Hoo boy. I've been away from the conversation till now, so I am sorry if my comments don't quite fit in, but............ First thanks for your reply. Some comments below:
--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "lurkernomore20002000" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > > > If a true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of > > > > human kind, would this not be an example of utilizing quantum > > > > mechanical laws? > > > > > > Absolutely NOT. It would be an example of *something*. > > > > So, you have no idea of the mechanics of extrodinary experiences? > > None whatsoever. I have suspicions, or theories, > or speculations, but I am also clear that that's > *all* that they are, so I keep them to myself or > discuss them only with people who have shared the > same experience. I am suggesting that theories and > speculations are all they are for everyone else, > too. I'm just more honest about it than they are. :-) I really don't see many people trying to promote some agenda along these lines. Well maybe Hagelin. But I think most are willing to revel in the mystery of it. But certainly over time the mechanics of these experienes are likely to become clear. And there has to be some mechanics for any phenomena. I don't think this is a judgemental statement, but you may feel otherwise. > > > You just chalk it up to "Hey this is cool, but let's be clear > > on one thing, this is a subjective experience, and likely has > > no connection with any physical laws... > > *May* have no connection with any physical laws. > > > ...or I'm sure as hell not going to be the one to make this > > connection" > > I certainly am not. Others may if they want. They > are free to do that. I am free to laugh at them. :-) > > > > "Similarity" is bogus. One can draw parallels between > > > anything and anything; that does not mean that those > > > parallels exist. Those who attempt to declare that such > > > parallels exist are more often call insane than wise. > > > > You've got history on your side for his one. > > I know that you're just using a euphemism or a > common phrase here, Lurk, but to be clear I don't > actually *have* a "side." *I* am not trying to sell > anything, even a theory about How It All Works; others > are. *I* don't give a shit whether anyone agrees with > my POV or not; other do, and are emotionally attached > to people agreeing with them. I'm just discussing this > with you because I enjoy jackpotting ideas around, for > fun. I have no aardvark in this race. :-) I have no particular desire to link quantum mechanics to experiences of developing consciousness, or whatever you want to call it, but it may be that they are linked. I think they probably are, but that is just my opinion. I don't feel any particular need to share it, except under general discussion as we are doing now. > > > We've had a lot of insane individuals with their insane parallels. > > How bout the earth as not being the center of the universe. Some > > real insanity there. > > Exactly. The earth-centric universe *made sense*. It > matched people's subjective experience. It just had > nothing whatsoever to do with reality, that's all. > My suspicion is that "quantum consciousness" is going > to be regarded as just as silly in 50 years. > > > > > Do not the objective and subjective world meet at some point, > > > > > > Why should they? Because you'd like them to? Doesn't really matter to me. I think they are destined to meet. But if they don't, I am okay with that. > > > > I personally don't care if they do, but you stand in oppostion > > to many quantum pioneers if you suggest they don't. > > I stand in opposition to no one and nothing. I didn't > make a claim either way. I asked *you* a question. You > answered it. End of story. > > I am curious, though, about what a "quantum pioneer" is. > I have images of Einstein sitting in the seat of a covered > wagon cracking his whip and shouting, "Move along little > quarkies." :-) Now that did make me laugh out loud for a good minute, and I appreciate that. But I think it is pretty much boiler plate, that you find quotes among some of the early quantum physicists making a connection between God and science. Don't ask me for particulars, but I have often come across them. > > > > > And as reluctant as I am to use this example, if Rama levitated, > > > > (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be > > > > due to manipulating laws at a quantum level. > > > > > > Absolutely not. He just fucking levitated, that's all. So, he just fucking levitated.? Well likely he did something to levitate, if he did indeed levitate, then he did something that allowed his body to defy gravity. That would not be a common occurance > > > > I see. It's the ol', "the universe in its great mystery allowed > > for this. > > I don't think you *do* see, however clear I was trying > to be. What is the "this" that your personified universe > "allowed for?" There are certain physical laws in operation. There are the Newtonian laws and quantum mechanical laws. You don't typically see extrodinary phenomena coming from Newtonian mechanics. They generally are the domain of quantum mechanical laws. YMMV. > > It was a subjective event, shared by me and hundreds of > other people. We saw him levitate. That does *NOT* imply > that he actually levitated, only that we saw it. For all > I know, because no cameras were present, it could have > been a *purely* subjective experience. So, am I supposed > to get all hinky trying to think up an "explanation" for > something that might have been purely subjective? I think > not. > > > Beyond our human understading". A corrollary for "God in his > > infinite wisdom". > > Even if there were proof that it *was* physical levitation, > I am under no obligation to come up with any theory for > how it happened or why it happened. One thing I am fairly > sure of, however, is that if it was physical, it had nothing > to do with God, who in all likelihood does not exist and if > one does, certainly isn't male. :-) Thank you for bring this up. I would like to ask you a question. Do you belive there is an intelligence at work in the universe? > > > > That's ALL we witnessed. If it was happening on a physical > > > level, we witnessed a mystery happening on a physical level. > > > If it happened only on a subtle level, and wouldn't have > > > been recorded by video cameras or instruments (which is very > > > possible), it was a mystery happening on a subtle level. End > > > of story. > > > > Okay good to come up with some explanation. > > For whom? For you? I owe you nothing. For anyone else? > I owe them nothing. I am selling nothing, not even a > theory about why or how what I and hundreds of others > witnessed. I am merely telling you what we witnessed. > > If you have a problem with this without an accompanying > "why" or "how," that is YOUR problem, not mine. I don't really need an explanation. I think it is a neat phenomena. I'll take it at face value, but recognize that if it happened on the physical level, then the everyday laws of nature we are accostomed to, but have been over ridden some how. > > > Anything would be better than saying it happened on the physical > > level, which was your first response until you've watered it down. > > WHY would that be "better?" Because YOU would be more > comfortable with it? See above > > As far as I could tell, it was physical levitation. As > far as anyone else in the room or out in the desert with > Rama could tell, it was physical levitation. I am open to > that *not* being the case because there is no way I could > prove that it was physical levitation. It certainly looked > like it was physical to me. > > > Anything better than indicating an actual manipulation of > > physical laws. > > You seem to have an inordinate amount of faith in "physical > laws" and in their predictability. I am sure, not any more than you. I am pretty sure you figure one day will follow the next, that day will follow night, that if you throw a ball to your dog, it is going to follow a projectory that you can pretty accurately predict. I do not share this. If > you find yourself threatened by the idea that this really > happened on a physical level, I suggest that this is YOUR > problem, not mine. Your are SO projecting. I am not Shemp, okay. I do not care a whit, one way or another. > > > I'm going to come back to this, because I've run out of time. > > But I find you explanations pretty lame. > > What is lame, dude, is that you don't seem to be able to > understand plain English. I *provided* no "explanations." > I will *never* provide any "explanations" of the many > things I have experienced and/or witnessed. Okay, you are going into your standard rant. Yes, I know you have no agenda, not trying to sell anything. And on and on. I accept all that. > > There are two reasons for this. The first, and most > important, is that I have *no earthly idea* how or why > these things occurred. I'm certainly not going to make > one up just to make YOU feel more comfortable or less > threatened. Hello. I don't care about this. I don't care about this. Your latching onto this when I 've made it clear, that this not an issue for me. > > The second is that *I am not trying to sell you anything*. > I DON'T GIVE A SHIT what you believe. Never > have, never will. What you believe doth not affect me in > any way. I got it. > > If you're looking for someone who will "defend" his or her > perceptions of extraordinary phenomena or "explain" them > to you, continue looking. I am not that person. And I won't > become that person no matter how many times you ask. I think you're doing a Jesse Jackson. Some asks him about troop levels in Beirut, and in one or two steps it's all about race riots in Selma. > > What part of I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT YOU BELIEVE > or I AM NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU ANYTHING do > you not get? I so get it, but that is not really what the discussion was about. But this seems to be your baseline, so I accept that you must come back to it, time and time again.
