--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Dear PaliGap, > > I am sure my assumption is indefensible from any logical or objective point > of view. Granted. But what I found in Mark's answers was the evidence of > someone who was responding out of the very depths of his experience, with a > determination to do justice to his sense of the truth about Maharishi as it > had formed inside of him independent of his own will or desire. > > In this sense, his answers carried "an aura of truth"by which I mean that > when someone is actually making contact with truth (this ain't in any > philosophy texts) what they say, what they write, tends to create a slightly > different effect upon one, than when their own subjectivity experience isn't > [we are proposing a hypothetical here] aliging itself with reality/truth. > > When we as initiators gave Intro Lectures in the early and mid-seventies, > there seemed to be "an aura of truth" about us, about we said. And this could > be felt in the atmosphere. This was quite apart from what we were actually > saying. > > Make any sense to you? Mark's answers to that questionnaire kind of stopped > me. Forced me to examine my experience. They were credible. They were > serious. They were pristine. > > Now this is what Bob Price calls subtext. Mark's answers held a lot of > subtext and that subtext seemed to contain mostly Maharishi and not > predominantly Mark Landau. > > Jesus, if he showed up and went to visit Christopher Hitchens (as he is dying > of cancer), and told him: "There is a God, Christopher." And Christopher > replied: "I know who you are and there is no God. And certainly you aren't > him." > > Well, perhaps Jesus's words (imagine this in a literary sense) might might > carry more of an "aura of truth" than the rebuttal of Christopher. > > But, if there is no God, then again, Jesus might be outdone in this very > measure: the "aura of truth" favouring Christopher not Jesus. > > Did you try, PaliGap, answering the questions yourselfsay going against the > answer that Mark gave? I would be interested in your experience of this. > > Does your child have an 'aura of truth" when he or she says, "I love you, > Daddy?" > > Or do you question the epistemic reliability of this claim of your child?
Well I am not a father Robin. But sure, if my wife or other loved ones were to say this, then, no doubt, I would not "question the epistemic reliability of this claim". (Then again, pace Bob, if it's my wife we're talking about, it's Saturday afternoon, and a shopping trip is in the offing then I might have my doubts). But how is this the point? Let me put it this way: Try re-writing all the above in the context of an apologist for Adolf Hitler: "What I found in Hitler's answers was the evidence of someone who was responding out of the very depths of his experience, with a determination to do justice to his sense of the truth (about the Jews) as it had formed inside of him independent of his own will or desire" "In this sense, Hitler's answers carried 'an aura of truth' by which I mean that when someone is actually making contact with truth what they say, what they write, tends to create a slightly different effect upon one, than when their own subjectivity experience isn't [we are proposing a hypothetical here] aliging itself with reality/truth." I think you think that Truth can wear its verification on its sleeve. I think you're quite wrong - and that way all kinds of fanaticism lie.
