[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
> turq: > > What she does with this advice when she gets older > > will probably be a lot like what she does with my > > advice at age three. :-) > > Richard J. Williams > You've got a three year old to support? > Yes, I have two great-grand children to support! So, I helped my daughter to graduate from High School, and I tried to teach her that when she got married, wait at least five years between siblings. She didn't want to get married - go figure (just a rebel like me, I guess). Now I've got a big family to support me?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > If I wanted to offer an overriding approach to such > things to her, it would probably be something like, > "Choose a path with heart, always try to err on the > side of kindness, and put more value in being happy > than you do in what other people want of you." With regard to trying to err on the side of kindness, it would be a good idea for Barry to make sure Maya never reads his FFL posts. Or if that's not possible, at least to make it crystal clear that he is advising her to do what he says, not what he does.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > If I wanted to offer an overriding approach to such > > things to her, it would probably be something like, > > "Choose a path with heart, always try to err on the > > side of kindness, and put more value in being happy > > than you do in what other people want of you." > > This is lovely advice "choose a path with heart, etc." > Girls especially need to hear "put more value in being > happy than you do in what other people want of you." After I sent off my original post I also thought of a few other pieces of advice I'd offer, such as look- ing carefully at the women in the religion or spiritual tradition to see how they are treated and whether any of the positions of authority in the organization are held by women. If not, and you're a woman, are you willing to be consigned to "second class citizen" status for the rest of your life? Because you will be. > As an aside, my nieces grew up with no religious training > at all and parents who never think about or talk about > religion, god, spiritual things. I don't think they miss > it at all, cause they never knew it to start with. For > some events in life, like death and funerals, religion > can provide good structure and rituals to help when people > can't really function or think well. Sitting shiva being > a good example. I guess in the end we are born with a > predilection for being interested in religion/spiritual > endeavors, or not. The brain again.. Yup. My approach with Maya or with any young person who asked me about religion or spiritual practice would be to offer the kind of advice I did earlier, to help make the decision whether or not to become involved NOT a purely emotional decision, as it often is. Google and do your research first, not later.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hey Barry, > > > > > your post has got me thinking today, all day. > > I return the compliment. Your question below still has > me thinking the next morning, so I'll follow up on my > initial response. > > > > Question: how would you raise a child these days? What > > > would you tell them? Would you want them in an organized > > > religion, what beliefs if any would you encourage? > > > > That's an excellent question. One that, if I live > > long enough, I'll have the opportunity to answer. > > > > For now (since she's only three), I suspect I'd have > > to say that I'll make it up as I go along. If I have > > input into her life's direction, I would hope to > > steer her life in the direction of mindfulness and, > > if she's open to it, meditation. I would also hope > > to steer her in the direction of the martial arts, > > for the confidence and the balance they provide. I > > would imagine that I'd steer her away from organ- > > ized mainstream religion, and warn her of the > > dangers of more unorganized cults. > > > > What she does with this advice when she gets older > > will probably be a lot like what she does with my > > advice at age three. :-) > > To clarify somewhat, what I'd probably hope to teach > her in terms of organized religion is the same thing > I'd hope to teach her about people in general: > "Listen to what they say, but watch what they DO." > > If she shows an interest in religions, I'd try to > get her to learn about them first from a scholarly > point of view. What do they say they believe in? > What are the actual tenets of their religion? What > distinguishes this religion from others? If she was > that interested, I'd take her to services of not > just the religion she's interested in, but of many > others as well, so she can tell the difference. > > Most importantly, I'd try to instill in her the > ability to distinguish between religious people > talking the talk and walking the walk. For example, > if the dogma preaches love but the actual prac- > titioners wind up sounding like Nabby spouting > hatred for Buddhism, I'd hope to let her know that > it was appropriate for her to have some doubts > about their ability to walk their own talk. > > I'd advise her to read the group's dogma and scrip- > tures *before* signing on to the group. And when > she does, I'd tell her to pay attention to what is > being said. For example, if a holy book contains > what she feels is wisdom on page 5 but then offers > instructions for how to sell your daughters into > slavery on page 20 or for how to best kill a guy > from a lower caste who touches your high-caste > daughter on page 30, I'd hope to instill in her a > sensitivity to such examples of cognitive dissonance. > > I'd hope to install a similar awareness of the dif- > ference between subjective and objective experience. > If she's drawn to the "high" of some spiritual prac- > tices, enough to consider joining a group that > teaches and practices them, I'd suggest that she > evaluate this subjective "high" the same way she > would drug or alcohol experiences. That is, while > it may feel good at the time, how does the person > who is feeling this way actually ACT? Towards this > end I'd probably point out drunks and stoners acting > like idiots on the street, and "spiritual" types > acting so spaced out they can hardly function. I > would hope that the point might be made that no matter > how cool the subjective experience might be, that is > valueless if it turns you into something objectively > that you do not consider valuable. > > In one respect, Maya's spiritual education is already > underway, and IMO on a good track, in that she already > understands the "good high" of selfless service, and > of doing nice things for other people. She *gets off* > on doing nice things for other people, even at three. > I think that's a good sign. > > I'd hope to instill in her the confidence to examine > any spiritual group or religion she's interested in > by asking a few tough questions, to see how its prac- > titioners react. If they get angry and defensive, I > would point out to her that this is likely how *she* > will turn out if she joins them, and ask her to decide > whether that's really what she wants. > > Most importantly, I would hope to teach her that it is > her right to "pick and choose" from any religion's > dogma. When weighing that dogma, I'd teach her to do > a "word count" of the proportion of "Thou shalt nots" > it contains vs. "Thou shalls." The former are easy to > come up with; the latter difficult. And in the long > run, I suspect given her already-stro
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > > > > > > > Hey Barry, > > > > your post has got me thinking today, all day. I return the compliment. Your question below still has me thinking the next morning, so I'll follow up on my initial response. > > Question: how would you raise a child these days? What > > would you tell them? Would you want them in an organized > > religion, what beliefs if any would you encourage? > > That's an excellent question. One that, if I live > long enough, I'll have the opportunity to answer. > > For now (since she's only three), I suspect I'd have > to say that I'll make it up as I go along. If I have > input into her life's direction, I would hope to > steer her life in the direction of mindfulness and, > if she's open to it, meditation. I would also hope > to steer her in the direction of the martial arts, > for the confidence and the balance they provide. I > would imagine that I'd steer her away from organ- > ized mainstream religion, and warn her of the > dangers of more unorganized cults. > > What she does with this advice when she gets older > will probably be a lot like what she does with my > advice at age three. :-) To clarify somewhat, what I'd probably hope to teach her in terms of organized religion is the same thing I'd hope to teach her about people in general: "Listen to what they say, but watch what they DO." If she shows an interest in religions, I'd try to get her to learn about them first from a scholarly point of view. What do they say they believe in? What are the actual tenets of their religion? What distinguishes this religion from others? If she was that interested, I'd take her to services of not just the religion she's interested in, but of many others as well, so she can tell the difference. Most importantly, I'd try to instill in her the ability to distinguish between religious people talking the talk and walking the walk. For example, if the dogma preaches love but the actual prac- titioners wind up sounding like Nabby spouting hatred for Buddhism, I'd hope to let her know that it was appropriate for her to have some doubts about their ability to walk their own talk. I'd advise her to read the group's dogma and scrip- tures *before* signing on to the group. And when she does, I'd tell her to pay attention to what is being said. For example, if a holy book contains what she feels is wisdom on page 5 but then offers instructions for how to sell your daughters into slavery on page 20 or for how to best kill a guy from a lower caste who touches your high-caste daughter on page 30, I'd hope to instill in her a sensitivity to such examples of cognitive dissonance. I'd hope to install a similar awareness of the dif- ference between subjective and objective experience. If she's drawn to the "high" of some spiritual prac- tices, enough to consider joining a group that teaches and practices them, I'd suggest that she evaluate this subjective "high" the same way she would drug or alcohol experiences. That is, while it may feel good at the time, how does the person who is feeling this way actually ACT? Towards this end I'd probably point out drunks and stoners acting like idiots on the street, and "spiritual" types acting so spaced out they can hardly function. I would hope that the point might be made that no matter how cool the subjective experience might be, that is valueless if it turns you into something objectively that you do not consider valuable. In one respect, Maya's spiritual education is already underway, and IMO on a good track, in that she already understands the "good high" of selfless service, and of doing nice things for other people. She *gets off* on doing nice things for other people, even at three. I think that's a good sign. I'd hope to instill in her the confidence to examine any spiritual group or religion she's interested in by asking a few tough questions, to see how its prac- titioners react. If they get angry and defensive, I would point out to her that this is likely how *she* will turn out if she joins them, and ask her to decide whether that's really what she wants. Most importantly, I would hope to teach her that it is her right to "pick and choose" from any religion's dogma. When weighing that dogma, I'd teach her to do a "word count" of the proportion of "Thou shalt nots" it contains vs. "Thou shalls." The former are easy to come up with; the latter difficult. And in the long run, I suspect given her already-strong personality that she wouldn't be happy in a predominantly "Thou shalt not" environment. I'd also teach her that it is appropriate to walk away from any religion, belief system, or spiritual tradition any time she wants. They own neither her body nor her mind...she does, and i
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
turq: > What she does with this advice when she gets older > will probably be a lot like what she does with my > advice at age three. :-) > You've got a three year old to support?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > > > > > Hey Barry, > > > your post has got me thinking today, all day. I know what > > > you mean about Wonder and how having rigid beliefs can put > > > a lid on being open to other possibilities. But I also think > > > that many people need religious beliefs, or spiritual beliefs > > > of some sort to get thru life. Life can be really hard, and > > > it seems many humans must have some built-in need to have > > > Cause and Effect relationships in what they look at and think > > > about. We like seeing the order that cause/effect implies, > > > it makes us feel that we have some control of at least some > > > things, it makes us feel safer, and it keeps some anxiety at > > > bay. We need The Story of how things happened and what might > > > happen in the future. I don't think everyone needs this, but > > > some do. > > > > I agree. > > > > > Your sense of Wonder and your comfort with the unknowableness > > > of it all is so brave, so free, and shared by most scientists > > > and inventors, I bet. But this is not necessarily what other > > > people would even benefit from. I speak here personally. > > > > Again, I agree, but not about the "brave" part. My > > approach to these things is just predilection. As > > Jessica Rabbit said, "I'm just drawn that way." :-) > > > > > For me, all this info about the brain is fascinating, I > > > gobble it up, science is great - but also has made me - > > > honestly - nostalgic for the days when I believed my > > > spiritual experiences to be proof of something more. > > > > Again with the "drawn that way." I almost never am. > > I *remember* the sense of certainty I felt in the > > past, and recognize it in people I know who still > > feel it, but I do not. Nor do I miss it. > > > > > I am in transition now and not sure where I belong or what > > > I believe. I know nothing has been proven, yet, but some > > > doubts and uncertainty are there for me. > > > > From my point of view, that's a good sign. > > > > > It does not make me feel more Wonder. Now when I look at > > > the stars in the summer sky (I do this a lot and for long > > > periods of time) I feel wonder but also uneasy and, well, > > > alone. In fact, I have been thinking for some time now > > > that maybe it was easier for me before I began doubting. > > > > I don't doubt this. It was certainly easier for me > > before I started thinking for myself, too. But I > > wouldn't trade what I feel now for what I felt then. > > > > > I feel not sure and unanchored in a way or belief system > > > to see life. And then it turns out that Enlightenment is > > > not what I thought - that it too is not what I had thought. > > > > I suspect *nothing* is what we think it is. > > > > > I guess what I am saying is that different people get thru > > > life in different ways. My bet is that some brains need more > > > structure and external rules and beliefs and stories to feel > > > secure and happy. > > > > I do not disagree. > > > > > Others, like yours, thrive being entirely free of those > > > conceptions and constructs, and find them limiting. > > > > Predilection. When I first moved to Santa Fe and was > > looking for a place to live, I got used to real estate > > agents showing me a place but then saying, "I have to > > warn you...it's *very* windy out here." That always > > surprised me, because for me that would have been a > > plus, not a warning. For others, not so much. Not > > better or worse, just predilection. > > > > > While I know Dawkins and others are writing brilliant > > > books about there being no God, and about how destructive > > > religion has been - I also don't think they are doing a > > > favor to lots of people who really need these beliefs to > > > feel good during the few years of life they have here. > > > > I don't see how what Dawkins and those others say or > > do impacts those who believe in God one way or another. > > Does what they choose to believe depend on what he > > believes? Does what he believes affect them? > > > > > It really does take lots of approaches, and people scramble > > > and struggle to make sense of it all, even if believing in > > > something not actually a fact. > > > > > > However, here we are on Fairfield LIfe, which is where people > > > debate these issues. If you check in here, you have to be > > > prepared to loosen up and try on new ideas. And you have to > > > be honest about your POV, as yo have been. Some will be upset > > > by the back and forth. But I just wanted to add in my usual > > > wordy fashion that losing one's faith in something benign but > > > untrue is not always helpful, even if it is untrue. > > > > Predilection. I wouldn't trade the faith I had in my > > youth for any day I spe
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > > > Hey Barry, > > your post has got me thinking today, all day. I know what > > you mean about Wonder and how having rigid beliefs can put > > a lid on being open to other possibilities. But I also think > > that many people need religious beliefs, or spiritual beliefs > > of some sort to get thru life. Life can be really hard, and > > it seems many humans must have some built-in need to have > > Cause and Effect relationships in what they look at and think > > about. We like seeing the order that cause/effect implies, > > it makes us feel that we have some control of at least some > > things, it makes us feel safer, and it keeps some anxiety at > > bay. We need The Story of how things happened and what might > > happen in the future. I don't think everyone needs this, but > > some do. > > I agree. > > > Your sense of Wonder and your comfort with the unknowableness > > of it all is so brave, so free, and shared by most scientists > > and inventors, I bet. But this is not necessarily what other > > people would even benefit from. I speak here personally. > > Again, I agree, but not about the "brave" part. My > approach to these things is just predilection. As > Jessica Rabbit said, "I'm just drawn that way." :-) > > > For me, all this info about the brain is fascinating, I > > gobble it up, science is great - but also has made me - > > honestly - nostalgic for the days when I believed my > > spiritual experiences to be proof of something more. > > Again with the "drawn that way." I almost never am. > I *remember* the sense of certainty I felt in the > past, and recognize it in people I know who still > feel it, but I do not. Nor do I miss it. > > > I am in transition now and not sure where I belong or what > > I believe. I know nothing has been proven, yet, but some > > doubts and uncertainty are there for me. > > From my point of view, that's a good sign. > > > It does not make me feel more Wonder. Now when I look at > > the stars in the summer sky (I do this a lot and for long > > periods of time) I feel wonder but also uneasy and, well, > > alone. In fact, I have been thinking for some time now > > that maybe it was easier for me before I began doubting. > > I don't doubt this. It was certainly easier for me > before I started thinking for myself, too. But I > wouldn't trade what I feel now for what I felt then. > > > I feel not sure and unanchored in a way or belief system > > to see life. And then it turns out that Enlightenment is > > not what I thought - that it too is not what I had thought. > > I suspect *nothing* is what we think it is. > > > I guess what I am saying is that different people get thru > > life in different ways. My bet is that some brains need more > > structure and external rules and beliefs and stories to feel > > secure and happy. > > I do not disagree. > > > Others, like yours, thrive being entirely free of those > > conceptions and constructs, and find them limiting. > > Predilection. When I first moved to Santa Fe and was > looking for a place to live, I got used to real estate > agents showing me a place but then saying, "I have to > warn you...it's *very* windy out here." That always > surprised me, because for me that would have been a > plus, not a warning. For others, not so much. Not > better or worse, just predilection. > > > While I know Dawkins and others are writing brilliant > > books about there being no God, and about how destructive > > religion has been - I also don't think they are doing a > > favor to lots of people who really need these beliefs to > > feel good during the few years of life they have here. > > I don't see how what Dawkins and those others say or > do impacts those who believe in God one way or another. > Does what they choose to believe depend on what he > believes? Does what he believes affect them? > > > It really does take lots of approaches, and people scramble > > and struggle to make sense of it all, even if believing in > > something not actually a fact. > > > > However, here we are on Fairfield LIfe, which is where people > > debate these issues. If you check in here, you have to be > > prepared to loosen up and try on new ideas. And you have to > > be honest about your POV, as yo have been. Some will be upset > > by the back and forth. But I just wanted to add in my usual > > wordy fashion that losing one's faith in something benign but > > untrue is not always helpful, even if it is untrue. > > Predilection. I wouldn't trade the faith I had in my > youth for any day I spend as a skeptic in the present, > even if I could be young again to do it. Question: how would you raise a child these days? What would you tell them? Would you want them in an organized religion, what beliefs if any would you encourage?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > Hey Barry, > your post has got me thinking today, all day. I know what > you mean about Wonder and how having rigid beliefs can put > a lid on being open to other possibilities. But I also think > that many people need religious beliefs, or spiritual beliefs > of some sort to get thru life. Life can be really hard, and > it seems many humans must have some built-in need to have > Cause and Effect relationships in what they look at and think > about. We like seeing the order that cause/effect implies, > it makes us feel that we have some control of at least some > things, it makes us feel safer, and it keeps some anxiety at > bay. We need The Story of how things happened and what might > happen in the future. I don't think everyone needs this, but > some do. I agree. > Your sense of Wonder and your comfort with the unknowableness > of it all is so brave, so free, and shared by most scientists > and inventors, I bet. But this is not necessarily what other > people would even benefit from. I speak here personally. Again, I agree, but not about the "brave" part. My approach to these things is just predilection. As Jessica Rabbit said, "I'm just drawn that way." :-) > For me, all this info about the brain is fascinating, I > gobble it up, science is great - but also has made me - > honestly - nostalgic for the days when I believed my > spiritual experiences to be proof of something more. Again with the "drawn that way." I almost never am. I *remember* the sense of certainty I felt in the past, and recognize it in people I know who still feel it, but I do not. Nor do I miss it. > I am in transition now and not sure where I belong or what > I believe. I know nothing has been proven, yet, but some > doubts and uncertainty are there for me. >From my point of view, that's a good sign. > It does not make me feel more Wonder. Now when I look at > the stars in the summer sky (I do this a lot and for long > periods of time) I feel wonder but also uneasy and, well, > alone. In fact, I have been thinking for some time now > that maybe it was easier for me before I began doubting. I don't doubt this. It was certainly easier for me before I started thinking for myself, too. But I wouldn't trade what I feel now for what I felt then. > I feel not sure and unanchored in a way or belief system > to see life. And then it turns out that Enlightenment is > not what I thought - that it too is not what I had thought. I suspect *nothing* is what we think it is. > I guess what I am saying is that different people get thru > life in different ways. My bet is that some brains need more > structure and external rules and beliefs and stories to feel > secure and happy. I do not disagree. > Others, like yours, thrive being entirely free of those > conceptions and constructs, and find them limiting. Predilection. When I first moved to Santa Fe and was looking for a place to live, I got used to real estate agents showing me a place but then saying, "I have to warn you...it's *very* windy out here." That always surprised me, because for me that would have been a plus, not a warning. For others, not so much. Not better or worse, just predilection. > While I know Dawkins and others are writing brilliant > books about there being no God, and about how destructive > religion has been - I also don't think they are doing a > favor to lots of people who really need these beliefs to > feel good during the few years of life they have here. I don't see how what Dawkins and those others say or do impacts those who believe in God one way or another. Does what they choose to believe depend on what he believes? Does what he believes affect them? > It really does take lots of approaches, and people scramble > and struggle to make sense of it all, even if believing in > something not actually a fact. > > However, here we are on Fairfield LIfe, which is where people > debate these issues. If you check in here, you have to be > prepared to loosen up and try on new ideas. And you have to > be honest about your POV, as yo have been. Some will be upset > by the back and forth. But I just wanted to add in my usual > wordy fashion that losing one's faith in something benign but > untrue is not always helpful, even if it is untrue. Predilection. I wouldn't trade the faith I had in my youth for any day I spend as a skeptic in the present, even if I could be young again to do it. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > Lately I've been finding myself noticing what I perceive > > as the basic nature of Fairfield Life. For most partici- > > pants, it seems to be a forum on which they spout off > > about things that they "know," more often than not in > > an attempt to "prove" that someone they're arguing with > > *doesn't* "know," or doesn't "know" as much, or "knows" > > less perfectly and admirabl
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
Hey Barry, your post has got me thinking today, all day. I know what you mean about Wonder and how having rigid beliefs can put a lid on being open to other possibilities. But I also think that many people need religious beliefs, or spiritual beliefs of some sort to get thru life. Life can be really hard, and it seems many humans must have some built-in need to have Cause and Effect relationships in what they look at and think about. We like seeing the order that cause/effect implies, it makes us feel that we have some control of at least some things, it makes us feel safer, and it keeps some anxiety at bay. We need The Story of how things happened and what might happen in the future. I don't think everyone needs this, but some do. Your sense of Wonder and your comfort with the unknowableness of it all is t so brave, so free, and shared by most scientists and inventors, I bet. But this is not necessarily what other people would even benefit from. I speak here personally. For me, all this info about the brain is fascinating, I gobble it up, science is great - but also has made me - honestly - nostalgic for the days when I believed my spiritual experiences to be proof of something more. I am in transition now and not sure where I belong or what I believe. I know nothing has been proven, yet, but some doubts and uncertainty are there for me. It does not make me feel more Wonder. Now when I look at the stars in the summer sky (I do this a lot and for long periods of time) I feel wonder but also uneasy and, well, alone. In fact, I have been thinking for some time now that maybe it was easier for me before I began doubting. I feel not sure and unanchored in a way or belief system to see life. And then it turns out that Enlightenment is not what I thought - that it too is not what I had thought. I guess what I am saying is that different people get thru life in different ways. My bet is that some brains need more structure and external rules and beliefs and stories to feel secure and happy. Others, like yours, thrive being entirely free of those conceptions and constructs, and find them limiting. While I know Dawkins and others are writing brilliant books about there being no God, and about how destructive religion has been - I also don't think they are doing a favor to lots of people who really need these beliefs to feel good during the few years of life they have here. It really does take lots of approaches, and people scramble and struggle to make sense of it all, even if believing in something not actually a fact. However, here we are on Fairfield LIfe, which is where people debate these issues. If you check in here, you have to be prepared to loosen up and try on new ideas. And you have to be honest about your POV, as yo have been. Some will be upset by the back and forth. But I just wanted to add in my usual wordy fashion that losing one's faith in something benign but untrue is not always helpful, even if it is untrue. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > Lately I've been finding myself noticing what I perceive > as the basic nature of Fairfield Life. For most partici- > pants, it seems to be a forum on which they spout off > about things that they "know," more often than not in > an attempt to "prove" that someone they're arguing with > *doesn't* "know," or doesn't "know" as much, or "knows" > less perfectly and admirably than they do. > > I find it kinda boring, and suspect that my days here > are numbered. I just don't fit in, in the sense that I > don't "know" diddleysquat. Nada. Rien. Nichevo. Bupkus. > I just have beliefs, and opinions. And my path through > life and the experiences I've had -- both external and > internal -- have convinced me that *none* of these > beliefs or opinions have anything to do with "knowing." > They're just what they are -- beliefs and opinions. So > there is nothing for me to "prove" one way or another, > or even to care to. > > What I *do* have, in the absence of "knowing" or faith > or whatever those who are so certain about their...uh... > certainty might want to call it, is a sense of Wonder > about the universe I live in. It is as ever-surprising > as it is ever-changing. > > And what I don't understand about those who claim to > "know" is why they sought so diligently to *eradicate* > that sense of Wonder in themselves. They seem to be so > *proud* of "knowing" things, and of no longer exper- > iencing Wonder when they interact with life. They have > Experience A, and for them it fits neatly into the > little box they have labeled "This is how we 'explain' > things like Experience A," and they smile, because they > "know" what's going on, and what made it go on. Some > feel they even "know" WHY it's going on. > > All this certainty makes me feel kinda sad for them. > How *boring* life must be for them, to never be sur- > prised by events, and only to see them as "proof
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > Maharishi pandered to this desire to "know." The quote > > > > of his I find most telling is, "Every question is the > > > > perfect opportunity for the answer we have already > > > > prepared." > > On my TTC, Maharishi went so far as to state openly > > the second of these purposes, especially for questions > > that could be seen as critical or skeptical of what > > we (as teachers) were saying. The purpose was to SHUT > > THE QUESTIONER UP. We were instructed many times in > > the value OF getting them to shut up and stop asking > > the questions that they were curious about, and just > > "come back to silence," and belief in what we were > > trying to sell them. He also taught us -- quite > > explicitly -- techniques for how to change the subject > > and move it back to something less controversial. This > > has become known as the "SIMS shuffle." > > I do not recall this, myself. FWIW, as a lowly TMer, I never saw this from teachers. If that's what MMY had told them to do, none of the teachers I had ever did it. > > The third purpose, in my opinion, was to get people > > *used to* accepting what the teacher said as not > > just pat answers (which they were, of course) but > > as *the definitive answers*. The more we practiced > > them as teachers, the more *we* believed them. The > > more we parroted them, the more our students believed > > them. The whole schtick was an exercise in training > > people in the master-disciple relationship, and in > > getting them to buy into "What the master says is > > true," whether it was or not. Susan, I appreciate your going into detail below. What you say is what I've always assumed from the first time I encountered that quote. We were, after all, learning "Transcendental Meditation as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi"; that's what we had paid for. I'd suggest one other point: those new to TM especially wouldn't always know *how* to ask a question. The technique, the experiences, the conceptual teaching were all unfamiliar, so questions were sometimes posed in the context of what we *were* familiar with in a way that simply didn't make sense in the context of what we were learning. The teacher responding with an "already prepared" answer translated such questions into the context of MMY's teaching so they *would* make sense and could be properly answered. Good teachers on any topic will do this; it's just sound pedagogy. > Not sure I want to jump in on this, but... It is true that the more > we practice answers the more we ourselves believe them. But, to be fair, > there were other reasons, good reasons, for having "pat" answers. First, we > were all young and not that knowledgable about spiritual things. So, having > "correct" answers at the ready was helpful to the teacher (if flummoxed) and > also helpful to the student who was really asking what Maharish - the expert > - would have said. And Maharish tol dus waht he would have said, and toldus > to say it. Second, can you imagine the odd variety of answers that some > teachers would have come up with? We were a motley crew, if well > intentioned. the quality of teaching would have been so dependent on the > individual teaching it, and students coul dhave been really upset with that. > Third, Maharishi wanted to standardize his technique, and he did that > successfully. I think that in mnay ways it was a smart and safe move for all > concerned. TM teachers were not providing teaching in the same sense that an > individual guru would - we all knew, Maharishi knew it, and it was not > possible to provide that given the numbers of people learning. You could ask > if it would have been better that a person never learn to meditate unless > studying with a true Master, face to face. But Maharish's approach was to > make this technique available, without face to face attention from a master. > He tried to offer as much good info thru his trained teachers - keeping it > simple and trying to account for all the possible types of questions they > might ask. Was it stilted sometimes? Yes. Did some people need much more? > Absolutely. But with the massive numbers learning, it was a pretty good > solution,I think. The problem came in that it did stop people from thinking > on their own, and at a certain point parroting answers can backfire - if you > begin to doubt their accuracy, you don't feel free to think or say otherwise. > Still, a person wanting to learn TM can learn it the same way not matter who > teachers him, and that is a safe and good thing in many ways. Not perfect. > Not face to face with a Master, but of value, at least imo, if you think TM > is of value. > > . > > This phras
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > Maharishi pandered to this desire to "know." The quote > > > of his I find most telling is, "Every question is the > > > perfect opportunity for the answer we have already > > > prepared." > > > > I used to like that quote, until his contradictions > > started to wear me down and the only rsponse I'd get > > to sceptical questions was "just let it wash over you > > and you'll understand it deep down" or "Don't be analytical" > > or "Maharishi appears contradictory because his mind is > > aware at the subtle levels of nature and natural laws change" > > when the whole point of Laws is that they don't change! > > > > "When you're more enlightened you'll understand" classic > > cult delusions all of them. Had great fun though! > > I see all of these types of replies as the *result* > of believing for years in "pat answers," which is > not what he had in mind with his original quote. > > For the benefit of people here who never met Maharishi, > and certainly never became TM teachers, this quote was > told to prospective TM teachers on their training > courses, as an incentive to learn what can ONLY be > described as "pat answers." He or some other stand-in > teacher would state a question that we were likely to > be asked, either by attendees at one of our TM intro > lectures or by people who had already learned TM. > Then we'd be given the "correct answer" to the ques- > tion, be expected to memorize it, and be tested on > how well we *had* memorized it. The idea was to have > these "pat answers" filed away in our brains so that > they came out automatically, and achieved their > triple purpose. > > The first purpose, of course, was to instill a sense > of confidence in people who, if they were at all > honest with themselves, knew that they didn't know > enough to be true spiritual teachers, and wouldn't > even at the end of their course. By having them > memorize a series of "pat answers," Maharishi hoped > to make them parrots who would repeat *his* "pat > answers" on cue. As anyone familiar with the > resulting "TM speak" knows, this was frighteningly > successful. :-) Yep, and better than having some of these young, not true spiritual teachers out and trying to come up with answers on their own. Especially if you consider that a student will probably give learning a meditatin technique only 1 or 2 tries. > > On my TTC, Maharishi went so far as to state openly > the second of these purposes, especially for questions > that could be seen as critical or skeptical of what > we (as teachers) were saying. The purpose was to SHUT > THE QUESTIONER UP. We were instructed many times in > the value OF getting them to shut up and stop asking > the questions that they were curious about, and just > "come back to silence," and belief in what we were > trying to sell them. He also taught us -- quite > explicitly -- techniques for how to change the subject > and move it back to something less controversial. This > has become known as the "SIMS shuffle." I do not recall this, myself. > > The third purpose, in my opinion, was to get people > *used to* accepting what the teacher said as not > just pat answers (which they were, of course) but > as *the definitive answers*. The more we practiced > them as teachers, the more *we* believed them. The > more we parroted them, the more our students believed > them. The whole schtick was an exercise in training > people in the master-disciple relationship, and in > getting them to buy into "What the master says is > true," whether it was or not. Not sure I want to jump in on this, but... It is true that the more we practice answers the more we ourselves believe them. But, to be fair, there were other reasons, good reasons, for having "pat" answers. First, we were all young and not that knowledgable about spiritual things. So, having "correct" answers at the ready was helpful to the teacher (if flummoxed) and also helpful to the student who was really asking what Maharish - the expert - would have said. And Maharish tol dus waht he would have said, and toldus to say it. Second, can you imagine the odd variety of answers that some teachers would have come up with? We were a motley crew, if well intentioned. the quality of teaching would have been so dependent on the individual teaching it, and students coul dhave been really upset with that. Third, Maharishi wanted to standardize his technique, and he did that successfully. I think that in mnay ways it was a smart and safe move for all concerned. TM teachers were not providing teaching in the same sense that an individual guru would - we all knew, Maharishi knew it, and it was not possible to provide that given the numbers of people learning. You could ask if it would have been be
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > Maharishi pandered to this desire to "know." The quote > > of his I find most telling is, "Every question is the > > perfect opportunity for the answer we have already > > prepared." > > I used to like that quote, until his contradictions > started to wear me down and the only rsponse I'd get > to sceptical questions was "just let it wash over you > and you'll understand it deep down" or "Don't be analytical" > or "Maharishi appears contradictory because his mind is > aware at the subtle levels of nature and natural laws change" > when the whole point of Laws is that they don't change! > > "When you're more enlightened you'll understand" classic > cult delusions all of them. Had great fun though! I see all of these types of replies as the *result* of believing for years in "pat answers," which is not what he had in mind with his original quote. For the benefit of people here who never met Maharishi, and certainly never became TM teachers, this quote was told to prospective TM teachers on their training courses, as an incentive to learn what can ONLY be described as "pat answers." He or some other stand-in teacher would state a question that we were likely to be asked, either by attendees at one of our TM intro lectures or by people who had already learned TM. Then we'd be given the "correct answer" to the ques- tion, be expected to memorize it, and be tested on how well we *had* memorized it. The idea was to have these "pat answers" filed away in our brains so that they came out automatically, and achieved their triple purpose. The first purpose, of course, was to instill a sense of confidence in people who, if they were at all honest with themselves, knew that they didn't know enough to be true spiritual teachers, and wouldn't even at the end of their course. By having them memorize a series of "pat answers," Maharishi hoped to make them parrots who would repeat *his* "pat answers" on cue. As anyone familiar with the resulting "TM speak" knows, this was frighteningly successful. :-) On my TTC, Maharishi went so far as to state openly the second of these purposes, especially for questions that could be seen as critical or skeptical of what we (as teachers) were saying. The purpose was to SHUT THE QUESTIONER UP. We were instructed many times in the value OF getting them to shut up and stop asking the questions that they were curious about, and just "come back to silence," and belief in what we were trying to sell them. He also taught us -- quite explicitly -- techniques for how to change the subject and move it back to something less controversial. This has become known as the "SIMS shuffle." The third purpose, in my opinion, was to get people *used to* accepting what the teacher said as not just pat answers (which they were, of course) but as *the definitive answers*. The more we practiced them as teachers, the more *we* believed them. The more we parroted them, the more our students believed them. The whole schtick was an exercise in training people in the master-disciple relationship, and in getting them to buy into "What the master says is true," whether it was or not. This phrase about the question merely being a cue for what you have already prepared was echoed in the TM checking procedure, with instructions that stated explicitly, "Whatever he says, we acknowledge by a word: 'Yes, good, fine,' etc." No TM checker was really listening to anything you said before they started with the "Let's close the eyes" bit. They were just waiting for you to finish so that they could practice more memorized speeches. Why I keep bringing this phrase up is to hopefully get a few of the more open-minded TMers here to think about what it means to *them*, and to what *they* were told by Maharishi. Those of you who cling to things that you were told by Maharishi in response to one of your questions, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY RESPONDING TO *YOUR* QUESTION? Doesn't it make more sense that he was doing to you EXACTLY what he taught you to do to other people? That is, view the question ONLY as an opportunity to parrot a pat answer he'd already prepared.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" wrote: > > [Comment at end]: > > *** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > Lately I've been finding myself noticing what I perceive > > > as the basic nature of Fairfield Life. For most partici- > > > pants, it seems to be a forum on which they spout off > > > about things that they "know," more often than not in > > > an attempt to "prove" that someone they're arguing with > > > *doesn't* "know," or doesn't "know" as much, or "knows" > > > less perfectly and admirably than they do. > > > > > > I find it kinda boring, and suspect that my days here > > > are numbered. I just don't fit in, in the sense that I > > > don't "know" diddleysquat. Nada. Rien. Nichevo. Bupkus. > > > I just have beliefs, and opinions. And my path through > > > life and the experiences I've had -- both external and > > > internal -- have convinced me that *none* of these > > > beliefs or opinions have anything to do with "knowing." > > > They're just what they are -- beliefs and opinions. So > > > there is nothing for me to "prove" one way or another, > > > or even to care to. > > > > > > What I *do* have, in the absence of "knowing" or faith > > > or whatever those who are so certain about their...uh... > > > certainty might want to call it, is a sense of Wonder > > > about the universe I live in. It is as ever-surprising > > > as it is ever-changing. > > > > > > And what I don't understand about those who claim to > > > "know" is why they sought so diligently to *eradicate* > > > that sense of Wonder in themselves. They seem to be so > > > *proud* of "knowing" things, and of no longer exper- > > > iencing Wonder when they interact with life. They have > > > Experience A, and for them it fits neatly into the > > > little box they have labeled "This is how we 'explain' > > > things like Experience A," and they smile, because they > > > "know" what's going on, and what made it go on. Some > > > feel they even "know" WHY it's going on. > > > > > > All this certainty makes me feel kinda sad for them. > > > How *boring* life must be for them, to never be sur- > > > prised by events, and only to see them as "proof" of > > > the things they already "know." How sad it must be to > > > be reduced to debating others about the nitpicky details > > > of the things they "know," versus the things that these > > > other "knowers" "know." > > > > > > When I run into people more like myself, who "know" > > > only that we don't know shit, there is never any need > > > or desire to debate, or to argue. We wind up talking > > > about the things we love and find Wonder in. We enjoy > > > our time together, and then part even more full of > > > our normal sense of Wonder, more often than not > > > laughing as we go. > > > > > > What do those who "know" feel after debating someone > > > who "knows" something different than they do? Do they > > > exit from the discussion happy and uplifted at having > > > "proved" how much they "know," or are they just look- > > > ing compulsively for the next person on which to > > > wield their "knowledge" like a battleaxe? I wonder. > > > > > > > > > Not sure of I'm included in that, hope not! > > > > But I agree with the idea that "knowing" destroys the sense > > of wonder. I remeber a conversation with a purusha buddy, we > > were looking at the stars and I was pointing out things of > > interest like parts of nebulae where stars are known to be > > forming, mind blowing concpets like that. And he looked at > > me with and said "just think, it's all consciousness" with > > a secret inner smile as though he had some knowledge that > > no-one else did. I worried me and I've been waging war inside > > myself to find out what is known as apart from what is > > believed. This seems like the perfect place to find out how > > the other side see it! > > > > Good discussion. I love the feeling of learning something that I didn't know > before, even if it's just some factoid or something that "fits in" with how > I've come to find the world works, like a lost puzzle piece. > > But I've grown far less certain about what my experiences are or what they > mean in any greater or grander sense. That's why I find travelers like Matt > Whitehead, whose four-minute video I posted yesterday evening, valuable to me > in this last trimester of my life. And FFL, too, though only through the > writings of a very few posters. > > The fact that a number of folks here have spent long and intense periods of > their lives plumbing whatever depths of their own psychology and > consciousness that they could and have later come to question the very basis > of all that later in their lives is distinctly valuable to me, who's done the > same. > > I've got no particular answers or knowledge to share other than try to be as > good a person as you
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > When I run into people more like myself, who "know" > > > only that we don't know shit, there is never any need > > > or desire to debate, or to argue. We wind up talking > > > about the things we love and find Wonder in. We enjoy > > > our time together, and then part even more full of > > > our normal sense of Wonder, more often than not > > > laughing as we go. > > > > > > What do those who "know" feel after debating someone > > > who "knows" something different than they do? Do they > > > exit from the discussion happy and uplifted at having > > > "proved" how much they "know," or are they just look- > > > ing compulsively for the next person on which to > > > wield their "knowledge" like a battleaxe? I wonder. > > > > Not sure of I'm included in that, hope not! > > You are not. I have found your presence here remarkably > refreshing, and emblematic of qualities often lacking > in other participants -- humility and balance. > > > But I agree with the idea that "knowing" destroys the sense > > of wonder. I remeber a conversation with a purusha buddy, we > > were looking at the stars and I was pointing out things of > > interest like parts of nebulae where stars are known to be > > forming, mind blowing concpets like that. And he looked at > > me with and said "just think, it's all consciousness" with > > a secret inner smile as though he had some knowledge that > > no-one else did. > > That's it exactly. That "secret inner smile" of > certainty. All based on *having believed what someone > he considers an "authority" told him*. > > Maharishi pandered to this desire to "know." The quote > of his I find most telling is, "Every question is the > perfect opportunity for the answer we have already > prepared." I used to like that quote, until his contradictions started to wear me down and the only rsponse I'd get to sceptical questions was "just let it wash over you and you'll understand it deep down" or "Don't be analytical" or "Maharishi appears contradictory because his mind is aware at the subtle levels of nature and natural laws change" when the whole point of Laws is that they don't change! "When you're more enlightened you'll understand" classic cult delusions all of them. Had great fun though! Some people *settle* for "pat answers." > They *revel* in them. Believing that the pat answers > are actually true makes them feel elite, and that they > "know" things that others don't. The pat answers > alleviate for them the need to think for themselves; > all they have to do to be content in life is to believe > them, and parrot them to others in an attempt to get > these others to believe them, too. > > > It worried me and I've been waging war inside > > myself to find out what is known as apart from what is > > believed. This seems like the perfect place to find out how > > the other side see it! > > That's a healthy and balanced way to view Fairfield Life. > Here you will encounter any number of people who "know" > things. If you were to imagine them wearing that same > "secret inner smile" of elitism and certainty as you > read the words they post here, my bet is that you would > not be far off. > > The person you'd get along with best here is no longer > posting, Curtis. He seems to have decided that he has > more important things in life to do than to serve as a > punching bag for those who have a need to "prove" the > things they "know," all while putting him down for > *not* "knowing" them as well as they do. > > Curtis has managed to emerge from the TM cult with his > sense of Wonder intact. As have you. It was a struggle to keep it in the face of all that subtle thought reform and I have to say I did fall for most of it but what kept my heathy scepticism alive was having read a bit of Hawking etc before learning TM which made me question the whole idea of consciousness as some sort of primary agency in the universe. Did go on a lot of WPAs though but the closer I got the weirder it all seemed. You really have to search your beliefs after an experience like that just to make sure nothing untoward lingers. I respect that. > Others here only resent it. You'll see. Keep asking > probing questions, as if the ones repeating the pat > answers they've been taught to parrot as if they "knew" > them maybe...uh...don't. Sooner or later their sense > of certainty will be turned against you, and will > reveal itself as what it really is -- fear. > > Scratch the surface of a True Believer -- in anything -- > and more often than not IMO you'll find fear and a > distrust of the sense of Wonder that makes life worth > living. They're *uncomfortable* with not "knowing," > and encountering someone who is not only comfortable > with it but who *celebrates* the Wonder of not knowing >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > Maharishi pandered to this desire to "know." The quote > of his I find most telling is, "Every question is the > perfect opportunity for the answer we have already > prepared." Some people *settle* for "pat answers." > They *revel* in them. Believing that the pat answers > are actually true makes them feel elite, and that they > "know" things that others don't. The pat answers > alleviate for them the need to think for themselves; > all they have to do to be content in life is to believe > them, and parrot them to others in an attempt to get > these others to believe them, too. This is such a gross distortion of what MMY meant by what he said in that quote. > The person you'd get along with best here is no longer > posting, Curtis. He seems to have decided that he has > more important things in life to do than to serve as a > punching bag for those who have a need to "prove" the > things they "know," all while putting him down for > *not* "knowing" them as well as they do. Actually this isn't the main reason Curtis was experiencing such friction here. It was because of how he treated people and because of a serious lack of integrity in the way he argued when he had disagreements. He could be at least as dogmatic about what he believed as anybody else here. Similarly, Barry encounters friction not because of his beliefs and disagreements but because he's such a sloppy thinker, because he is unable to state what he thinks without arrogantly putting down those who disagree, because he so often gets his facts wrong and doesn't *care* that he does, and because he's consistently dishonest. > Curtis has managed to emerge from the TM cult with his > sense of Wonder intact. As have you. I respect that. > Others here only resent it. You'll see. Keep asking > probing questions, as if the ones repeating the pat > answers they've been taught to parrot as if they "knew" > them maybe...uh...don't. Sooner or later their sense > of certainty will be turned against you, and will > reveal itself as what it really is -- fear. Again, Barry *knows* what will happen if Sal keeps asking questions, and he knows *why* it will happen. Not the least bit of uncertainty in his declarations. His pose of "not knowing" is just that, a pose he adopts and tries to promote about himself because of his desperate need to feel superior. It's not the reality.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > Lately I've been finding myself noticing what I perceive > as the basic nature of Fairfield Life. "Lately"? It's rare that we don't have a week in which Barry tells us what he perceives to be the basic nature of Fairfield Life. Why does he have to pretend this is something new? Not even the perceptions he describes in this post are new; they're same-old, same-old: For most partici- > pants, it seems to be a forum on which they spout off > about things that they "know," more often than not in > an attempt to "prove" that someone they're arguing with > *doesn't* "know," or doesn't "know" as much, or "knows" > less perfectly and admirably than they do. > > I find it kinda boring, and suspect that my days here > are numbered. He tells us this on a regular basis too. I just don't fit in, in the sense that I > don't "know" diddleysquat. Nada. Rien. Nichevo. Bupkus. > I just have beliefs, and opinions. And my path through > life and the experiences I've had -- both external and > internal -- have convinced me that *none* of these > beliefs or opinions have anything to do with "knowing." > They're just what they are -- beliefs and opinions. So > there is nothing for me to "prove" one way or another, > or even to care to. > > What I *do* have, in the absence of "knowing" or faith > or whatever those who are so certain about their...uh... > certainty might want to call it, is a sense of Wonder > about the universe I live in. It is as ever-surprising > as it is ever-changing. > > And what I don't understand about those who claim to > "know" is why they sought so diligently to *eradicate* > that sense of Wonder in themselves. Notice that immediately after stating that he "knows nothing," Barry tells us definitively, as if it were established fact, what those who claim to "know" have done. And he doesn't see the self-contradiction. They seem to be so > *proud* of "knowing" things, and of no longer exper- > iencing Wonder when they interact with life. And the above clearly represents a serious failure on Barry's part to draw accurate conclusions about the people he disagrees with. Being confident about the truth of one's beliefs *in no way* means "no longer experiencing Wonder" when one "interacts with life." What a very limited view that is. They have > Experience A, and for them it fits neatly into the > little box they have labeled "This is how we 'explain' > things like Experience A," and they smile, because they > "know" what's going on, and what made it go on. Some > feel they even "know" WHY it's going on. > > All this certainty makes me feel kinda sad for them. Notice how certain Barry is of his notions about the folks he's talking about: > How *boring* life must be for them, to never be sur- > prised by events, and only to see them as "proof" of > the things they already "know." How sad it must be to > be reduced to debating others about the nitpicky details > of the things they "know," versus the things that these > other "knowers" "know." "Must be," says Barry. He *knows* life is boring for them, how they are never surprised by events, how "sad" it is that they enjoy debating others. No doubts there for Barry, no sense of "Wonder" when he interacts with these people, no question in his mind about them. He has it all figured out. > When I run into people more like myself, who "know" > only that we don't know shit, there is never any need > or desire to debate, or to argue. We wind up talking > about the things we love and find Wonder in. We enjoy > our time together, and then part even more full of > our normal sense of Wonder, more often than not > laughing as we go. > > What do those who "know" feel after debating someone > who "knows" something different than they do? Do they > exit from the discussion happy and uplifted at having > "proved" how much they "know," or are they just look- > ing compulsively for the next person on which to > wield their "knowledge" like a battleaxe? I wonder. No, he doesn't wonder. He *knows*. And again, he's told us all this over and over. What I and others see in Barry is a reluctance to debate because he's lousy at it. He is so afraid of exposing his ideas--what he "knows"--to challenge that he only feels comfortable laying out those ideas in a single post (the same ideas time after time) and refusing to debate them. That way he never has to deal with his myriad self-contradictions and other failures of logic and observation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
[Comment at end]: *** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > Lately I've been finding myself noticing what I perceive > > as the basic nature of Fairfield Life. For most partici- > > pants, it seems to be a forum on which they spout off > > about things that they "know," more often than not in > > an attempt to "prove" that someone they're arguing with > > *doesn't* "know," or doesn't "know" as much, or "knows" > > less perfectly and admirably than they do. > > > > I find it kinda boring, and suspect that my days here > > are numbered. I just don't fit in, in the sense that I > > don't "know" diddleysquat. Nada. Rien. Nichevo. Bupkus. > > I just have beliefs, and opinions. And my path through > > life and the experiences I've had -- both external and > > internal -- have convinced me that *none* of these > > beliefs or opinions have anything to do with "knowing." > > They're just what they are -- beliefs and opinions. So > > there is nothing for me to "prove" one way or another, > > or even to care to. > > > > What I *do* have, in the absence of "knowing" or faith > > or whatever those who are so certain about their...uh... > > certainty might want to call it, is a sense of Wonder > > about the universe I live in. It is as ever-surprising > > as it is ever-changing. > > > > And what I don't understand about those who claim to > > "know" is why they sought so diligently to *eradicate* > > that sense of Wonder in themselves. They seem to be so > > *proud* of "knowing" things, and of no longer exper- > > iencing Wonder when they interact with life. They have > > Experience A, and for them it fits neatly into the > > little box they have labeled "This is how we 'explain' > > things like Experience A," and they smile, because they > > "know" what's going on, and what made it go on. Some > > feel they even "know" WHY it's going on. > > > > All this certainty makes me feel kinda sad for them. > > How *boring* life must be for them, to never be sur- > > prised by events, and only to see them as "proof" of > > the things they already "know." How sad it must be to > > be reduced to debating others about the nitpicky details > > of the things they "know," versus the things that these > > other "knowers" "know." > > > > When I run into people more like myself, who "know" > > only that we don't know shit, there is never any need > > or desire to debate, or to argue. We wind up talking > > about the things we love and find Wonder in. We enjoy > > our time together, and then part even more full of > > our normal sense of Wonder, more often than not > > laughing as we go. > > > > What do those who "know" feel after debating someone > > who "knows" something different than they do? Do they > > exit from the discussion happy and uplifted at having > > "proved" how much they "know," or are they just look- > > ing compulsively for the next person on which to > > wield their "knowledge" like a battleaxe? I wonder. > > > > > Not sure of I'm included in that, hope not! > > But I agree with the idea that "knowing" destroys the sense > of wonder. I remeber a conversation with a purusha buddy, we > were looking at the stars and I was pointing out things of > interest like parts of nebulae where stars are known to be > forming, mind blowing concpets like that. And he looked at > me with and said "just think, it's all consciousness" with > a secret inner smile as though he had some knowledge that > no-one else did. I worried me and I've been waging war inside > myself to find out what is known as apart from what is > believed. This seems like the perfect place to find out how > the other side see it! > Good discussion. I love the feeling of learning something that I didn't know before, even if it's just some factoid or something that "fits in" with how I've come to find the world works, like a lost puzzle piece. But I've grown far less certain about what my experiences are or what they mean in any greater or grander sense. That's why I find travelers like Matt Whitehead, whose four-minute video I posted yesterday evening, valuable to me in this last trimester of my life. And FFL, too, though only through the writings of a very few posters. The fact that a number of folks here have spent long and intense periods of their lives plumbing whatever depths of their own psychology and consciousness that they could and have later come to question the very basis of all that later in their lives is distinctly valuable to me, who's done the same. I've got no particular answers or knowledge to share other than try to be as good a person as you can be and be kind to others.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > When I run into people more like myself, who "know" > > only that we don't know shit, there is never any need > > or desire to debate, or to argue. We wind up talking > > about the things we love and find Wonder in. We enjoy > > our time together, and then part even more full of > > our normal sense of Wonder, more often than not > > laughing as we go. > > > > What do those who "know" feel after debating someone > > who "knows" something different than they do? Do they > > exit from the discussion happy and uplifted at having > > "proved" how much they "know," or are they just look- > > ing compulsively for the next person on which to > > wield their "knowledge" like a battleaxe? I wonder. > > Not sure of I'm included in that, hope not! You are not. I have found your presence here remarkably refreshing, and emblematic of qualities often lacking in other participants -- humility and balance. > But I agree with the idea that "knowing" destroys the sense > of wonder. I remeber a conversation with a purusha buddy, we > were looking at the stars and I was pointing out things of > interest like parts of nebulae where stars are known to be > forming, mind blowing concpets like that. And he looked at > me with and said "just think, it's all consciousness" with > a secret inner smile as though he had some knowledge that > no-one else did. That's it exactly. That "secret inner smile" of certainty. All based on *having believed what someone he considers an "authority" told him*. Maharishi pandered to this desire to "know." The quote of his I find most telling is, "Every question is the perfect opportunity for the answer we have already prepared." Some people *settle* for "pat answers." They *revel* in them. Believing that the pat answers are actually true makes them feel elite, and that they "know" things that others don't. The pat answers alleviate for them the need to think for themselves; all they have to do to be content in life is to believe them, and parrot them to others in an attempt to get these others to believe them, too. > It worried me and I've been waging war inside > myself to find out what is known as apart from what is > believed. This seems like the perfect place to find out how > the other side see it! That's a healthy and balanced way to view Fairfield Life. Here you will encounter any number of people who "know" things. If you were to imagine them wearing that same "secret inner smile" of elitism and certainty as you read the words they post here, my bet is that you would not be far off. The person you'd get along with best here is no longer posting, Curtis. He seems to have decided that he has more important things in life to do than to serve as a punching bag for those who have a need to "prove" the things they "know," all while putting him down for *not* "knowing" them as well as they do. Curtis has managed to emerge from the TM cult with his sense of Wonder intact. As have you. I respect that. Others here only resent it. You'll see. Keep asking probing questions, as if the ones repeating the pat answers they've been taught to parrot as if they "knew" them maybe...uh...don't. Sooner or later their sense of certainty will be turned against you, and will reveal itself as what it really is -- fear. Scratch the surface of a True Believer -- in anything -- and more often than not IMO you'll find fear and a distrust of the sense of Wonder that makes life worth living. They're *uncomfortable* with not "knowing," and encountering someone who is not only comfortable with it but who *celebrates* the Wonder of not knowing is perceived as an "attack" on the sense of certainty that they wear like a suit of armor. As Frank Herbert said in Dune, "Fear is the mindkiller." Those who have settled for pat answers and eradicated their sense of Wonder have IMO committed a kind of mind suicide. They've given in to their fear of not knowing by convincing themselves that they "know." Whenever the "I know and you don't" bullshit gets too deep around here, I amuse myself by imagining the people trying to lay pat answers on me as if they were doing me a favor as characters in one of Bhairitu's zombie movies. "Brains," they chant. "Give me your brains. Then you'll be happy the way I am." Have you ever really *looked at* a zombie? They don't seem all that happy to me. Neither do those who parrot the things they've been taught to believe as if they "knew" them. They're hungry for brains because they gave theirs away. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonder, and the attempt to eradicate it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > Lately I've been finding myself noticing what I perceive > as the basic nature of Fairfield Life. For most partici- > pants, it seems to be a forum on which they spout off > about things that they "know," more often than not in > an attempt to "prove" that someone they're arguing with > *doesn't* "know," or doesn't "know" as much, or "knows" > less perfectly and admirably than they do. > > I find it kinda boring, and suspect that my days here > are numbered. I just don't fit in, in the sense that I > don't "know" diddleysquat. Nada. Rien. Nichevo. Bupkus. > I just have beliefs, and opinions. And my path through > life and the experiences I've had -- both external and > internal -- have convinced me that *none* of these > beliefs or opinions have anything to do with "knowing." > They're just what they are -- beliefs and opinions. So > there is nothing for me to "prove" one way or another, > or even to care to. > > What I *do* have, in the absence of "knowing" or faith > or whatever those who are so certain about their...uh... > certainty might want to call it, is a sense of Wonder > about the universe I live in. It is as ever-surprising > as it is ever-changing. > > And what I don't understand about those who claim to > "know" is why they sought so diligently to *eradicate* > that sense of Wonder in themselves. They seem to be so > *proud* of "knowing" things, and of no longer exper- > iencing Wonder when they interact with life. They have > Experience A, and for them it fits neatly into the > little box they have labeled "This is how we 'explain' > things like Experience A," and they smile, because they > "know" what's going on, and what made it go on. Some > feel they even "know" WHY it's going on. > > All this certainty makes me feel kinda sad for them. > How *boring* life must be for them, to never be sur- > prised by events, and only to see them as "proof" of > the things they already "know." How sad it must be to > be reduced to debating others about the nitpicky details > of the things they "know," versus the things that these > other "knowers" "know." > > When I run into people more like myself, who "know" > only that we don't know shit, there is never any need > or desire to debate, or to argue. We wind up talking > about the things we love and find Wonder in. We enjoy > our time together, and then part even more full of > our normal sense of Wonder, more often than not > laughing as we go. > > What do those who "know" feel after debating someone > who "knows" something different than they do? Do they > exit from the discussion happy and uplifted at having > "proved" how much they "know," or are they just look- > ing compulsively for the next person on which to > wield their "knowledge" like a battleaxe? I wonder. > Not sure of I'm included in that, hope not! But I agree with the idea that "knowing" destroys the sense of wonder. I remeber a conversation with a purusha buddy, we were looking at the stars and I was pointing out things of interest like parts of nebulae where stars are known to be forming, mind blowing concpets like that. And he looked at me with and said "just think, it's all consciousness" with a secret inner smile as though he had some knowledge that no-one else did. I worried me and I've been waging war inside myself to find out what is known as apart from what is believed. This seems like the perfect place to find out how the other side see it!
