[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
   Which can't be proved or disproved either.
  
  Let's not shift the burden of proof here. It isn't up to 
  me to disprove it. The person making the claim makes their 
  case and we can decide if we find their reasons compelling.  
 
 Curtis, do you realize how much of the TM
 mindset underlies what you are saying above?

I think it was a lack of adhering to this basic principle of science
that led me into trouble with the movement mindset!

 
 Both you and Stu are going on and on about
 the burden of proof.

Not to you in my case.  

 That might be relevant
 to New Jim, who is making some silly claims
 about proof of reincarnation, but you are
 extending it to anyone who happens to quietly
 believe in reincarnation and doesn't really
 give a rat's ass what you believe.

That was written for Judy in a theoretical discussion.  It has nothing
to with your beliefs.  What brought me into the conversation was New
Jim, not your discussing your beliefs.  I thought my last post to you
made it clear that I appreciate that you have already considered all
sides of this question.  I am more interested in the spin off
questions about how we can approach such claims.  I get that none of
that applies to you which is why I didn't join the discussion with Stu.

 
 We don't owe you proof. We don't owe you
 jack shit.

I am clear on that.

 
 With all due respect, I refer you back to an
 earlier post in which I discussed the differ-
 ence that we seem to have in determining the
 threshold at which point we get in someone's
 face about their beliefs. I think that you
 may be barking up the wrong threshold.

We are discussing beliefs on an open forum which gives us the freedom
not to get in each others face.  My response to Jim was the kind of
thing I wouldn't bother with in person.  But here it is fun to go back
and forth right?  I caught that you were not interested in the topic
from the angle I was, so I haven't challenged your beliefs, have I?  

 
 Some of us aren't trying to proselytize. The
 fact that you feel somehow challenged or 
 threatened by us believing something that
 you don't does NOT confer upon us some kind
 of burden of proof. YOU'RE the ones getting
 all bent out of shape because someone believes
 differently than you do, and demanding proof.

I don't believe that my points constitute me getting bent out of
shape.  But you are welcome to this belief and I would never challenge it!

 
 With all respect, do that with the next person
 who tries to sell you a car. Or who tries to
 sell you membership in the Church of the Flying
 Spaghetti Monster. But some of us haven't tried
 to sell you jack shit, and so we owe you jack
 shit when you react as if we had.

Again, I think you are misapplying a principle of science to the
personal level.  On a personal level of course you don't owe anyone
anything.  But in trying to work through theories in using reason,
anyone does.  There may be some misapplication of these principles in
a personal discussion.  But Judy and I were having a discussion of
principles on a theoretical level.  Applying those principles to your
belief was not my intention or I would have put your name on the post. 

 
 Parts of this discussion are reminding me of
 interactions with Michael, who tended to take
 my lack of belief in God as some kind of affront
 to his strong belief in God. I kept trying to
 tell him that I wasn't trying to sell him any-
 thing, either, but he kept insisting that I was.
 
 I believe what I believe, and I allow you to do
 the same. Proof just doesn't enter into the
 equation unless someone gets their buttons pushed
 and demands it. And then IMO, if the other person
 has anything going for them, they just laugh at
 the person demanding proof and move on.

I haven't felt my buttons being pushed except my Jim and a few others
who have implied that they have special knowledge with certainty and
implying that people who don't share their beliefs lack whatever.  I
haven't felt that from your posts.

The question of what constitutes proof of something matters a lot to
me.  The specific topic doesn't matter as much as the principles.  I
have understood from our discussions that you are more a an
epistemological relativist than I am, and these questions are not as
interesting to you which is why we talk about other shit.

I'm living in a country whose economy may have been destroyed largely
from a president whose concept of what constituted proof of imminent
threat was impaired. The rest of our society, press included could
have caught this problem, but collectively we didn't.  We didn't run a
burden of proof test on him.  So it is natural with my background in
philosophy to put my finger on the epistemological issues as the root
cause of this problem.  Reincarnation was just a convenient topic to
think about these 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
 I haven't felt my buttons being pushed except my Jim and a few 
 others who have implied that they have special knowledge with 
 certainty and implying that people who don't share their beliefs 
 lack whatever.  I haven't felt that from your posts.

Understood. And my rant was really just a general
rant, aimed at the universe. It was merely the
luck of the draw that put it into the form of a 
reply to one of your posts. And the only thing
that occasioned that was your use of the phrase
burden of proof. I completely understand that
you didn't aim that at me; I was just ranting in
absentia for all the people over the years who it 
has been aimed at. :-)

 The question of what constitutes proof of something matters a 
 lot to me.  

I understand that. It doesn't mean diddley to me.

 The specific topic doesn't matter as much as the principles. I
 have understood from our discussions that you are more a an
 epistemological relativist than I am, and these questions are 
 not as interesting to you which is why we talk about other shit.

True. In some of the recent threads I've avoided
like the plague lately, I've noticed some people
complaining that someone might be lacking in
ideology. My response to that is, Thank God!
The *last* thing we need in a politician is some-
one who has a higher loyalty to some abstract
principle than he does the actual real life sit-
uations he is dealing with.

You are correct. For me it's always relative.

 I'm living in a country whose economy may have been destroyed 
 largely from a president whose concept of what constituted proof 
 of imminent threat was impaired. 

His idea of proof was, Tell me what I want
to hear. He has his counterparts in spiritual
movements. :-)

 The rest of our society, press included could have caught this 
 problem, but collectively we didn't. We didn't run a burden of 
 proof test on him.  So it is natural with my background in
 philosophy to put my finger on the epistemological issues as 
 the root cause of this problem.  

I can see how you would see it that way. I saw
it more as him pandering to a desire in the 
American people to Just go out and kill some-
one as payback for 9/11. We don't care who you 
kill or why...just do it.

In other words, I see it more as him taking 
advantage of a public and a Congress that did
not WANT anything proved to them. They wanted
to kill something, too, and they went for the
first opportunities to do so offered to them,
Afghanistan and Iraq.

 Reincarnation was just a convenient topic to think about 
 these issues for me.  I never meant to make it about your
 choices of belief personally.

I understand that. Similarly, reincarnation was
just a convenient excuse for a more general rant
on my part, that wasn't really about you or Stu.
It led up to me thinking up the Ego Wars series
of posts, which were really what I had in mind,
if I had known that's what I had in mind. :-)

You know how it works. Sometimes you've got to
deal with piddley shit before you get to the 
good shit.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[cardemaister]

The reason why it's so hard to believe in re-incarnation is prolly,
that especially in the case of human beans natural selection has
supported the development of a central nervous system that's
hard-wired to create a *strong* illusion (maayaa) of ego. 

I *guess* people tend to think that in re-incarnation it's mainly the
ego that's re-incarnating, but in fact only some karma and a particular
set of vaasanaas is moved to yet another karmaashaya.

To believe that when one's body of flesh and bones, or stuff,
becomes defunct, it's the end of everything, so to speak, is
IMO as absurd as to believe that when the CPU of one's PC or
whatever dies, electricity ceases to exist! ;0

Just fooling around... ; /

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[curtisdeltablues]

 To believe that when one's body of flesh and bones, or stuff,
 becomes defunct, it's the end of everything, so to speak, is
 IMO as absurd as to believe that when the CPU of one's PC or
 whatever dies, electricity ceases to exist! ;0

I think if you are using this analogy then it would be the individual
software that would stop working once the CPU dies.  My computer dying
doesn't make the whole electric grid go down, but it sure makes using
my Photoshop impossible.  

If I drink too much I can lose consciousness. Just a chemical
imbalance and I can't run any of my personality software.  (Although
right before blacking out I do become magically attractive to the
opposite sex...uh huh) If someone hits my head like a cymbal with a
club, I lose my ability to be me.  That's why I feel that the
influence of my brain rotting and becoming worm food has got to have
an effect on my ability for consciousness, and I'm guessing it wont be
in the even more awake, charming and alert direction.

One thing that would impress me would be if a yogi could be
administered general anesthesia and would still be able to indicate
consciousness.  Perhaps a brain scan would do it, or if they could
keep the use of some sense they might be able to be presented with
information while their body was out, and then recall it after they
were revived.  Till I see this kind of ability I'm just gunna assume
that hardware crashes are gunna disrupt my ability to download porn.
(At least till I get to those 72 Virgins on the other side.  I figure
if I'm gunna bet on any religious horse it might as well be the one
with the hot babes instead of a bunch of crappy mall-muzak harp music!
Allah Akbar baby, here I come!)




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 The reason why it's so hard to believe in re-incarnation is prolly,
 that especially in the case of human beans natural selection has
 supported the development of a central nervous system that's
 hard-wired to create a *strong* illusion (maayaa) of ego. 
 
 I *guess* people tend to think that in re-incarnation it's mainly the
 ego that's re-incarnating, but in fact only some karma and a particular
 set of vaasanaas is moved to yet another karmaashaya.
 
 To believe that when one's body of flesh and bones, or stuff,
 becomes defunct, it's the end of everything, so to speak, is
 IMO as absurd as to believe that when the CPU of one's PC or
 whatever dies, electricity ceases to exist! ;0
 
 Just fooling around... ; /

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
  
  I haven't felt my buttons being pushed except
  my Jim and a few others who have implied that
  they have special knowledge with certainty and
  implying that people who don't share their beliefs 
  lack whatever.  I haven't felt that from your posts.
 
 Understood. And my rant was really just a general
 rant, aimed at the universe. It was merely the
 luck of the draw that put it into the form of a 
 reply to one of your posts. And the only thing
 that occasioned that was your use of the phrase
 burden of proof. I completely understand that
 you didn't aim that at me; I was just ranting in
 absentia for all the people over the years who it 
 has been aimed at. :-)

Sounds good if you don't happen to remember what
Barry said in his original post to Curtis (and
snipped, of course, from this one):

 With all due respect, I refer you back to an
 earlier post in which I discussed the differ-
 ence that we seem to have in determining the
 threshold at which point we get in someone's
 face about their beliefs. I think that you
 may be barking up the wrong threshold.

Right, it was just a general rant aimed at the
universe. Uh-huh.

snip
 True. In some of the recent threads I've avoided
 like the plague lately, I've noticed some people
 complaining that someone might be lacking in
 ideology. 

That would be me and raunchy, of course, 
complaining about Obama. We know Barry doesn't
dare mention our names, but what's his problem
with mentioning Obama's??

My response to that is, Thank God!
 The *last* thing we need in a politician is some-
 one who has a higher loyalty to some abstract
 principle than he does the actual real life sit-
 uations he is dealing with.

Except, of course, that it's not some abstract
principle. It's very concrete, real-life
principles to which one is committed, such as
redressing the balance between rich and poor,
workers' rights, women's rights, gay rights,
ending the Iraq war, protecting the environment,
fighting global warming, adhering to the
Constitution, and so forth. Those are all
elements of the progressive ideology, and it's
far from clear at this point how much political
capital Obama is willing to spend to fight for
them.

Barry might not have had such a hard time
grasping the point had he actually read the
posts instead of picking out a single phrase.

The potential problem with a leader not being
committed to the principles of an ideology is
that he doesn't doesn't have a well-defined
constituency to which he owes dedication to
those principles.

As I said earlier, if he consistently makes
good decisions, not being beholden to a 
constituency can be a great advantage because
it allows him flexibility. But if his decisions
are flawed, it's a great disadvantage, because
he's not answerable to pressure to fix them.

We're left with little more than faith that
Obama will make good decisions. As David
Sirota wrote in the article from which I
quoted:

The point is that Obama alone gets to choose --
that for all the talk of 'bottom-up' politics,
his movement's structure grants him a top-down
power that no previous president had.

For better or worse, that leaves us relying more
than ever on our Dear Leader's impulses. Sure,
we should be thankful when Dear Leader's whims
serve the people -- but also unsurprised when
they don't.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[curtisdeltablues]

 We're left with little more than faith that
 Obama will make good decisions. As David
 Sirota wrote in the article from which I
 quoted:

I don't know what president lives up to any ideology once they hit the
shitstorm of conflicting details of complicated reality.

Bush sure didn't follow Republican ideology I can understand.

Bush one couldn't even stay true to no new taxes, his own stated
ideology.

Maybe Clinton stayed truer to some ideology, what do you think?

But I think this concept has gotten very far removed to what actually
happens in executing this office in the real world.  Most statements
of ideology seems to be a way to pacify the base to get elected, and
then ignoring all that hype talk when rubber hits the road.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
 wrote:
   
   I haven't felt my buttons being pushed except
   my Jim and a few others who have implied that
   they have special knowledge with certainty and
   implying that people who don't share their beliefs 
   lack whatever.  I haven't felt that from your posts.
  
  Understood. And my rant was really just a general
  rant, aimed at the universe. It was merely the
  luck of the draw that put it into the form of a 
  reply to one of your posts. And the only thing
  that occasioned that was your use of the phrase
  burden of proof. I completely understand that
  you didn't aim that at me; I was just ranting in
  absentia for all the people over the years who it 
  has been aimed at. :-)
 
 Sounds good if you don't happen to remember what
 Barry said in his original post to Curtis (and
 snipped, of course, from this one):
 
  With all due respect, I refer you back to an
  earlier post in which I discussed the differ-
  ence that we seem to have in determining the
  threshold at which point we get in someone's
  face about their beliefs. I think that you
  may be barking up the wrong threshold.
 
 Right, it was just a general rant aimed at the
 universe. Uh-huh.
 
 snip
  True. In some of the recent threads I've avoided
  like the plague lately, I've noticed some people
  complaining that someone might be lacking in
  ideology. 
 
 That would be me and raunchy, of course, 
 complaining about Obama. We know Barry doesn't
 dare mention our names, but what's his problem
 with mentioning Obama's??
 
 My response to that is, Thank God!
  The *last* thing we need in a politician is some-
  one who has a higher loyalty to some abstract
  principle than he does the actual real life sit-
  uations he is dealing with.
 
 Except, of course, that it's not some abstract
 principle. It's very concrete, real-life
 principles to which one is committed, such as
 redressing the balance between rich and poor,
 workers' rights, women's rights, gay rights,
 ending the Iraq war, protecting the environment,
 fighting global warming, adhering to the
 Constitution, and so forth. Those are all
 elements of the progressive ideology, and it's
 far from clear at this point how much political
 capital Obama is willing to spend to fight for
 them.
 
 Barry might not have had such a hard time
 grasping the point had he actually read the
 posts instead of picking out a single phrase.
 
 The potential problem with a leader not being
 committed to the principles of an ideology is
 that he doesn't doesn't have a well-defined
 constituency to which he owes dedication to
 those principles.
 
 As I said earlier, if he consistently makes
 good decisions, not being beholden to a 
 constituency can be a great advantage because
 it allows him flexibility. But if his decisions
 are flawed, it's a great disadvantage, because
 he's not answerable to pressure to fix them.
 
 We're left with little more than faith that
 Obama will make good decisions. As David
 Sirota wrote in the article from which I
 quoted:
 
 The point is that Obama alone gets to choose --
 that for all the talk of 'bottom-up' politics,
 his movement's structure grants him a top-down
 power that no previous president had.
 
 For better or worse, that leaves us relying more
 than ever on our Dear Leader's impulses. Sure,
 we should be thankful when Dear Leader's whims
 serve the people -- but also unsurprised when
 they don't.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[Vaj]

On Dec 2, 2008, at 11:34 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:


One thing that would impress me would be if a yogi could be
administered general anesthesia and would still be able to indicate
consciousness.  Perhaps a brain scan would do it, or if they could
keep the use of some sense they might be able to be presented with
information while their body was out, and then recall it after they
were revived.


Swami Rama was able to go into deep sleep (verified by an EEG) at  
will and then explain what went on the entire time he was asleep.  
The experiment was done at the Menninger Institute in Kansas.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 The reason why it's so hard to believe in re-incarnation is prolly,
 that especially in the case of human beans natural selection has
 supported the development of a central nervous system that's
 hard-wired to create a *strong* illusion (maayaa) of ego. 
 
 I *guess* people tend to think that in re-incarnation it's mainly the
 ego that's re-incarnating, but in fact only some karma and a particular
 set of vaasanaas is moved to yet another karmaashaya.
 
 To believe that when one's body of flesh and bones, or stuff,
 becomes defunct, it's the end of everything, so to speak, is
 IMO as absurd as to believe that when the CPU of one's PC or
 whatever dies, electricity ceases to exist! ;0
 
 Just fooling around... ; /


Yes - but I think there's something profound lurking in your fooling
(just can't quite get clear to myself what it is!)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  We're left with little more than faith that
  Obama will make good decisions. As David
  Sirota wrote in the article from which I
  quoted:
 
 I don't know what president lives up to any
 ideology once they hit the shitstorm of
 conflicting details of complicated reality.

Certainly no president fulfills his ideology
to the perfect satisfaction of his ideological
constituency; can't be done.

But that constituency can put pressure on him
to limit the degree to which he departs from
their principles.

 Bush sure didn't follow Republican ideology
 I can understand.

Bush was a special case in practically every
respect.

 Bush one couldn't even stay true to no new taxes,
 his own stated ideology.
 
 Maybe Clinton stayed truer to some ideology, what
 do you think?

Clinton was a master compromiser, but I always had
the sense he was doing his best not to give away
the store. He did come closer to it than I would
have liked at times. But I thought he did what he
did in the interests of advancing his principles as
far as he possibly could; his pragmatism was in the
service of his ideology, even though it didn't 
always look that way!

Look at what he's been doing since with his 
foundation. He didn't suddenly become a humanitarian
once he was out of office; that's who he was all
along.

 But I think this concept has gotten very far
 removed to what actually happens in executing
 this office in the real world.  Most statements
 of ideology seems to be a way to pacify the base
 to get elected, and then ignoring all that hype
 talk when rubber hits the road.

To some extent. But if there's a solid commitment
to the base's principles to start with, the truck
isn't as likely to veer as far from their course
as it might otherwise.

There are no absolutes; it's all about compromise.
It's where you make the compromises *from* that
can make the difference. Granted, it may not be
all that much of a difference, but every little
bit helps.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 Certainly no president fulfills his ideology
 to the perfect satisfaction of his ideological
 constituency; can't be done.

Because any head of state is, like Maharishi put it, a hostage to the 
collective consciousness of the nation.

Obama will do alright as long as the americans have 2000 fliers in 
Fairfield, but what happens to him and his ability to implement his 
ideas the day the Movement descides that the Pundits will be more 
useful in India ? 
Given the situation there now this could happen any day.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation (Curtis)

[amritasyaputra]

 I believe what I believe, and I allow you to do
 the same.
Dear Curtis, if you mean it seriously, you would leave this 
discussion forum right away...
There are only a few who continuously hammer other's opinions like 
you do.

 With all due respect, I 
That would be the first time you give to some one due respect - if 
you would. But it is a good resolve.

With best wishes

Shaas


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
   Which can't be proved or disproved either.
  
  Let's not shift the burden of proof here. It isn't up to 
  me to disprove it. The person making the claim makes their 
  case and we can decide if we find their reasons compelling.  
 
 Curtis, do you realize how much of the TM
 mindset underlies what you are saying above?
 
 Both you and Stu are going on and on about
 the burden of proof. That might be relevant
 to New Jim, who is making some silly claims
 about proof of reincarnation, but you are
 extending it to anyone who happens to quietly
 believe in reincarnation and doesn't really
 give a rat's ass what you believe.
 
 We don't owe you proof. We don't owe you
 jack shit.
 
 With all due respect, I refer you back to an
 earlier post in which I discussed the differ-
 ence that we seem to have in determining the
 threshold at which point we get in someone's
 face about their beliefs. I think that you
 may be barking up the wrong threshold.
 
 Some of us aren't trying to proselytize. The
 fact that you feel somehow challenged or 
 threatened by us believing something that
 you don't does NOT confer upon us some kind
 of burden of proof. YOU'RE the ones getting
 all bent out of shape because someone believes
 differently than you do, and demanding proof.
 
 With all respect, do that with the next person
 who tries to sell you a car. Or who tries to
 sell you membership in the Church of the Flying
 Spaghetti Monster. But some of us haven't tried
 to sell you jack shit, and so we owe you jack
 shit when you react as if we had.
 
 Parts of this discussion are reminding me of
 interactions with Michael, who tended to take
 my lack of belief in God as some kind of affront
 to his strong belief in God. I kept trying to
 tell him that I wasn't trying to sell him any-
 thing, either, but he kept insisting that I was.
 
 I believe what I believe, and I allow you to do
 the same. Proof just doesn't enter into the
 equation unless someone gets their buttons pushed
 and demands it. And then IMO, if the other person
 has anything going for them, they just laugh at
 the person demanding proof and move on.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation (Turqouise)

[amritasyaputra]

 I believe what I believe, and I allow you to do
 the same.
Dear Turqouise, 
There are only a few who continuously hammer other's opinions like
you do.

 With all due respect, I 
That would be the first time you give to someone due respect - if
you would. But it is a good resolve.

With best wishes

Shaas



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
   Which can't be proved or disproved either.
  
  Let's not shift the burden of proof here. It isn't up to 
  me to disprove it. The person making the claim makes their 
  case and we can decide if we find their reasons compelling.  
 
 Curtis, do you realize how much of the TM
 mindset underlies what you are saying above?
 
 Both you and Stu are going on and on about
 the burden of proof. That might be relevant
 to New Jim, who is making some silly claims
 about proof of reincarnation, but you are
 extending it to anyone who happens to quietly
 believe in reincarnation and doesn't really
 give a rat's ass what you believe.
 
 We don't owe you proof. We don't owe you
 jack shit.
 
 With all due respect, I refer you back to an
 earlier post in which I discussed the differ-
 ence that we seem to have in determining the
 threshold at which point we get in someone's
 face about their beliefs. I think that you
 may be barking up the wrong threshold.
 
 Some of us aren't trying to proselytize. The
 fact that you feel somehow challenged or 
 threatened by us believing something that
 you don't does NOT confer upon us some kind
 of burden of proof. YOU'RE the ones getting
 all bent out of shape because someone believes
 differently than you do, and demanding proof.
 
 With all respect, do that with the next person
 who tries to sell you a car. Or who tries to
 sell you membership in the Church of the Flying
 Spaghetti Monster. But some of us haven't tried
 to sell you jack shit, and so we owe you jack
 shit when you react as if we had.
 
 Parts of this discussion are reminding me of
 interactions with Michael, who tended to take
 my lack of belief in God as some kind of affront
 to his strong belief in God. I kept trying to
 tell him that I wasn't trying to sell him any-
 thing, either, but he kept insisting that I was.
 
 I believe what I believe, and I allow you to do
 the same. Proof just doesn't enter into the
 equation unless someone gets their buttons pushed
 and demands it. And then IMO, if the other person
 has anything going for them, they just laugh at
 the person demanding proof and move on.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
 
  
  The reason why it's so hard to believe in re-incarnation is prolly,
  that especially in the case of human beans natural selection has
  supported the development of a central nervous system that's
  hard-wired to create a *strong* illusion (maayaa) of ego. 
  
  I *guess* people tend to think that in re-incarnation it's mainly the
  ego that's re-incarnating, but in fact only some karma and a
particular
  set of vaasanaas is moved to yet another karmaashaya.
  
  To believe that when one's body of flesh and bones, or stuff,
  becomes defunct, it's the end of everything, so to speak, is
  IMO as absurd as to believe that when the CPU of one's PC or
  whatever dies, electricity ceases to exist! ;0
  
  Just fooling around... ; /
 
 
 Yes - but I think there's something profound lurking in your fooling
 (just can't quite get clear to myself what it is!)

 
Patañjali sez it in His Supreme Style in YS II 20:

draSTaa drshi-maatraH shuddho 'pi (shuddhaH; api)
pratyayaanupashyaH (pratyaya-anupashyaH).

If you are not familiar with Sanskrit, I hope you can
find a good translation... : /

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation (Curtis)

[Sal Sunshine]

On Dec 2, 2008, at 3:20 PM, amritasyaputra wrote:

 I believe what I believe, and I allow you to do
 the same.
 Dear Curtis, if you mean it seriously, you would leave this
 discussion forum right away...
 There are only a few who continuously hammer other's opinions like
 you do.

 With all due respect, I 
 That would be the first time you give to some one due respect - if
 you would. But it is a good resolve.

Um, with all due respect, maybe you should try reading
those posts again--those weren't Curtis' words.

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[Stu]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 It seems that all the arguments regarding reincarnation, both pro and
 con, assume that Time is real and only flows in a single direction.
 
 If reincarnation occurs, what's to prevent me (when I die) from
 coming back as some other personality that existed in what I thought
 of as the Past in the life I just surrendered?  What's to keep you
 from coming back as your mother, or your guru, or anybody else or at
 any time?  If any attenuated personality persists after the death of
 the body, it would have left behind all the things that exist in time,
 and consequently, time itself. 
 
 If the attention is permitted to re-enter a conditional existence, it
 seems it could re-enter in any organized, vital physical structure,
 and in any time or era.
 
 The issue of whether or not some intact personality remains is still
 the fundamental one.

That's an excellent point.  The rules are arbitrary and based on
physics as the ancients understood them.


s.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[curtisdeltablues]

 Curtis, Joerg's sanctimonious tone is certainly irritating but
 comparing him to the Mumbai terrorists is a little harsh. He claims
 his subjective experience forms his belief about past lives and
 something he reads verifies it. The Mumbai terrorists read something
 from the Koran and it forms a belief but they do not base their
belief on subjective experience. Apples and Oranges.

Well if you are calling me out for being a bit of a dick in my
response to Joerg, I certainly couldn't argue with that!

But your point about what the terrorists are experiencing is
interesting.  I'm not sure we do know what they were experiencing. I'm
not ready to assume that they just read something and then decided to
face death.  We don't know the nature of how they were called to
this mission.  On the other hand, I really can't assume that they did
have some compelling subjective experience that matches Joerg's
either.  Whatever it was, it worked pretty well as a force compelling
enough to rise above a fear of death.

But what makes it NOT apples and oranges IMO is that it was a very
strong compelling belief that their actions were right despite the
fact that society as a whole believes they were wrong wrong wrong. 
They had unplugged from civilization's you are full of shit meter,
and were acting on their own compellingly intense beliefs.

So the bigger point for me is that humans are wrong about all sorts of
stuff but we have a tendency (this includes me) to become attached to
beliefs and mistake their intensity for epistemological solidity.  I
love that field of knowledge because it gives man hope to rise above
our own cognitive flaws and weed out some of the bogus stuff that we
hold dear.  We may apply the principles we have discovered so far to
testing knowledge imperfectly, but it has helped us do some cool stuff
like count the ribs of man instead of assuming that men have one less
than women because the Bible says so.

Now believing that you are the reincarnation of a special famous
person from history can't be compared in it's damaging effects to
believing that killing a bunch of innocent people and dying in the act
should be included in your next week's Daytimer personal planner.  But
they both stem from a total conviction in a belief that has had a
limited exposure to counterargument from people outside yourself.

Thanks for advancing the discussion.  How we feel certain about
beliefs, and how we can minimize our tendency to be enthusiastically
wrong about those beliefs is on of my favorite topics.  Having had my
epistemological ass handed to me so throughly when I left the
movement's belief system, I now value epistemological humility very
highly.  And like a sober convert to AA who has to leave the holiday
party when he finds out the punch has been spiked, I can be a bit
reactive when I see someone being too sure of their inner knowledge. 
That is one reason why I value the feedback I get on posts here.  But
just because I am wrong a lot, doesn't mean I shouldn't keep on swinging. 

And maybe Joerg really IS the reincarnation of someone famous enough
to have stuff written about him in a language he can read today which
limits the number of possible people to a tiny number in the history
of mankind.  And maybe the guys who died in a hail of bullets in India
are now knee deep in a cosmic Heffner-like mansion grotto being
serviced by 72 chicks who all think that a nerdy terrorist is the
ultimate hunk of their dreams.  

But I'm just saying that neither of them KNOW, KNOW.  Really believing
things strongly doesn't make them more likely to be true.

 
 Riddle: 
 If we wonder what it is like to be dead. What do dead people wonder?
 
 Answer: 
 What is it like to be alive?

Steven Wright,is that you man?

 
 No one is ever satisfied. Desire for more keeps the wheel turning.
 Just saying.

That's the point, we shouldn't be too satisfied with what we think we
KNOW.  




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, margovon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  snip
   Hi Rick,
   
   I read some of the discussion about the Solid Proof.
   
   Since I had some of these clear experiences, about who I was
   in former time, and even read some of the biographies about me, 
   I can tell you, that no mount of speculation and theoryrizing
   will ever clear that subject to someone, who never had these
   insights.
  
  Yeah, you know who else confuses intensity of subjective experience
  and beliefs with epistemological validity?  The guys who just turned
  Mumbai into a slaughterhouse. And I'm guessing that you have never
  worked out the mathematical probability of the lesser population of
  the past becoming the exponentially higher population of today with
  you as one of the famous people. Isn't that a convenient 
  connection with how special you feel about yourself?  
 
 Curtis, Joerg's sanctimonious tone is certainly irritating but
 comparing him to 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[Margovan wrote:]
  Curtis, Joerg's sanctimonious tone is certainly
  irritating but comparing him to the Mumbai terrorists
  is a little harsh.

Boy, I'll say. The notion of reincarnation seems
to really upset the skeptics for some reason.

snip
 But your point about what the terrorists are
 experiencing is interesting.  I'm not sure we
 do know what they were experiencing. I'm not
 ready to assume that they just read something
 and then decided to face death.  We don't know
 the nature of how they were called to this
 mission.  On the other hand, I really can't
 assume that they did have some compelling
 subjective experience that matches Joerg's
 either.  Whatever it was, it worked pretty well
 as a force compelling enough to rise above a
 fear of death.

FWIW, in all the discussions about terrorism
(including interviews with terrorists), I've
never heard even a suggestion that terrorists
have been motivated by some kind of subjective
woo-woo experience. That just doesn't seem to
be part of the lore, and the lack is in distinct
contrast to, say, what some people who have
slaughtered their children report--that they
were given to understand by some higher power
that the children were demonic, e.g.

 But what makes it NOT apples and oranges IMO is
 that it was a very strong compelling belief that
 their actions were right despite the fact that
 society as a whole believes they were wrong wrong
 wrong. They had unplugged from civilization's you
 are full of shit meter, and were acting on their
 own compellingly intense beliefs.

That's one batch of apples, but there doesn't seem
to be a corresponding batch of people who believe
they've lived previous lives and as a result have
undertaken actions society believes are wrong.

 So the bigger point for me is that humans are
 wrong about all sorts of stuff but we have a 
 tendency (this includes me) to become attached to
 beliefs and mistake their intensity for
 epistemological solidity.

I think you really have to make a distinction
between a belief adopted from external sources
and one generated by powerful subjective
experience. Not that the latter is necessarily
any more valid than the former, but you can't
use the same kind of epistemological analysis
that you do for externally acquired beliefs to
evaluate them.

We don't really *have* an epistemological approach
to evaluating profound subjective experience.

 we shouldn't be too satisfied with what we think we
 KNOW.

What's interesting is that, as Barry has pointed
out, Stu is at least as certain that there is no
such thing as reincarnation as Joerg is that there
is, yet you don't go after Stu.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Riddle: 
  If we wonder what it is like to be dead. What do dead people wonder?
  
  Answer: 
  What is it like to be alive?
 
 Steven Wright,is that you man?
 
  
  No one is ever satisfied. Desire for more keeps the wheel turning.
  Just saying.
 
 That's the point, we shouldn't be too satisfied with what we think we
 KNOW.  

Curtis, A friend used my computer and didn't sign out. The post was
mine. I'll just second Judy's reply and leave it at that. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
 [Margovan wrote:]
   Curtis, Joerg's sanctimonious tone is certainly
   irritating but comparing him to the Mumbai terrorists
   is a little harsh.
 
 Boy, I'll say. The notion of reincarnation seems
 to really upset the skeptics for some reason.

You mean more than other beliefs with little evidence?  I can't speak
for others but upset is an inappropriate emotional term for how I
feel about it. I love discussing my views on it.

 
 snip
  But your point about what the terrorists are
  experiencing is interesting.  I'm not sure we
  do know what they were experiencing. I'm not
  ready to assume that they just read something
  and then decided to face death.  We don't know
  the nature of how they were called to this
  mission.  On the other hand, I really can't
  assume that they did have some compelling
  subjective experience that matches Joerg's
  either.  Whatever it was, it worked pretty well
  as a force compelling enough to rise above a
  fear of death.
 
 FWIW, in all the discussions about terrorism
 (including interviews with terrorists), I've
 never heard even a suggestion that terrorists
 have been motivated by some kind of subjective
 woo-woo experience. That just doesn't seem to
 be part of the lore, and the lack is in distinct
 contrast to, say, what some people who have
 slaughtered their children report--that they
 were given to understand by some higher power
 that the children were demonic, e.g.

You may be right here.  They are such a closed society it is hard to
tell till they start getting deprogrammed and coming on talk shows.

 
  But what makes it NOT apples and oranges IMO is
  that it was a very strong compelling belief that
  their actions were right despite the fact that
  society as a whole believes they were wrong wrong
  wrong. They had unplugged from civilization's you
  are full of shit meter, and were acting on their
  own compellingly intense beliefs.
 
 That's one batch of apples, but there doesn't seem
 to be a corresponding batch of people who believe
 they've lived previous lives and as a result have
 undertaken actions society believes are wrong.

The comparison was not in the result but in the flawed proof system
for the beliefs themselves.  But we don't see groups of Atheists on
suicide missions and their lack of confidence of what happens after
death may be a factor.  Terrorist young men have described their
confidence in the 72 virgins as a motivation.

 
  So the bigger point for me is that humans are
  wrong about all sorts of stuff but we have a 
  tendency (this includes me) to become attached to
  beliefs and mistake their intensity for
  epistemological solidity.
 
 I think you really have to make a distinction
 between a belief adopted from external sources
 and one generated by powerful subjective
 experience. Not that the latter is necessarily
 any more valid than the former, but you can't
 use the same kind of epistemological analysis
 that you do for externally acquired beliefs to
 evaluate them.

I'm not sure that the source matters for proving something.  A
scientist may be inspired by prayer or a dream or by reading
something.  But in the end he needs to get out the tool kit if he
wants to assert a belief as true for others.

 
 We don't really *have* an epistemological approach
 to evaluating profound subjective experience.

I'm not sure we need one.  It is when we communicate with others that
assertions need more analysis. 

 
  we shouldn't be too satisfied with what we think we
  KNOW.
 
 What's interesting is that, as Barry has pointed
 out, Stu is at least as certain that there is no
 such thing as reincarnation as Joerg is that there
 is, yet you don't go after Stu.


I did make my opinion about that known in another thread today.  But I
would not be inclined to go after you or Turq or Stu in that
discussion because everyone was contributing such interesting stuff
and you seemed to be handling any point I was thinking of.  Sometimes
the dialectic here goes on without my feeling a need to jump in.  

Raunchy nailed it that Joerg's tone from on high triggered my reactive
post to him. If someone had already expressed my feelings on it, I
wouldn't be inclined to burn a post. But if you are pointing out that
I have a bias toward skepticism and skeptical posters, I am guilty as
charged.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
  curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
snip
   So the bigger point for me is that humans are
   wrong about all sorts of stuff but we have a 
   tendency (this includes me) to become attached to
   beliefs and mistake their intensity for
   epistemological solidity.
  
  I think you really have to make a distinction
  between a belief adopted from external sources
  and one generated by powerful subjective
  experience. Not that the latter is necessarily
  any more valid than the former, but you can't
  use the same kind of epistemological analysis
  that you do for externally acquired beliefs to
  evaluate them.
 
 I'm not sure that the source matters for proving
 something.

Well, in the first place, the demand for
proof of such beliefs as reincarnation or
the existence of God is a category error.
I'm talking about epistemological analysis,
not proof per se.

In terms of externally acquired beliefs, 
they're pretty well defined as to their
specifics and provenance. Any externally 
acquired belief is by definition one that is
shared by multiple individuals, and we can
gather empirical data about the circumstances
of its acceptance by any given individual. We
can know much more about its nature and
grounds than we can with beliefs arising from
subjective experience.

As an example, take the kid who grows up in a
fundamentalist household. We know where the kid
acquired his/her beliefs and what they are; we
know the social imperatives influencing the kid
to accept the beliefs.

Now take a kid who grows up in an atheist,
materialist household who has a profound mystical
experience at a very young age. Nobody around him
is going to validate the experience or validate
any beliefs the kid may develop as a result.

There's no way to trace the origins of those
beliefs because what generated them was a
purely internal, private occurrence. If the
kid holds on to the beliefs, it isn't because
of parental pressure; if there's any pressure,
it's to drop the beliefs.

So it seems to me there's an element operating
in this situation that doesn't exist with
externally acquired beliefs, one that isn't
subject to examination or analysis, at least in
anything like the same way as with externally
acquired beliefs.

It's pretty well established that there's a
psychological component to accepting external
beliefs, but that isn't necessarily the case
with beliefs arising from profound mystical
experience. Psychology may influence how the
experience is interpreted, but we don't know
what the role of psychology is in the
experience itself.

Subjective experience of this sort is really
an epistemological black box. That's why I
think making a distinction is important.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[curtisdeltablues]

Thanks for keeping this ball in play.

snip
   
   I think you really have to make a distinction
   between a belief adopted from external sources
   and one generated by powerful subjective
   experience. Not that the latter is necessarily
   any more valid than the former, but you can't
   use the same kind of epistemological analysis
   that you do for externally acquired beliefs to
   evaluate them.
  
  I'm not sure that the source matters for proving
  something.
 
 Well, in the first place, the demand for
 proof of such beliefs as reincarnation or
 the existence of God is a category error.
 I'm talking about epistemological analysis,
 not proof per se.

I'm not sure about that.  For Reincarnation they are making specific
claims about having memories of what actually existed in the world
when they were alive before. So in principle they can be tested. We
may not know what happens after death, but if someone claims that they
DO know because they can remember specifics of having lived before it
can be tested.

Sam Harris makes the point about the God belief that religious people
are actually making claims about how the world actually is.  They are
going beyond describing a place after death.  So challenging their
assertions with a request for proof seems reasonable to me.  If you
look at Christian beliefs based on the New Testament's claims, we do
see an attempt for an evidence system based on the Jesus miracles. 
They may default to faith on a challenge to their bad evidence, but
they do try to make a proof.  When you throw in the prophesy of the
Old Testament we have another attempt at a proof system that we may
not regard as reasonable today. (at least I don't)

 
 In terms of externally acquired beliefs, 
 they're pretty well defined as to their
 specifics and provenance. Any externally 
 acquired belief is by definition one that is
 shared by multiple individuals, and we can
 gather empirical data about the circumstances
 of its acceptance by any given individual. We
 can know much more about its nature and
 grounds than we can with beliefs arising from
 subjective experience.
 
 As an example, take the kid who grows up in a
 fundamentalist household. We know where the kid
 acquired his/her beliefs and what they are; we
 know the social imperatives influencing the kid
 to accept the beliefs.

 Now take a kid who grows up in an atheist,
 materialist household who has a profound mystical
 experience at a very young age. Nobody around him
 is going to validate the experience or validate
 any beliefs the kid may develop as a result.

I think he would pretty much have to be raised by wolves for this to
be true.  Kids are such sponges. I hear from my Atheist mom friends
that their kids discuss all sorts of religious things they never
taught them. But I guess Mao's China or Russia might have met the
necessary conditions.

 
 There's no way to trace the origins of those
 beliefs because what generated them was a
 purely internal, private occurrence. If the
 kid holds on to the beliefs, it isn't because
 of parental pressure; if there's any pressure,
 it's to drop the beliefs.
 
 So it seems to me there's an element operating
 in this situation that doesn't exist with
 externally acquired beliefs, one that isn't
 subject to examination or analysis, at least in
 anything like the same way as with externally
 acquired beliefs.

It seems the same to me.  Lets take the beliefs of an OCD person who
KNOWS that if they don't turn the light off and on 3 times something
bad will happen. Once he articulates this belief it is subject to
someone saying, this is not true and I think it can be proven.
 
 It's pretty well established that there's a
 psychological component to accepting external
 beliefs, but that isn't necessarily the case
 with beliefs arising from profound mystical
 experience. Psychology may influence how the
 experience is interpreted, but we don't know
 what the role of psychology is in the
 experience itself.

I agree that we don't know how beliefs shape ineffable experiences.  
It is in the world of interpretation when these become important. 
Take my recent experiment with meditating again.  I had similar
experiences to when I also had the belief system in place. (Although I
will never know its unconscious influence.)

 
 Subjective experience of this sort is really
 an epistemological black box. That's why I
 think making a distinction is important.

I think you have a knack for isolating a pretty clean version of
experience sans belief.  It took me quite a few years to understand
it.  (assuming that I actually do!) But for most people who have these
experiences, they quickly do make statements about what it means and
then they are subject to the WTF line of epistemological questioning
just like everybody else.

I think this is Sam Harris's main point.  That we don't have to give a
person a pass on claims just because they came from an inner source
once they cross the threshold of talking about 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I think you have a knack for isolating a pretty clean version of
 experience sans belief. It took me quite a few years to understand
 it. (assuming that I actually do!) But for most people who have 
 these experiences, they quickly do make statements about what it 
 means and then they are subject to the WTF line of 
 epistemological questioning just like everybody else.

The thing is, Curtis, I don't see the skeptics 
merely criticizing the what I think this exper-
ience means thing in people who believe things 
they don't. I see a lot of them trying to chal-
lenge the experiences *themselves*.

They seem almost compelled to come up with ration-
alizations to explain away the person's exper-
iences. And those rationalizations may be valid.
Then again, they might not be. To claim that a 
person's experiences aren't what he thinks they
are just because you can think of a theory that
paints them in a different light strikes me as
the height of hubris. 

Why is the skeptic's theory any more valid than
the believer's theory? It seems to me that what's
going on is just a dick-size contest: My theory
has a longer dick than yours. 

 I think this is Sam Harris's main point.  That we don't have to 
 give a person a pass on claims just because they came from an 
 inner source once they cross the threshold of talking about 
 their meaning.  

And I don't perceive the threshold the same way
you do. I don't think that a person *talking about*
their experience and saying, This was just my
experience; make what you want of it has crossed
any threshold that demands that you must challenge
it. 

The threshold, for me, is when the believer talks
about his beliefs and casts them as Truth, as The
Way Things Are, You Betcha. Or when the believer 
tries to sell you his beliefs. When a person does this,
then you might have the right to come after them with
a stiff dick. But if they just say, Hey...this is
what my experience is, and what I make of it, YMMV,
I don't see what the big issue is.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[Richard M]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 [snip]  For Reincarnation they are making specific
 claims about having memories of what actually existed in the world
 when they were alive before. So in principle they can be tested. We
 may not know what happens after death, but if someone claims that they
 DO know because they can remember specifics of having lived before it
 can be tested.

To an extent - but there is something about Death that seems to leave
us always *locked out*.

After all - let's say I claim I was Blackbeard the pirate in a
previous life. When challenged by scoffers I say I am so confident of
my recollections that I can prove it. I *remember* the location of a
small island where I (Blackbeard) buried my treasure. Let's go there
and we'll dig it up!

OK - suppose we put that to the test. We go to some remote island. I
count six  half paces from the third palm tree from the north beach,
start digging - and shiver me timbers - there be a treasure chest.

It has to be said that (as far as I know), tests like these never seem
to work out for reincarnation. But even if they did, all we can say is
this: Something very odd is going on. Reincarnation could explain it -
but so could other equally challenging conjectures. For example this:-
Perhaps I have some strong psychic abilities with which I can indeed
do a remarkable thing (viz. divine the thoughts of a dead pirate that
are somehow still echoing or reverberating in the ether today.).
If true, that means that I am mistaken and confused in thinking I WAS
Blackbeard. I have a special ability, but my understanding of my own
ability is false. So the question is: How could you ever test between
these two competing explanations?

There is a similar barrier to empirical experiment with near-death
experience. I read a while back that they were setting up tests in a
London hospital. I think the plan was to leave some odd objects in
places that could not be seen by a patient under normal circumstances,
but might be visible to someone *looking back at their body* after
*death*. I don't know how they have got on, but interesting as it is,
I don't see how it could ever establish anything about *life after
death*. I think if someone could indeed correctly refer to these
things after being resuscitated, we would reasonably conclude that
shows the person wasn't dead. But how could the patient have seen
something hidden away on the top of a cupboard or some such? 

Well that would be remarkable - but to explain this as the astral
travelling of a dead soul around the ceiling ignores other possible
(but still extraordinary) possibilities. Isn't it easier to believe
that minds may have psychic abilities and in this case the non-dead
patient may have somehow read the mind of the experimenter? Perhaps
brains slip easier in to weird mode when under stress and close to death!

It just seems that death presents a knowledge barrier that we can
never get past...

(I think the near death experiments were being organised by Peter
Fenwick, one of the early researchers into TM)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  I think you have a knack for isolating a pretty clean version of
  experience sans belief. It took me quite a few years to understand
  it. (assuming that I actually do!) But for most people who have 
  these experiences, they quickly do make statements about what it 
  means and then they are subject to the WTF line of 
  epistemological questioning just like everybody else.
 
 The thing is, Curtis, I don't see the skeptics 
 merely criticizing the what I think this exper-
 ience means thing in people who believe things 
 they don't. I see a lot of them trying to chal-
 lenge the experiences *themselves*.\

Stu is taking a challenging position by referring to these beliefs as
delusions.  I am not on board with that.  I'm more Sam Harris to his
Christopher Hitchins in the non saints of this POV.

 
 They seem almost compelled to come up with ration-
 alizations to explain away the person's exper-
 iences. And those rationalizations may be valid.
 Then again, they might not be. To claim that a 
 person's experiences aren't what he thinks they
 are just because you can think of a theory that
 paints them in a different light strikes me as
 the height of hubris. 

Or it could be a sincere attempt to understand the phenomenon. I don't
have an apriori stake in these experiences meaning that a person had
past lives.  I just haven't been convinced by the evidence yet.  That
doesn't give me a license to be a dick about it. (Not that that always
stops me.)

 
 Why is the skeptic's theory any more valid than
 the believer's theory? It seems to me that what's
 going on is just a dick-size contest: My theory
 has a longer dick than yours. 

The discussion with Stu has taken on some of that character but it
doesn't have to.  And I have appreciated the point that no one has the
definitive answer on this topic.  A true skeptic should be just as
skeptical of his own theories. I haven't found that to be a problem in
our discussions even when I believe that my POV is righter than yours.
 I am not against a person expressing their convictions that are
different from mine and I don't always assume they are trying to alpha
chimp me using beliefs as a bone to bludgeon my furry ape head. 

 
  I think this is Sam Harris's main point.  That we don't have to 
  give a person a pass on claims just because they came from an 
  inner source once they cross the threshold of talking about 
  their meaning.  
 
 And I don't perceive the threshold the same way
 you do. I don't think that a person *talking about*
 their experience and saying, This was just my
 experience; make what you want of it has crossed
 any threshold that demands that you must challenge
 it. 

Well we are on an online forum for such discussions, so I think it is
a fair assumption that anything we post is up for grabs.

 
 The threshold, for me, is when the believer talks
 about his beliefs and casts them as Truth, as The
 Way Things Are, You Betcha. Or when the believer 
 tries to sell you his beliefs. When a person does this,
 then you might have the right to come after them with
 a stiff dick. But if they just say, Hey...this is
 what my experience is, and what I make of it, YMMV,
 I don't see what the big issue is.

I don't have any issues with the beliefs and experiences you posted. 
I enjoy them.  You seem willing to discuss them and have already
looked at alternate explanations, so I think we are on the same page
of respect for your personal perspective.  But Stu being an
enthusiastic advocate of his position creates the kind of discussion
that brings out interesting points on this topic.  The choice of tone
is a personal matter that I only address when it is aimed at me!  Or
if I just want to jump in and comment on someone's post just to be a
dick.  Yeah. I'm deep like that!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I think you pointed out some valid points about the difficulty testing
these theories.  But I think that could be worked out if you had the
kind of numbers of people willing to be tested that the reality of
reincarnation would be expected (by me) to provide.  If ALL of us have
had many lives I would expect many many more examples of people coming
up with the kind of details that could corroborate the claim.

And if truth was created by consensus vote, I would vote for
reincarnation to be true.  I'm having a blast in my life, and am very
pissed off that death has taken away people I love and care about. I
would like this myth to be true.  But I have to be honest with myself
that I put a low probability on it.

I do believe that we have only scratched the surface of understanding
what our minds are capable of.  We don't even know how most birds find
their direction across large areas of flight paths.  But I would like
to see a bit more willingness for rigorous research on the part of
believers.  I often get the sense that they are too invested with the
physiological benifits of such beliefs to be committed to a
falsifiable testing standard.

I guess we all make choices about what basket we are gunna put our
eggs (this analogy has taken a weird turn).  This is true of so called
skeptics and believers both.  No one believes everything from the many
beliefs available to us from man's history.  We are all skeptics and
believers both.




 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  [snip]  For Reincarnation they are making specific
  claims about having memories of what actually existed in the world
  when they were alive before. So in principle they can be tested. We
  may not know what happens after death, but if someone claims that they
  DO know because they can remember specifics of having lived before it
  can be tested.
 
 To an extent - but there is something about Death that seems to leave
 us always *locked out*.
 
 After all - let's say I claim I was Blackbeard the pirate in a
 previous life. When challenged by scoffers I say I am so confident of
 my recollections that I can prove it. I *remember* the location of a
 small island where I (Blackbeard) buried my treasure. Let's go there
 and we'll dig it up!
 
 OK - suppose we put that to the test. We go to some remote island. I
 count six  half paces from the third palm tree from the north beach,
 start digging - and shiver me timbers - there be a treasure chest.
 
 It has to be said that (as far as I know), tests like these never seem
 to work out for reincarnation. But even if they did, all we can say is
 this: Something very odd is going on. Reincarnation could explain it -
 but so could other equally challenging conjectures. For example this:-
 Perhaps I have some strong psychic abilities with which I can indeed
 do a remarkable thing (viz. divine the thoughts of a dead pirate that
 are somehow still echoing or reverberating in the ether today.).
 If true, that means that I am mistaken and confused in thinking I WAS
 Blackbeard. I have a special ability, but my understanding of my own
 ability is false. So the question is: How could you ever test between
 these two competing explanations?
 
 There is a similar barrier to empirical experiment with near-death
 experience. I read a while back that they were setting up tests in a
 London hospital. I think the plan was to leave some odd objects in
 places that could not be seen by a patient under normal circumstances,
 but might be visible to someone *looking back at their body* after
 *death*. I don't know how they have got on, but interesting as it is,
 I don't see how it could ever establish anything about *life after
 death*. I think if someone could indeed correctly refer to these
 things after being resuscitated, we would reasonably conclude that
 shows the person wasn't dead. But how could the patient have seen
 something hidden away on the top of a cupboard or some such? 
 
 Well that would be remarkable - but to explain this as the astral
 travelling of a dead soul around the ceiling ignores other possible
 (but still extraordinary) possibilities. Isn't it easier to believe
 that minds may have psychic abilities and in this case the non-dead
 patient may have somehow read the mind of the experimenter? Perhaps
 brains slip easier in to weird mode when under stress and close to
death!
 
 It just seems that death presents a knowledge barrier that we can
 never get past...
 
 (I think the near death experiments were being organised by Peter
 Fenwick, one of the early researchers into TM)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[curtisdeltablues]

 So now I am one of you guys and only Curtis is left with no
afterlife.  No wonder he sings the blues.

I'm not sweating it because I'm counting on being invited to join
someone else's afterlife party.  There is always room for a guy who
can bang the devil's sting box!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
   curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
   
   [Margovan wrote:]
 Curtis, Joerg's sanctimonious tone is certainly
 irritating but comparing him to the Mumbai terrorists
 is a little harsh.
   
   Boy, I'll say. The notion of reincarnation seems
   to really upset the skeptics for some reason.
  
 I'm not upset.  I was mostly reacting to a thread that used the words
 solid proof.  WTF?
 
 Since discussing this I am will to revise my life after death fantasy.
 In the middle ages xtians were afraid of being hit by lightening
 because they knew that they would die instantly and would not have
 time for proper contrition with a priest.  This meant purgatory for
 eternity.  It was this experience that led Luther to react against the
 church.
 
 I have decided I am going with this delusion.  Seems as reasonable as
 the versions of reincarnation.
 
 So now I am one of you guys and only Curtis is left with no afterlife.
  No wonder he sings the blues.
 
 s.
 How can a person who meditates twice a day along with a regular yoga
 practice be upset at anything?  I pretty much go with the flow.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Thanks for keeping this ball in play.
 
 snip

I think you really have to make a distinction
between a belief adopted from external sources
and one generated by powerful subjective
experience. Not that the latter is necessarily
any more valid than the former, but you can't
use the same kind of epistemological analysis
that you do for externally acquired beliefs to
evaluate them.
   
   I'm not sure that the source matters for proving
   something.
  
  Well, in the first place, the demand for
  proof of such beliefs as reincarnation or
  the existence of God is a category error.
  I'm talking about epistemological analysis,
  not proof per se.
 
 I'm not sure about that.  For Reincarnation they
 are making specific claims about having memories
 of what actually existed in the world when they
 were alive before.

And how can you prove or disprove that they have
such memories? You can't get inside their heads
to see whether the memories are there. (Two
different points here: whether they have the
memory is one; whether it's a memory of what
actually happened is another.)

 So in principle they can be tested. We
 may not know what happens after death, but if
 someone claims that they DO know because they
 can remember specifics of having lived before
 it can be tested.

But you can't prove or disprove that this has
anything to do with reincarnation.

 Sam Harris makes the point about the God belief
 that religious people are actually making claims
 about how the world actually is.

Depends on the religious person and the specific
claims they're making.

  They are
 going beyond describing a place after death.
 So challenging their assertions with a request
 for proof seems reasonable to me.  If you look
 at Christian beliefs based on the New Testament's
 claims, we do see an attempt for an evidence
 system based on the Jesus miracles.

Which can't be proved or disproved either.

snip
  In terms of externally acquired beliefs, 
  they're pretty well defined as to their
  specifics and provenance. Any externally 
  acquired belief is by definition one that is
  shared by multiple individuals, and we can
  gather empirical data about the circumstances
  of its acceptance by any given individual. We
  can know much more about its nature and
  grounds than we can with beliefs arising from
  subjective experience.
  
  As an example, take the kid who grows up in a
  fundamentalist household. We know where the kid
  acquired his/her beliefs and what they are; we
  know the social imperatives influencing the kid
  to accept the beliefs.
 
  Now take a kid who grows up in an atheist,
  materialist household who has a profound mystical
  experience at a very young age. Nobody around him
  is going to validate the experience or validate
  any beliefs the kid may develop as a result.
 
 I think he would pretty much have to be raised
 by wolves for this to be true.

Most likely the kid would give up the beliefs
and block out the memory of the experience. But
I've read accounts of people who have not done
so. They shut up about the experience but they
don't forget it or decide it was an illusion.

snip
  There's no way to trace the origins of those
  beliefs because what generated them was a
  purely internal, private occurrence. If the
  kid holds on to the beliefs, it isn't because
  of parental pressure; if there's any pressure,
  it's to drop the beliefs.
  
  So it seems to me there's an element operating
  in this situation that doesn't exist with
  externally acquired beliefs, one that isn't
  subject to examination or analysis, at least in
  anything like the same way as with externally
  acquired beliefs.
 
 It seems the same to me.  Lets take the beliefs
 of an OCD person who KNOWS that if they don't
 turn the light off and on 3 times something bad
 will happen.

Nah, that's a bogus example.

  It's pretty well established that there's a
  psychological component to accepting external
  beliefs, but that isn't necessarily the case
  with beliefs arising from profound mystical
  experience. Psychology may influence how the
  experience is interpreted, but we don't know
  what the role of psychology is in the
  experience itself.
 
 I agree that we don't know how beliefs shape
 ineffable experiences.

Or how ineffable experiences shape beliefs.

snip
  Subjective experience of this sort is really
  an epistemological black box. That's why I
  think making a distinction is important.
 
 I think you have a knack for isolating a pretty
 clean version of experience sans belief.  It took
 me quite a few years to understand it.  (assuming
 that I actually do!) But for most people who have
 these experiences, they quickly do make statements
 about what it means and then they are subject to 
 the WTF line of epistemological questioning
 just like everybody else.

Again, it depends on the nature of the 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[curtisdeltablues]

snip
  
  I'm not sure about that.  For Reincarnation they
  are making specific claims about having memories
  of what actually existed in the world when they
  were alive before.
 
 And how can you prove or disprove that they have
 such memories? You can't get inside their heads
 to see whether the memories are there. (Two
 different points here: whether they have the
 memory is one; whether it's a memory of what
 actually happened is another.)

I wasn't thinking that this question is the most relevant to the
claim.  I'm not trying to distinguish someones memory from their
imagination.  I'm only interested in what can be tested against our
consensus reality outside.  For example a songwriter writes a moving
song set in the Civil War.  I'm only interested in how good the song
is, not if they really remember living then or are imagining it all. 
  But if they go the route of  I was IN the Civil War and that
inspired me, I might decline to join them in this belief unless they
can make their case in detail.
 
  So in principle they can be tested. We
  may not know what happens after death, but if
  someone claims that they DO know because they
  can remember specifics of having lived before
  it can be tested.
 
 But you can't prove or disprove that this has
 anything to do with reincarnation.

I'm not so sure.  If a lot of people had these experiences in
compelling detail we might be able to establish it.  At least we could
up the probability of it being true.

 
  Sam Harris makes the point about the God belief
  that religious people are actually making claims
  about how the world actually is.
 
 Depends on the religious person and the specific
 claims they're making.

OK

 
   They are
  going beyond describing a place after death.
  So challenging their assertions with a request
  for proof seems reasonable to me.  If you look
  at Christian beliefs based on the New Testament's
  claims, we do see an attempt for an evidence
  system based on the Jesus miracles.
 
 Which can't be proved or disproved either.

Let's not shift the burden of proof here.  It isn't up to me to
disprove it.  The person making the claim makes their case and we can
decide if we find their reasons compelling.  We have proven a lot of
things about historical figures with a pretty good degree of
confidence.  The Jesus myth just isn't one of them for me.

 
 snip
  
  I think he would pretty much have to be raised
  by wolves for this to be true.
 
 Most likely the kid would give up the beliefs
 and block out the memory of the experience. But
 I've read accounts of people who have not done
 so. They shut up about the experience but they
 don't forget it or decide it was an illusion.
 
 snip
   There's no way to trace the origins of those
   beliefs because what generated them was a
   purely internal, private occurrence. If the
   kid holds on to the beliefs, it isn't because
   of parental pressure; if there's any pressure,
   it's to drop the beliefs.
   
   So it seems to me there's an element operating
   in this situation that doesn't exist with
   externally acquired beliefs, one that isn't
   subject to examination or analysis, at least in
   anything like the same way as with externally
   acquired beliefs.
  
  It seems the same to me.  Lets take the beliefs
  of an OCD person who KNOWS that if they don't
  turn the light off and on 3 times something bad
  will happen.
 
 Nah, that's a bogus example.

I don't see why,it is an internally created reality for the person
without any external support. 

 
   It's pretty well established that there's a
   psychological component to accepting external
   beliefs, but that isn't necessarily the case
   with beliefs arising from profound mystical
   experience. Psychology may influence how the
   experience is interpreted, but we don't know
   what the role of psychology is in the
   experience itself.
  
  I agree that we don't know how beliefs shape
  ineffable experiences.
 
 Or how ineffable experiences shape beliefs.

Right.

 
 snip
 
 Again, it depends on the nature of the claims they're
 making. We didn't get enough information from Joerge
 about his own experience and his interpretation
 thereof to know whether he was making any claims that
 could be subject to epistemological questioning.

I started to disagree with you, but on reflection, I agree.

 
  I think this is Sam Harris's main point.  That we
  don't have to give a person a pass on claims just
  because they came from an inner source once they
  cross the threshold of talking about their meaning.
 
 Depends on *what they say* about the experiences'
 meaning. It isn't a one-size-fits-all situation.

The example he likes is that God gave us this real estate and you and
your clan need to hit the road.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 snip
   
   I'm not sure about that.  For Reincarnation they
   are making specific claims about having memories
   of what actually existed in the world when they
   were alive before.
  
  And how can you prove or disprove that they have
  such memories? You can't get inside their heads
  to see whether the memories are there. (Two
  different points here: whether they have the
  memory is one; whether it's a memory of what
  actually happened is another.)
 
 I wasn't thinking that this question is the most
 relevant to the claim.  I'm not trying to
 distinguish someones memory from their imagination.

I know. I'm really just making a semantic quibble
because sometimes this type of distinction gets lost
and creates misunderstanding. Specific claims that
their memories are of what actually existed in the
world would be clearer.

snip
   So in principle they can be tested. We
   may not know what happens after death, but if
   someone claims that they DO know because they
   can remember specifics of having lived before
   it can be tested.
  
  But you can't prove or disprove that this has
  anything to do with reincarnation.
 
 I'm not so sure.  If a lot of people had these
 experiences in compelling detail we might be able
 to establish it.  At least we could up the
 probability of it being true.

Probability, perhaps. But we couldn't rule out
other possibilities.

They are
   going beyond describing a place after death.
   So challenging their assertions with a request
   for proof seems reasonable to me.  If you look
   at Christian beliefs based on the New Testament's
   claims, we do see an attempt for an evidence
   system based on the Jesus miracles.
  
  Which can't be proved or disproved either.
 
 Let's not shift the burden of proof here.

I'm not. I'm saying they can't prove it and you
can't disprove it, so it's a draw. It doesn't make
sense to use the accounts of Jesus's miracles as
evidence of any kind, nor does it make any sense
to demand proof of these miracles.

  It isn't up to me to disprove it.  The person
 making the claim makes their case and we can
 decide if we find their reasons compelling.  We
 have proven a lot of things about historical
 figures with a pretty good degree of confidence.
 The Jesus myth just isn't one of them for me.

Jesus is really only quasi-historical. There's
almost nothing in the way of contemporary evidence
even for his existence, let alone his deeds or what
he said.

snip
So it seems to me there's an element operating
in this situation that doesn't exist with
externally acquired beliefs, one that isn't
subject to examination or analysis, at least in
anything like the same way as with externally
acquired beliefs.
   
   It seems the same to me.  Lets take the beliefs
   of an OCD person who KNOWS that if they don't
   turn the light off and on 3 times something bad
   will happen.
  
  Nah, that's a bogus example.
 
 I don't see why,it is an internally created
 reality for the person without any external
 support.

But it's entirely mundane and can easily be
tested. I'm talking about mystical experience.

snip
   I think this is Sam Harris's main point.  That we
   don't have to give a person a pass on claims just
   because they came from an inner source once they
   cross the threshold of talking about their meaning.
  
  Depends on *what they say* about the experiences'
  meaning. It isn't a one-size-fits-all situation.
 
 The example he likes is that God gave us this
 real estate and you and your clan need to hit
 the road.

That isn't the product of an *experience*; it says
so in da Bible. It's externally acquired.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[curtisdeltablues]

  Let's not shift the burden of proof here.
 
 I'm not. I'm saying they can't prove it and you
 can't disprove it, so it's a draw. It doesn't make
 sense to use the accounts of Jesus's miracles as
 evidence of any kind, nor does it make any sense
 to demand proof of these miracles.

But this is how Christians use the Bible's claims, as evidence that it
gives special instructions for how the world actually operates.  Of
course it all becomes moot when they default to faith after the
evidence angle peters out.  But I don't think Christians are being
honest about how they do attempt to use evidence to influence belief.

 But it's entirely mundane and can easily be
 tested. I'm talking about mystical experience.

OK, then the topic has shifted from the specific claims of an
experience of having had past lives.  I think I would have to have
some specific examples to understand what kind you are talking about.

  The example he likes is that God gave us this
  real estate and you and your clan need to hit
  the road.
 
 That isn't the product of an *experience*; it says
 so in da Bible. It's externally acquired.

I don't know if there are mystical claims of God's messages about real
estate among the Rabbis and Mullahs in the Mid East, or if it is all
based on da book.  I think some of the factions of Islam are based on
the prophetic visions of their founders aren't they?


 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  snip

I'm not sure about that.  For Reincarnation they
are making specific claims about having memories
of what actually existed in the world when they
were alive before.
   
   And how can you prove or disprove that they have
   such memories? You can't get inside their heads
   to see whether the memories are there. (Two
   different points here: whether they have the
   memory is one; whether it's a memory of what
   actually happened is another.)
  
  I wasn't thinking that this question is the most
  relevant to the claim.  I'm not trying to
  distinguish someones memory from their imagination.
 
 I know. I'm really just making a semantic quibble
 because sometimes this type of distinction gets lost
 and creates misunderstanding. Specific claims that
 their memories are of what actually existed in the
 world would be clearer.
 
 snip
So in principle they can be tested. We
may not know what happens after death, but if
someone claims that they DO know because they
can remember specifics of having lived before
it can be tested.
   
   But you can't prove or disprove that this has
   anything to do with reincarnation.
  
  I'm not so sure.  If a lot of people had these
  experiences in compelling detail we might be able
  to establish it.  At least we could up the
  probability of it being true.
 
 Probability, perhaps. But we couldn't rule out
 other possibilities.
 
 They are
going beyond describing a place after death.
So challenging their assertions with a request
for proof seems reasonable to me.  If you look
at Christian beliefs based on the New Testament's
claims, we do see an attempt for an evidence
system based on the Jesus miracles.
   
   Which can't be proved or disproved either.
  
  Let's not shift the burden of proof here.
 
 I'm not. I'm saying they can't prove it and you
 can't disprove it, so it's a draw. It doesn't make
 sense to use the accounts of Jesus's miracles as
 evidence of any kind, nor does it make any sense
 to demand proof of these miracles.
 
   It isn't up to me to disprove it.  The person
  making the claim makes their case and we can
  decide if we find their reasons compelling.  We
  have proven a lot of things about historical
  figures with a pretty good degree of confidence.
  The Jesus myth just isn't one of them for me.
 
 Jesus is really only quasi-historical. There's
 almost nothing in the way of contemporary evidence
 even for his existence, let alone his deeds or what
 he said.
 
 snip
 So it seems to me there's an element operating
 in this situation that doesn't exist with
 externally acquired beliefs, one that isn't
 subject to examination or analysis, at least in
 anything like the same way as with externally
 acquired beliefs.

It seems the same to me.  Lets take the beliefs
of an OCD person who KNOWS that if they don't
turn the light off and on 3 times something bad
will happen.
   
   Nah, that's a bogus example.
  
  I don't see why,it is an internally created
  reality for the person without any external
  support.
 
 But it's entirely mundane and can easily be
 tested. I'm talking about mystical experience.
 
 snip
I think this is Sam Harris's main point.  That we
don't have to give a perscross the threshold of
talking about their meaning.on a pass on claims just
because they came from an inner 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   Let's not shift the burden of proof here.
  
  I'm not. I'm saying they can't prove it and you
  can't disprove it, so it's a draw. It doesn't make
  sense to use the accounts of Jesus's miracles as
  evidence of any kind, nor does it make any sense
  to demand proof of these miracles.
 
 But this is how Christians use the Bible's claims,
 as evidence that it gives special instructions for
 how the world actually operates.  Of course it all
 becomes moot when they default to faith after the
 evidence angle peters out.  But I don't think
 Christians are being honest about how they do
 attempt to use evidence to influence belief.

I think it's mostly fundamentalists you're
talking about. Nonfundamentalists tend to take
it all as a matter of faith (unless they've had
related mystical experience--see below for a
definition--in which case it's both, neither
subject to epistemological investigation or
proof).

  But it's entirely mundane and can easily be
  tested. I'm talking about mystical experience.
 
 OK, then the topic has shifted from the specific
 claims of an experience of having had past lives.

No, I'm classing that as a mystical experience,
as opposed to the mundane experience of the OCD
person: having a spiritual meaning or reality
that is neither apparent to the senses nor
obvious to the intelligence, per Mr. Dictionary.
That's what takes such experience out of the 
realm of epistemology and proof.

   The example he likes is that God gave us this
   real estate and you and your clan need to hit
   the road.
  
  That isn't the product of an *experience*; it says
  so in da Bible. It's externally acquired.
 
 I don't know if there are mystical claims of God's
 messages about real estate among the Rabbis and
 Mullahs in the Mid East, or if it is all based on
 da book.  I think some of the factions of Islam are
 based on the prophetic visions of their founders
 aren't they?

Sure, but that's the founders, not the subsequent
practitioners. And while there may be rabbis who've
had some mystical experience about the Jews being
given the Land of Israel by God, that's just a
confirmation, for them, of what's in the book. For
most religious Jews it's *only* what's in the book.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[Marek Reavis]

It seems that all the arguments regarding reincarnation, both pro and
con, assume that Time is real and only flows in a single direction.

If reincarnation occurs, what's to prevent me (when I die) from
coming back as some other personality that existed in what I thought
of as the Past in the life I just surrendered?  What's to keep you
from coming back as your mother, or your guru, or anybody else or at
any time?  If any attenuated personality persists after the death of
the body, it would have left behind all the things that exist in time,
and consequently, time itself. 

If the attention is permitted to re-enter a conditional existence, it
seems it could re-enter in any organized, vital physical structure,
and in any time or era.

The issue of whether or not some intact personality remains is still
the fundamental one.

**



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
  [snip]  For Reincarnation they are making specific
  claims about having memories of what actually existed in the world
  when they were alive before. So in principle they can be tested. We
  may not know what happens after death, but if someone claims that they
  DO know because they can remember specifics of having lived before it
  can be tested.
 
 To an extent - but there is something about Death that seems to leave
 us always *locked out*.
 
 After all - let's say I claim I was Blackbeard the pirate in a
 previous life. When challenged by scoffers I say I am so confident of
 my recollections that I can prove it. I *remember* the location of a
 small island where I (Blackbeard) buried my treasure. Let's go there
 and we'll dig it up!
 
 OK - suppose we put that to the test. We go to some remote island. I
 count six  half paces from the third palm tree from the north beach,
 start digging - and shiver me timbers - there be a treasure chest.
 
 It has to be said that (as far as I know), tests like these never seem
 to work out for reincarnation. But even if they did, all we can say is
 this: Something very odd is going on. Reincarnation could explain it -
 but so could other equally challenging conjectures. For example this:-
 Perhaps I have some strong psychic abilities with which I can indeed
 do a remarkable thing (viz. divine the thoughts of a dead pirate that
 are somehow still echoing or reverberating in the ether today.).
 If true, that means that I am mistaken and confused in thinking I WAS
 Blackbeard. I have a special ability, but my understanding of my own
 ability is false. So the question is: How could you ever test between
 these two competing explanations?
 
 There is a similar barrier to empirical experiment with near-death
 experience. I read a while back that they were setting up tests in a
 London hospital. I think the plan was to leave some odd objects in
 places that could not be seen by a patient under normal circumstances,
 but might be visible to someone *looking back at their body* after
 *death*. I don't know how they have got on, but interesting as it is,
 I don't see how it could ever establish anything about *life after
 death*. I think if someone could indeed correctly refer to these
 things after being resuscitated, we would reasonably conclude that
 shows the person wasn't dead. But how could the patient have seen
 something hidden away on the top of a cupboard or some such? 
 
 Well that would be remarkable - but to explain this as the astral
 travelling of a dead soul around the ceiling ignores other possible
 (but still extraordinary) possibilities. Isn't it easier to believe
 that minds may have psychic abilities and in this case the non-dead
 patient may have somehow read the mind of the experimenter? Perhaps
 brains slip easier in to weird mode when under stress and close to
death!
 
 It just seems that death presents a knowledge barrier that we can
 never get past...
 
 (I think the near death experiments were being organised by Peter
 Fenwick, one of the early researchers into TM)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Which can't be proved or disproved either.
 
 Let's not shift the burden of proof here. It isn't up to 
 me to disprove it. The person making the claim makes their 
 case and we can decide if we find their reasons compelling.  

Curtis, do you realize how much of the TM
mindset underlies what you are saying above?

Both you and Stu are going on and on about
the burden of proof. That might be relevant
to New Jim, who is making some silly claims
about proof of reincarnation, but you are
extending it to anyone who happens to quietly
believe in reincarnation and doesn't really
give a rat's ass what you believe.

We don't owe you proof. We don't owe you
jack shit.

With all due respect, I refer you back to an
earlier post in which I discussed the differ-
ence that we seem to have in determining the
threshold at which point we get in someone's
face about their beliefs. I think that you
may be barking up the wrong threshold.

Some of us aren't trying to proselytize. The
fact that you feel somehow challenged or 
threatened by us believing something that
you don't does NOT confer upon us some kind
of burden of proof. YOU'RE the ones getting
all bent out of shape because someone believes
differently than you do, and demanding proof.

With all respect, do that with the next person
who tries to sell you a car. Or who tries to
sell you membership in the Church of the Flying
Spaghetti Monster. But some of us haven't tried
to sell you jack shit, and so we owe you jack
shit when you react as if we had.

Parts of this discussion are reminding me of
interactions with Michael, who tended to take
my lack of belief in God as some kind of affront
to his strong belief in God. I kept trying to
tell him that I wasn't trying to sell him any-
thing, either, but he kept insisting that I was.

I believe what I believe, and I allow you to do
the same. Proof just doesn't enter into the
equation unless someone gets their buttons pushed
and demands it. And then IMO, if the other person
has anything going for them, they just laugh at
the person demanding proof and move on. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[curtisdeltablues]

snip
 Hi Rick,
 
 I read some of the discussion about the Solid Proof.
 
 Since I had some of these clear experiences, about who I was
 in former time, and even read some of the biographies about me, 
 I can tell you, that no mount of speculation and theoryrizing
 will ever clear that subject to someone, who never had these
 insights.

Yeah, you know who else confuses intensity of subjective experience
and beliefs with epistemological validity?  The guys who just turned
Mumbai into a slaughterhouse. And I'm guessing that you have never
worked out the mathematical probability of the lesser population of
the past becoming the exponentially higher population of today with
you as one of the famous people. Isn't that a convenient connection
with how special you feel about yourself?  

 
 Like it says: Consciousness only knows itself.
 But cannot put these insights into other doubting minds.

Sure you could, but it would have to be more than your intensity of
belief wouldn't it?  How do you know that I'm not having an intensely
subjective knowledge that this is full of it right now?  Just as
mystically knowingnessintudeinmentinhood as your own inner cognition.

 
 The insights into these connections come very easy and silent,
 as a clear understanding. Its like expanding your understanding
 about any other subject of interest.
 Sometimes during the day, sometimes during meditation.
 And also duing intense EmC-sessions.
 
 Normally there is no discussion with those who never had these
 insights.

Cuz they might interrupt your fantasy with some questions?

 It`s in the Vedas.

Oh yeah, that is like s solid.  You know like the books that
describe how some people are just born to serve, those books?  

 Don`t confuse people with your understanding and insights.

Anti-intellectualism has worked out s well for mankind, hasn't it?
 
 That`s why the real insights are still secret.

Well isn't that special.  Some of us are interested in finding out
when we are full of shit.
 
 But there are some patterns.
 Like: grandparents come back as your children.
 And very troubled relationships have very clear
 origins in much former times.

Uh huh,  Your last girlfriend dumped you.  I wonder why?  Must be past
lives.
 
 cheers

To my special insight that doesn't ever need to be questioned cuz I
just KNOW!
 
 joerg.

The office of homeland security has just changed your name to
George.  Please use this name in the future.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.

[margovon]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 snip
  Hi Rick,
  
  I read some of the discussion about the Solid Proof.
  
  Since I had some of these clear experiences, about who I was
  in former time, and even read some of the biographies about me, 
  I can tell you, that no mount of speculation and theoryrizing
  will ever clear that subject to someone, who never had these
  insights.
 
 Yeah, you know who else confuses intensity of subjective experience
 and beliefs with epistemological validity?  The guys who just turned
 Mumbai into a slaughterhouse. And I'm guessing that you have never
 worked out the mathematical probability of the lesser population of
 the past becoming the exponentially higher population of today with
 you as one of the famous people. Isn't that a convenient 
 connection with how special you feel about yourself?  

Curtis, Joerg's sanctimonious tone is certainly irritating but
comparing him to the Mumbai terrorists is a little harsh. He claims
his subjective experience forms his belief about past lives and
something he reads verifies it. The Mumbai terrorists read something
from the Koran and it forms a belief but they do not base their belief
on subjective experience. Apples and Oranges.

Riddle: 
If we wonder what it is like to be dead. What do dead people wonder?

Answer: 
What is it like to be alive?

No one is ever satisfied. Desire for more keeps the wheel turning.
Just saying.