--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: <snip> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > <snip> > > > > > I get you point about higher states and am open to the idea > > > that there are many states of mind we know little about. I > > > haven't seen anything from guys like Maharishi that would > > > make me have to extend my model yet however. He talked > > > about the ability to know things that others were unable to > > > understand in lower states but didn't demonstrate anything > > > that proved that. > > > > How would you recognize such a demonstration if you were in > > a lower state and were unable to understand what was being > > demonstrated? > > me: > Wouldn't that be on them rather than on me?
Well, I was going by the words you used above, "know things that others were unable to understand." If he knew things you wouldn't understand, either he'd keep them to himself, or he'd say them and sure enough, you wouldn't understand them, even if you thought you did. > Most people who put themselves out there in this way just > sort of blather about a lot of stuff that we all nailed > down along time ago as a POV. Or thought you had nailed down... > Isn't it setting the bar a bit low to believe that they > could do NOTHING special other than proclaim how they see > the world in a more special way than the rest of us? Think of the blind men and the elephant. If they don't know what seeing is, are they going to understand a sighted person's description? Look, I'm not arguing that he did have some kind of exalted understanding, but rather that if he did and you didn't, if you didn't even have the capacity to understand as he did, you wouldn't necessarily be able to recognize that. I think this may be an epistemological argument. ;-) > And this was certainly not Maharishi's model since he > piled on the relative areas that would be radically > improved. Yeah, if he had special understanding, I think it was of the nature and mechanics of consciousness and higher states, not of relative areas. I don't think one necessarily implies the other. > I think it is more in line with commons sense to just > accept that for all the hype the higher states model > has not delivered that much yet. You sure you're using the right criteria? > I think we have to ditch the ancient hype traditions > to explore them more honestly today since I do believe > you can shift the style of your mental functions. But > the term enlightenment seems waaaay to Liberace for > what is displayed so far for me. I personally think what gets "delivered" is purely subjective. My guess is that all the other stuff--the hype--has been sort of grafted on because it's so hard to make a case for enlightenment if it's purely subjective. Once you *get* there, though, it becomes obvious that the other stuff was always irrelevant. > > > I mean I could run his rap back in the day. It was a rap > > > after all with a set of phrases and its own internal logic > > > and anyone could learn to do it. > > > > > > And even though I am not trained in the proper application > > > of such terms, for me it is a tool of compassion. It > > > helped me get off some of my blame toward Maharishi. (how > > > much I succeeded in this is another area of disagreement > > > for us not doubt.) But for me seeing the old guy as having > > > this kind of programming that he couldn't stop softens my > > > view of him and that works for me. > > > > OK, but I don't see why any of this requires applying a > > formal diagnostic label. And I think slapping a label on > > one's analysis has a tendency to make one think the > > analysis is more definitive than it may actually be. > > I don't see it as a formal diagnosis coming from any of us. It's the labeling I have a problem with. Generally speaking, people who have had training understand what a label implies and all use it in pretty much the same way. But laypersons may have wildly different understandings of what it means. > We are just doing the best we can to use the information > we have. We can't be experts in everything but that > doesn't mean we can't have opinions about things > especially when there isn't some super high bar for > understanding like higher math is to physics. It may be just high enough that you need training to know how to apply the labels, though. Opinions per se I have no problem with, as I said a couple of posts back. I just think one should stop short of using labels one wasn't trained to apply. > > Putting people in boxes is necessary for the kind of > > health-care/insurance setup we have, but it may > > rigidify and limit understanding of the individual. I > > don't think any human being really *fits* in a box. > > Of course ultimately I agree. My discussion was meant > to diffuse the box-like nature of identifying Maharishi > with this disorder a bit. I really don't know how well > it fits. But just like the information about psychopaths > provides a good self defense against their predatory > behavior, it is really useful to know that some people > are not working with the society assumptions of > reciprocity most of us are. In fact our habit of > believing in that and trusting that people are like us > is a huge danger if one gets you in their sights. Why can't you just say that? Why do you need to put a one-word label on it? The label comes with a whole lot of baggage (actually the use of the term for diagnosis is in flux, according to Wikipedia), some of which may not apply to a particular individual. It gets tossed around way too casually, in my view, to mean, e.g., not working with the same assumptions of reciprocity *I* do; or, unlike *me* in a way I'm not comfortable with. That may or may not add up to psychopathy (and may even be a function of one's own psychopathology). And there's a huge range of antisocial behavior. I mean, we can all pretty safely agree that whoever hid the bodies of eight (so far) prostitutes in the bushes of Jones Beach on Long Island is a psychopath, but do you want to apply the same label to your trusted old pal who borrowed some money from you to start a business, became a millionaire, and never paid you back?
