1% research. But the new construct must > attempt to link or bridge known science to the new > explanatory paradigm. The new construct must "make > sense" within a scientific zeitgeist. The new > explanatory construct is a myth and functions as a > metaphor if this is not done. Right now, to talk about > self-conscious, non-physical entities (i.e., devas) > governing directional quadrants on a piece of property > is just a cultural belief from India. It is very, very > far away from explaining research findings that > haven't even been completed yet! Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon > as > > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got problems > > Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm > > dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs > in > > the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And > we > > are very far from that right now! > > But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides > a basis for quantification. From it we can > construct > testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes > with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages > than those in homes with entrances facing in other > directions. I think two things are confounded here. There are the empirical findings that correlate south facing entranced homes with greater diseases, deaths, etc., compared to north facing entranced homes. These are empirical facts if the research is done right. Then there are the explanatory concepts that either link the empirical findings back into known science or a new explanatory construct is created (such as in the 1% stuff) because it is the best and only way to explain the findings. This, of course, is much more difficult to do (and what the TMO has failed to do with the 1% research. But the new construct must attempt to link or bridge known science to the new explanatory paradigm. The new construct must "make sense" within a scientific zeitgeist. The new explanatory construct is a myth and functions as a metaphor if this is not done. Right now, to talk about self-conscious, non-physical entities (i.e., devas) governing directional quadrants on a piece of property is just a cultural belief from India. It is very, very far away from explaining research findings that haven't even been completed yet! > > > > > > > > > --- anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Something along the following lines: > > > > > > A piece of land gets arbitrarily separated from > > > everything else by > > > some human being who puts a fence around it. > Having > > > done this, that > > > property gets divided on a grid such that > different > > > squares on the > > > grid are "governed" by different devas. Why this > > > should be the case, > > > I don't know. > > > > > The entries into the building on the property > will > > > sit on top of > > > these abstract squares and therefore be under > the > > > influence of one > > > or more of these devas. Having a southern > entrance > > > will increase > > > problems in the direction of death because the > devas > > > that hang out > > > on that side are Yama (god of death) and other > > > related henchmen. > > > Just what the devas are that hang out on the > north > > > side, I don't > > > know. But they are supposed to support > prosperity > > > and having > > > children, I think. The devas on the east side > are > > > supposed to > > > support spiritual growth. > > > > > > Incidentally, Keith Wallace recently told the > MUM > > > students the > > > official explanation for the following change of > > > policy. In the > > > past, the teacher always faced east in the > > > classroom, while the > > > students faced west. The logic was that the > teacher > > > needed to be the > > > most coherent person present, being the one that > > > everyone was paying > > > attention to, and facing east produced the most > > > coherence. Now, the > > > policy is reversed. The logic is that it makes > no > > > difference which > > > direction someone who is enlightened faces, but > it > > > matters for those > > > who are not. The implication is that the faculty > of > > > MUM are all > > > enlightened, while the students are not. > > > > > > So why all this emphasis on SV in the first > place? > > > Why not just > > > focus on the enlightenment of individuals as in > the > > > original plan. > > > It might have been more successful at > transforming > > > the world than > > > all these impersonal plans to save humanity that > > > seem to go nowhere. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Could someone tell me what is the vedic > reasoning > > > > behind why a northern facing entrance to a > > > building > > > > lowers the crime rate, sickness, etc. of those > > > living > > > > in such a building? Can a functional > hypothesis > > > even > > > > be created that makes rational sense? Also, > you > > > will > > > > be fined 12 points if the term "natural law" > comes > > > up > > > > in your answer! Please use the term, > IUWEROQWF, > > > > instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > > Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina > > > relief effort. > > > > http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Could someone tell me what is the vedic reasoning > behind why a northern facing entrance to a building > lowers the crime rate, sickness, etc. of those living > in such a building? Can a functional hypothesis even > be created that makes rational sense? Also, you will > be fined 12 points if the term "natural law" comes up > in your answer! Please use the term, IUWEROQWF, > instead. > The cultural answer isthat the invaders didn't like the guys who lived south of them. The "scientific" answer is that having sunlight hit the entrance of your building non-stop all day somehow effectsthe people who enter and leave your building--maybe its too hot or blinding? IN the case of the old U of AZ student union entrance, with its south- facing brick-encased alcove and 8-foot tall aluminum statue by the door, no-one in their right mind would use the main entrance anyway. I escorted John Hagelin around campus many years ago and commented that we were going to use the main entrance just so he would get a "real" idea what an Arizona summer was like. His comment on being hit by the 150 degree temperature at the door was "Oh my." Very presidential of him, I thought. > > > > > __ > Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. > http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides > a basis for quantification. From it we can construct > testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes > with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages > than those in homes with entrances facing in other > directions. Yes but... You can do research that shows a correlation between factors, and even gives an indication of which factors may be causal. This is important preliminary research. But, when faced with overwhelming opposition to your ideas due to their not fitting with mainstream paradigms, you need to follow up this research with studies that demonstrate the actual causal mechanisms for the results being observed. At this time, no one has a clue how to study the causal relationship between devas that can't be seen and anything else. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
Dear Judy, Your comments sound like a description of an idealized scientific world, where science is conducted in a sociological vacuum. Please refer to my response to Akasha on this topic for more of my opinion on this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > But Einstein's ideas evolved out of the very science that later > > embraced them and much later found evidence for them. > > > > The SV mythology does not arise from such an evolution. Scientists > > do not necessarily want to take any old pie in the sky explanation > > for how things work and test it rigorously. > > Not just *any* old pie in the sky explanation, > certainly. > > But a given scientist may have what he or she thinks > is a compelling insight that other scientists find > absurd. It's then up to the scientist who had the > insight to shape it into a testable hypothesis and run > some experiments. > > If the studies' methodology is tight and the data > support the hypothesis, then, no matter how ridiculous > the hypothesis may seem to other scientists, the onus > is on them to replicate the first scientist's studies; > if they come up with the same results, and can't find > an alternative explanation for the data, they pretty > much have to begin to consider the first scientist's > hypothesis seriously. > > So it's not "any old pie in the sky explanation," but > it IS "any explanation, pie in the sky or not, that > has some good data to support it." Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
omg, I mean Akasha: You usually have very astute observations to make on FFL. In this case, I am quite disappointed. The question is not by what mental mechanisms scientists come up with new ideas. I was addressing what makes a particular set of ideas be considered worthwhile to follow up on. In the case of August Kekule, he was already a chemist. He was exploring the question of the structure of the benzene molecule in his waking hours because he considered the question to be meaningful. Why? Because he knew that benzene existed as a chemical and that there was a growing body of understanding of how chemicals are made of molecules, which in turn are made of atoms. This was the understanding that chemists had (still do). On the basis of that understanding, his thought processes proceeded, some in waking some in a dream. Why did he follow up on his dream? Because he knew on the basis of all his preparation as a chemist and all his thought on this particular topic, that he was on to a solution. In Einstein's case, it would be quite naïve to suppose that his background in physics had nothing to do with the thought experiments that he chose to make. For example, consider Special Relativity. The equations for calculating time dilation and length contraction are called the Lorentz transformations. Why not the Einstein transformations? Because Einstein didn't invent them. Another physicist names Lorentz did. So why was Special Relativity considered the special discovery of Einstein? Essentially, this discovery was not made in a void. It represented a natural evolution of the physics of the time. Einstein introduced the notion of the speed of light in a vacuum being constant, which required a new interpretation of the Lorentz transformation equations (etc.) Now, General Relativity was a much bigger departure from mainstream physics, in that it was not developed to resolve any anomalies that physicists were already aware of and trying to explain. But it still arose as a result in a thorough grounding in the ideas of physics at the time. By way of contrast, let us consider the great wealth of occult or spiritual theories that exist about the way the world works. These can be found in such places as religions, superstitions, FFL and the web in general, the TMO, seminars passing through town, etc. There is so much contradiction between one set of theories and another, that it would be very difficult to do a systematic, scientific assessment of them all, even if one had the will to do so and could come up with testable hypotheses, money and a lot of time. So why would anyone bother? There would have to be some belief that a particular line of investigation might bear fruit. That includes the belief of the scientists involved, as well as of the institutions that support the research financially and institutions that support it enough to consider it's peer review and publication. Typically, such a belief exists because of prior experience, of which the accumulated experience of the scientific disciplines themselves is a significant part. Testing the predictions made by SV will only be made by people who have a vested interest in SV being a worthwhile way to build. The testing will be extremely expensive and difficult to control for. Rigorous studies are highly unlikely. And hypotheses that have no support in the mainstream paradigms must show an extraordinary level of rigor and result before anyone in the mainstream will bother to look at them. (see The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Khun; also consider the mainstream scientific reaction to studies on the Maharishi Effect, in particular, the attitudes expressed by the editor of Yale's Journal of Conflict Resolution.) Now, what about individual choices? Those who trust MMY and have the money have every right to build according to SV. If they feel good about the result, this may be for any number of reasons. But, whatever the cause, we should delight in their happiness that is, unless this line of reasoning should result in undue manipulation or suffering; in which case, we have a sociological problem (like those found in recognized cults), and not an architectural one. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But Einstein's ideas evolved out of the very science that later > > embraced them and much later found evidence for them. > > > > The SV mythology does not arise from such an evolution. Scientists > > do not necessarily want to take any old pie in the sky explanation > > for how things work and test it rigorously. > > By that standard, Science should have rejected August Kekule's > discovery of the benzene molecule -- made of six atoms of carbon > chained together to form a ring, plus six atoms of hydrogen, one per > carbon. He "discovered' it in a dream -- o
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > LOL! I get this image of Bevan and King Tony tripping > on mescaline rolling around on the ground with > bugged-out eyes screaming, "Right here man, right > here! It's a power spot!" > > Just in passing, many moons ago while tripping on > mescaline and camping with my friend we both saw these > amazing "beings," not well defined, but moving all > around the landscape at night. It was more fascinating > than scary. Anyone else have such an experience? Often, hanging out in the desert with Rama or Cachora. No drugs involved, though. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got problems > Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm > dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs in > the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And we > are very far from that right now! But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides a basis for quantification. From it we can construct testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages than those in homes with entrances facing in other directions. > > --- anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Something along the following lines: > > > > A piece of land gets arbitrarily separated from > > everything else by > > some human being who puts a fence around it. Having > > done this, that > > property gets divided on a grid such that different > > squares on the > > grid are "governed" by different devas. Why this > > should be the case, > > I don't know. > > > The entries into the building on the property will > > sit on top of > > these abstract squares and therefore be under the > > influence of one > > or more of these devas. Having a southern entrance > > will increase > > problems in the direction of death because the devas > > that hang out > > on that side are Yama (god of death) and other > > related henchmen. > > Just what the devas are that hang out on the north > > side, I don't > > know. But they are supposed to support prosperity > > and having > > children, I think. The devas on the east side are > > supposed to > > support spiritual growth. > > > > Incidentally, Keith Wallace recently told the MUM > > students the > > official explanation for the following change of > > policy. In the > > past, the teacher always faced east in the > > classroom, while the > > students faced west. The logic was that the teacher > > needed to be the > > most coherent person present, being the one that > > everyone was paying > > attention to, and facing east produced the most > > coherence. Now, the > > policy is reversed. The logic is that it makes no > > difference which > > direction someone who is enlightened faces, but it > > matters for those > > who are not. The implication is that the faculty of > > MUM are all > > enlightened, while the students are not. > > > > So why all this emphasis on SV in the first place? > > Why not just > > focus on the enlightenment of individuals as in the > > original plan. > > It might have been more successful at transforming > > the world than > > all these impersonal plans to save humanity that > > seem to go nowhere. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Could someone tell me what is the vedic reasoning > > > behind why a northern facing entrance to a > > building > > > lowers the crime rate, sickness, etc. of those > > living > > > in such a building? Can a functional hypothesis > > even > > > be created that makes rational sense? Also, you > > will > > > be fined 12 points if the term "natural law" comes > > up > > > in your answer! Please use the term, IUWEROQWF, > > > instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina > > relief effort. > > > http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > ~--> > > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make > > Yahoo! your home page > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM > > > ~-> > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Or go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > and click 'Join This Group!' > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. > http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But Einstein's ideas evolved out of the very science that later > embraced them and much later found evidence for them. > > The SV mythology does not arise from such an evolution. Scientists > do not necessarily want to take any old pie in the sky explanation > for how things work and test it rigorously. Not just *any* old pie in the sky explanation, certainly. But a given scientist may have what he or she thinks is a compelling insight that other scientists find absurd. It's then up to the scientist who had the insight to shape it into a testable hypothesis and run some experiments. If the studies' methodology is tight and the data support the hypothesis, then, no matter how ridiculous the hypothesis may seem to other scientists, the onus is on them to replicate the first scientist's studies; if they come up with the same results, and can't find an alternative explanation for the data, they pretty much have to begin to consider the first scientist's hypothesis seriously. So it's not "any old pie in the sky explanation," but it IS "any explanation, pie in the sky or not, that has some good data to support it." Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But Einstein's ideas evolved out of the very science that later > embraced them and much later found evidence for them. > > The SV mythology does not arise from such an evolution. Scientists > do not necessarily want to take any old pie in the sky explanation > for how things work and test it rigorously. By that standard, Science should have rejected August Kekule's discovery of the benzene molecule -- made of six atoms of carbon chained together to form a ring, plus six atoms of hydrogen, one per carbon. He "discovered' it in a dream -- of a snake biting its tail. Did the scientific community exclaim "My God!!! We can't accept that hypothesis, no matter how well it explains observed phenomenon. It CAME from a dream!!!. OMG. A dream. Science cannot be based on dreams!" In practice, Science doesn't give a snake's ass about where a good hypothesis came from, as long as it bears fruit. A lot of good science comes from analogies. Analogies don't prove anything, by themselves, but they can be a ferile ground for brainstorming and hypothesis generation. Analogies are "soft" not hard science. And actually a lot of Enisteins work did not come from labored pondering of existing scientific equations. A major source of his insights came from pondering the ramifications of "thought experiemnts". Such as, "what will happen if I shine a flashlight while standing on top of a train going 90% the speed of light?" -- more specifically, what will be the speed of that flashlight? Or the twins paradox -- how will twins "differ in age" if one travels near the speed of light and returns to earth. It was the paradoxes found in these thought experiements that forced Einstein to think of deeper explanations. He didn't come upon Relativity by simply tinkering with Newton's equations. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as > > > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got problems > > > Houston within a scientific paradigm. > > > > Because there are elements in the theory that are not (yet) > > observable? That does not seem to be a problem for hard core > science. > > > > Black holes were predicted by Einstein's (and other's) work in the > > early 20's but were not "observed", albeit indirectly -- by > > implication, for 60-70 years. String theory's 13 dimensions have > not > > been observed, but a lot of high level physics focuses on such. A > > mechanism like DNA was postulated for some time, but was not > > "observed" until 1953. The Big Bang was not observed, but its a > model > > that fits the observable evidence. > > > > Why then should a model of energy / information structures (aka > devas) > > that "explain" observed phenomenon be rejected? I know that > there is > > "no" observed phenomenon yet, but if research did show a SV effect, > > then a model of priordial energy / information structures is not > so > > wierd. And perhaps Science will then someday actual "observe" > these > > energy / information structures. Stranger things have happened in > science. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
lol @peter!!! very funny!!! - Original Message - From: Peter To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 1:25 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis --- anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]...> > > wrote:> > > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as> soon as> > > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got> problems> > > Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that> I'm> > > dismissing such an explanation, just that it> hangs in> > > the air as a myth until it can be quantified.> And we> > > are very far from that right now! > > Alternatively, we could get Carlos Casteneda to role> around on the > property until he detects his power spots, then take> some mescaline so > that he can see the devas hanging out on themLOL! I get this image of Bevan and King Tony trippingon mescaline rolling around on the ground withbugged-out eyes screaming, "Right here man, righthere! It's a power spot!"Just in passing, many moons ago while tripping onmescaline and camping with my friend we both saw theseamazing "beings," not well defined, but moving allaround the landscape at night. It was more fascinatingthan scary. Anyone else have such an experience? > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor> ~--> > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make> Yahoo! your home page>http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM>~->> > > To subscribe, send a message to:> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/> and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
But Einstein's ideas evolved out of the very science that later embraced them and much later found evidence for them. The SV mythology does not arise from such an evolution. Scientists do not necessarily want to take any old pie in the sky explanation for how things work and test it rigorously. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as > > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got problems > > Houston within a scientific paradigm. > > Because there are elements in the theory that are not (yet) > observable? That does not seem to be a problem for hard core science. > > Black holes were predicted by Einstein's (and other's) work in the > early 20's but were not "observed", albeit indirectly -- by > implication, for 60-70 years. String theory's 13 dimensions have not > been observed, but a lot of high level physics focuses on such. A > mechanism like DNA was postulated for some time, but was not > "observed" until 1953. The Big Bang was not observed, but its a model > that fits the observable evidence. > > Why then should a model of energy / information structures (aka devas) > that "explain" observed phenomenon be rejected? I know that there is > "no" observed phenomenon yet, but if research did show a SV effect, > then a model of priordial energy / information structures is not so > wierd. And perhaps Science will then someday actual "observe" these > energy / information structures. Stranger things have happened in science. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as > soon as > > > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got > problems > > > Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that > I'm > > > dismissing such an explanation, just that it > hangs in > > > the air as a myth until it can be quantified. > And we > > > are very far from that right now! > > Alternatively, we could get Carlos Casteneda to role > around on the > property until he detects his power spots, then take > some mescaline so > that he can see the devas hanging out on them LOL! I get this image of Bevan and King Tony tripping on mescaline rolling around on the ground with bugged-out eyes screaming, "Right here man, right here! It's a power spot!" Just in passing, many moons ago while tripping on mescaline and camping with my friend we both saw these amazing "beings," not well defined, but moving all around the landscape at night. It was more fascinating than scary. Anyone else have such an experience? > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ~--> > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make > Yahoo! your home page > http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM > ~-> > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got problems > Houston within a scientific paradigm. Because there are elements in the theory that are not (yet) observable? That does not seem to be a problem for hard core science. Black holes were predicted by Einstein's (and other's) work in the early 20's but were not "observed", albeit indirectly -- by implication, for 60-70 years. String theory's 13 dimensions have not been observed, but a lot of high level physics focuses on such. A mechanism like DNA was postulated for some time, but was not "observed" until 1953. The Big Bang was not observed, but its a model that fits the observable evidence. Why then should a model of energy / information structures (aka devas) that "explain" observed phenomenon be rejected? I know that there is "no" observed phenomenon yet, but if research did show a SV effect, then a model of priordial energy / information structures is not so wierd. And perhaps Science will then someday actual "observe" these energy / information structures. Stranger things have happened in science. Not that I'm > dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs in > the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And we > are very far from that right now! > > --- anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Something along the following lines: > > > > A piece of land gets arbitrarily separated from > > everything else by > > some human being who puts a fence around it. Having > > done this, that > > property gets divided on a grid such that different > > squares on the > > grid are "governed" by different devas. Why this > > should be the case, > > I don't know. > > > The entries into the building on the property will > > sit on top of > > these abstract squares and therefore be under the > > influence of one > > or more of these devas. Having a southern entrance > > will increase > > problems in the direction of death because the devas > > that hang out > > on that side are Yama (god of death) and other > > related henchmen. > > Just what the devas are that hang out on the north > > side, I don't > > know. But they are supposed to support prosperity > > and having > > children, I think. The devas on the east side are > > supposed to > > support spiritual growth. > > > > Incidentally, Keith Wallace recently told the MUM > > students the > > official explanation for the following change of > > policy. In the > > past, the teacher always faced east in the > > classroom, while the > > students faced west. The logic was that the teacher > > needed to be the > > most coherent person present, being the one that > > everyone was paying > > attention to, and facing east produced the most > > coherence. Now, the > > policy is reversed. The logic is that it makes no > > difference which > > direction someone who is enlightened faces, but it > > matters for those > > who are not. The implication is that the faculty of > > MUM are all > > enlightened, while the students are not. > > > > So why all this emphasis on SV in the first place? > > Why not just > > focus on the enlightenment of individuals as in the > > original plan. > > It might have been more successful at transforming > > the world than > > all these impersonal plans to save humanity that > > seem to go nowhere. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Could someone tell me what is the vedic reasoning > > > behind why a northern facing entrance to a > > building > > > lowers the crime rate, sickness, etc. of those > > living > > > in such a building? Can a functional hypothesis > > even > > > be created that makes rational sense? Also, you > > will > > > be fined 12 points if the term "natural law" comes > > up > > > in your answer! Please use the term, IUWEROQWF, > > > instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina > > relief effort. > > > http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > ~--> > > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make > > Yahoo! your home page > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM > > > ~-> > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Or go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > and click 'Join This Group!' > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. > http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as > > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got problems > > Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm > > dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs in > > the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And we > > are very far from that right now! Alternatively, we could get Carlos Casteneda to role around on the property until he detects his power spots, then take some mescaline so that he can see the devas hanging out on them Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
Oh, I see. I jumped into this conversation without having read any of its preamble. I thought you wanted to know how SV justifies itself. What I gave you is from the mythology that comes with the Vastu package prior to its adoption by MMY. On the other hand, it is a reasonable first place to look for an explanation. Why would anyone else have a justification for it all. So scientific research on SV, if it occurs at all, will be stuck in the realm of correlation of results rather than being able to focus on demonstration of causality. Much like the limitations of TM research. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got problems > Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm > dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs in > the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And we > are very far from that right now! > > --- anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Something along the following lines: > > > > A piece of land gets arbitrarily separated from > > everything else by > > some human being who puts a fence around it. Having > > done this, that > > property gets divided on a grid such that different > > squares on the > > grid are "governed" by different devas. Why this > > should be the case, > > I don't know. > > > The entries into the building on the property will > > sit on top of > > these abstract squares and therefore be under the > > influence of one > > or more of these devas. Having a southern entrance > > will increase > > problems in the direction of death because the devas > > that hang out > > on that side are Yama (god of death) and other > > related henchmen. > > Just what the devas are that hang out on the north > > side, I don't > > know. But they are supposed to support prosperity > > and having > > children, I think. The devas on the east side are > > supposed to > > support spiritual growth. > > > > Incidentally, Keith Wallace recently told the MUM > > students the > > official explanation for the following change of > > policy. In the > > past, the teacher always faced east in the > > classroom, while the > > students faced west. The logic was that the teacher > > needed to be the > > most coherent person present, being the one that > > everyone was paying > > attention to, and facing east produced the most > > coherence. Now, the > > policy is reversed. The logic is that it makes no > > difference which > > direction someone who is enlightened faces, but it > > matters for those > > who are not. The implication is that the faculty of > > MUM are all > > enlightened, while the students are not. > > > > So why all this emphasis on SV in the first place? > > Why not just > > focus on the enlightenment of individuals as in the > > original plan. > > It might have been more successful at transforming > > the world than > > all these impersonal plans to save humanity that > > seem to go nowhere. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Could someone tell me what is the vedic reasoning > > > behind why a northern facing entrance to a > > building > > > lowers the crime rate, sickness, etc. of those > > living > > > in such a building? Can a functional hypothesis > > even > > > be created that makes rational sense? Also, you > > will > > > be fined 12 points if the term "natural law" comes > > up > > > in your answer! Please use the term, IUWEROQWF, > > > instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina > > relief effort. > > > http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > ~--> > > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make > > Yahoo! your home page > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM > > > --- -~-> > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Or go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > and click 'Join This Group!' > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. > http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon as we enter the domain of "devas" we've got problems Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs in the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And we are very far from that right now! --- anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Something along the following lines: > > A piece of land gets arbitrarily separated from > everything else by > some human being who puts a fence around it. Having > done this, that > property gets divided on a grid such that different > squares on the > grid are "governed" by different devas. Why this > should be the case, > I don't know. > The entries into the building on the property will > sit on top of > these abstract squares and therefore be under the > influence of one > or more of these devas. Having a southern entrance > will increase > problems in the direction of death because the devas > that hang out > on that side are Yama (god of death) and other > related henchmen. > Just what the devas are that hang out on the north > side, I don't > know. But they are supposed to support prosperity > and having > children, I think. The devas on the east side are > supposed to > support spiritual growth. > > Incidentally, Keith Wallace recently told the MUM > students the > official explanation for the following change of > policy. In the > past, the teacher always faced east in the > classroom, while the > students faced west. The logic was that the teacher > needed to be the > most coherent person present, being the one that > everyone was paying > attention to, and facing east produced the most > coherence. Now, the > policy is reversed. The logic is that it makes no > difference which > direction someone who is enlightened faces, but it > matters for those > who are not. The implication is that the faculty of > MUM are all > enlightened, while the students are not. > > So why all this emphasis on SV in the first place? > Why not just > focus on the enlightenment of individuals as in the > original plan. > It might have been more successful at transforming > the world than > all these impersonal plans to save humanity that > seem to go nowhere. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Could someone tell me what is the vedic reasoning > > behind why a northern facing entrance to a > building > > lowers the crime rate, sickness, etc. of those > living > > in such a building? Can a functional hypothesis > even > > be created that makes rational sense? Also, you > will > > be fined 12 points if the term "natural law" comes > up > > in your answer! Please use the term, IUWEROQWF, > > instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina > relief effort. > > http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ~--> > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make > Yahoo! your home page > http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM > ~-> > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > __ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Something along the following lines: > > A piece of land gets arbitrarily separated from everything else > by some human being who puts a fence around it. Having done this, > that property gets divided on a grid such that different squares > on the grid are "governed" by different devas. Why this should be > the case, I don't know. > > The entries into the building on the property will sit on top of > these abstract squares and therefore be under the influence of one > or more of these devas. Having a southern entrance will increase > problems in the direction of death because the devas that hang out > on that side are Yama (god of death) and other related henchmen. Ohmygod. Do you mean that this whole obsession with SV might be another manifestation of Maharishi's fear of death after his heart attack? Remember the passing obsession with immortality? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: SV Hypothesis
Something along the following lines: A piece of land gets arbitrarily separated from everything else by some human being who puts a fence around it. Having done this, that property gets divided on a grid such that different squares on the grid are "governed" by different devas. Why this should be the case, I don't know. The entries into the building on the property will sit on top of these abstract squares and therefore be under the influence of one or more of these devas. Having a southern entrance will increase problems in the direction of death because the devas that hang out on that side are Yama (god of death) and other related henchmen. Just what the devas are that hang out on the north side, I don't know. But they are supposed to support prosperity and having children, I think. The devas on the east side are supposed to support spiritual growth. Incidentally, Keith Wallace recently told the MUM students the official explanation for the following change of policy. In the past, the teacher always faced east in the classroom, while the students faced west. The logic was that the teacher needed to be the most coherent person present, being the one that everyone was paying attention to, and facing east produced the most coherence. Now, the policy is reversed. The logic is that it makes no difference which direction someone who is enlightened faces, but it matters for those who are not. The implication is that the faculty of MUM are all enlightened, while the students are not. So why all this emphasis on SV in the first place? Why not just focus on the enlightenment of individuals as in the original plan. It might have been more successful at transforming the world than all these impersonal plans to save humanity that seem to go nowhere. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Could someone tell me what is the vedic reasoning > behind why a northern facing entrance to a building > lowers the crime rate, sickness, etc. of those living > in such a building? Can a functional hypothesis even > be created that makes rational sense? Also, you will > be fined 12 points if the term "natural law" comes up > in your answer! Please use the term, IUWEROQWF, > instead. > > > > > > __ > Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. > http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
