Comments interspersed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
Weird phrasing on my part. > > > 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... Fair enough but the fact is the enlightenment rap is not that complex. In fact most of the purveyors revel in simplicity. Once you get the language form down you are good to go. > > > 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. ;-) It has some validity but it requires a belief in mystical knowledge up front to make it all work. I don't feel inclined to admit this kind of knowledge into the party without seeing something to back it up that does relate to the knowledge we can agree on. An Maharishi was a master at making this bridge. > > > 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. But my point is that he did and we are still using him as a reference point for the guy who should know. > > > 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 am using his own. That seems fair within a discussion of enlightenment within our common experience of his system. > > > 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. And yet most religions drive on this engine alone. Some even work with the promise of a subjective state after death. Humans are hopeful creatures. That said, we got the Western spin carefully crafted for us. It might actually be the same pitch to work in the New India. And if it is something that is subjective and you dig it, more power to ya. As long as a person doesn't expect to parlay their "higher state" into anything that affects me it can be their little Walter Mitty secret and is none of my business. But it seems that even on this board some use the claim as if it buys them an epistemological get out of jail card. (my sponsor in pretentious philosophy words anonymous has sanctioned this one use of the term in this post) > > > > > 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. It might be reductionist to say that his is just that label. But if the label helps understand the guy better it seems useful. > > > 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. In a therapeutic context sure but that standard is inappropriate for us just talk'n here. It reminds me of the whole "innocent till proven guilty line" that people use inappropriate outside the courtroom. It is a legal restriction that doesn't apply to us knowing that OJ was freak'n guilty before the trial was over. (And even after!) > > 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 serves as s tool to tease out better understanding in discussion. It seems to have served its purpose well here. I had to think about it more and come up with some other options. > > 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). In the context of Maharishi who spent an inordinate amount of effort for us to see him has extremely special in every sense of the word, I don't think a few labels is gunna tip anyone's scales. > > 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? Of course. And that is one of the things which you find out if you do even the most cursory study of what the term means. Only a tiny percentage of even full blown psychopaths become criminals. >
