Nicely done, Akasha. You have demonstrated once again that there's nothing like a shot of dispassionate discourse to take some of the vinegar out of a pissing contest.
Allow me to add a few thoughts of my own. One of the persistent problems with "miracles", as gleefully noted by professional skeptics of the materialist persuasion, is the manifest absence of manifest evidence. The faithful, and even the rational, will respond in kind that absence of proof is not the functional equivalent of proof of absence. Nevertheless, a pattern appears to persist: generally speaking, miracles cannot be verified. [Note: I am not denying, for example, the occurrance of miraculous recovery from illness, etc., but am referring here to that broad class of phenomena loosely referred as "the paranormal". Like levitation.] Yes, eye witness accounts abound, but there also a general pattern is found: the witnesses are not unanimous about what they saw. Examples that come to mind include the Fatima manifestations, the appearance of the angel Moroni to Joseph Smith and a few others at Palmyra, and one or two others I can't remember at the moment. The only unambiguous case of levitation that I know of was Joseph of Cupertino, and that is some centuries past. What does it mean that these things appear to be immune to objective verification? Some would argue, and quite reasonably, I think, that objectivity itself is an illusion which disappears under close scrutiny. However, I personally do not find that argument completely satisfactory in cases like this. Proponents of levitation as an achievable skill are comparatively more unanimous in saying that real levitation includes gross, observable movement of the physical body. To me, that would be the Gold Standard. Nevertheless, I am willing to accept the proposition that some other, worthwhile phenomenon could occur which has more to do with perceptions of subtle bodies, etc. I know people who claim to have eyewitnessed real levitation, and some who claim to have accomplished it. I simply don't know how to evaluate such claims. I know that I have been lied to about it by Governors who were told to lie about it by Maharishi, but that's all history and I don't know anyone who cares about it any more. The bottom line in terms of this discussion is that there is certainlty in the mind of one participant, and a wide range of responses among the others. It strikes me almost as a cosmic principle that it somehow MUST be this way, because hey, that's the way it is. For those who have seen what they have seen and doubt not, no amount of discussion is likely to change their stance. For those who have heard what they have heard and doubt, emphatically, no amount of passion is likely to convince. It's beautiful, isn't it? L B S --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], Peter Sutphen > I've read > through all these posts in this exchange and > > I can't find a hint of this > > "spiritual-one-upsmanship". What are you talking about > > Shemp? Unc is talking about his experinece and then > > considering the possibility that there was some sort > > of subjective element involved in the perception of > > the levitation. He's being honest. What's the big > > deal? > > > > Its an interesting exchange, on several levels, including different > perceptions of what people mean by the same words, subtle positioning, > and subjective / objective realities. > > Since words are just rough maps for concepts and concepts are rough > maps for both inner and outer phenomenon, its a wonder -- to me-- that > we actually communiate at all sometimes. For example, there appears to > be a different take on the word "real". Per my reading of the views, > one person is holding "real" to be both trans-personal and objectively > (aka mechanically, measurably) verifiable (e.g., could be seen on > video cam). Another is viewing "real" as subjective reality, that if > the perception was real, then it was real, it was a real experience. > Its this clinging to ones own view of what the word "real" means, and > not seeing or acknowledging what the other may mean by the term, which > is causing the war of words and abrasive feelings back and forth. > > It seems to me there are at least five possibilities here, without > much need for arguing or spite. > > 1) objectively, mechanically and mesurably verifiable leviation took > place. This might include Rama sitting on a digital scale with > constant readout to show changes weight, video cam verification, laser > light encircling to verify no wires etc. > > 2) a subtle phenomenon / siddi in which a subtle form of Rama > levitated and he similtatnously enlivened some subtle perception in > many but not all attendees to see the phenomenon. > > 3) some powerful suggestion / trance (from teacher or by observer > themselves to themselves) techniques that result in some strong > cognitive distortion. > > 4) some perception that did not correspond to gross physical reality, > aka a hallucination. > > 5) Make-believe / deception. > > From past discussions and my take on this is that #'s 3-5 are not > operational in this case. Its probably 1 or 2. Both boundary > breaking. Not much evidence has been presented of #1 occurring. That > dooes not prove #1 did not occur, just there is no strong case for it, > no reason to believe that it occurred. > > The mechanics of #2 are not clear, and no feasible model or proof of > such has been offered other than one or several personal testimonies. > And such testimonies could be a case of #1 -- yet unverified -- gross > physical levitation, or could be a #2 -- subtle phenomenon -- going > on. I see no problem in being open the "reality" that it was such: > some unexplained subtle phenomenon, while holding out it actually > could have been physical -- but not verifed as such. With a > possibility of a #3 phenomenon prevailing or being mixed into all of > this. Whether its 1, 2, or 3, I believe Unc experienced something as > real and tangible when he drinks a double expresso at a stand-up > parisian sidewalk bar. I don't think he was hallucinating or lying. > > Having said this, I do find shades of a "spiritual-one-upsmanship" > positioning, whether intended or not. I find similar structures in > other discussions. > > Unc casts Shemp's position from a variety of angles as "disbelief". It > echos, in a way, of the refrain in the late 90's among disbelievers in > the the "new ecconomy" that they "just didn't get it", that valuing so > many dot.coms at extraordinary levels, at quite unhistoric > price-ernings ratios -- based on quite future eanings not current , > etc, was really quite rational and sound and if you didn't "get-it" > you were hopelessly naive, out-of-it, and the untimate insult, un-hip. > > By default, Unc's positions is one of "belief". The former is weaker > than the latter, its a defensive position, though the distiction may > be subtle. Shemp could recast the argument as "Rama was fraud" and > accuse Unc of suffering from and not being able to come to terms with > his disbelief. This would place him in a superior > "spiritual-one-upmanship" position. > > The silly thing is, the real, but unstated debate, appears to be about > what each hold the word "real" to mean. This difference, and lack of > akcnowledging the others view, manifests into staked out positions > which result in progressively entrenched defenses around positions > which "vanish" if the real debate (about meanings of words use) is > first resolved. This is of interest, to me, because the same mechanics > and structure appears to be a the root of so many FFL and other chat > word-wars. And it may be part of "spiritual-one-upmanship" > gamesmanship, i am not sure. > > A curious, perhaps side point here, is Unc's proposition that even if > quite verifiable objective proof were presented, it would not change > anyones mind. I find that such an odd take on things. Lots of new, > surprising, odd and hard to believe, boundary breaking scientific > research happens all the time. In the physical and social sciences. > our views and boundaries are regularly being shifted as science > reveals new things. If there were strongly scientific, verifiable and > objective research on a guy physically levitating, it would have > mind-blowing impact on people's world-views and boundaries. As well as > most existing scientific theories and models. To hold that it > wouldn't, appears odd, perhaps part of some head-trip or gamesmanship, > I don't know. > > And it is an odd thing, personally. I was living in San Diego in 1979 > when Rama arrived from New York. He advertised a lot and I was quite > aware of him, though I never went to his lectures. But if lecture > halls full of people at UCSD (University of Calif ast San Diego) -- a > world class reserch univeristy, were seeing him levitate, it would > have rocked the community. Word would have spread like wildfire > through the "spiritual" community. And the academtic community at the > univiersity would have been rocked into action, to validate the truch > or fraudulance of such claims. Nada. No stir, nothing that I was aware > of. All of which makes me think it was pretty subjective and not such > a universal experience. Some strong believers saw it, but, per the > accounts I read in the recent UNC pdf link, they were not "sure" > enough to stand up and even acknowledge what they saw when Lentz asked > for an accounting of experiences. > > At any rate, there are some interesting things to observe, learn > about, and ponder in these discussion. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
