-- In [email protected], Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@...> wrote: > > Interesting post. Â In terms of your mystical experiences as a "choice of > interpretation", you and Robin are on the same page, no? Â
We are similar only in that we reevaluated the meaning of the experiences we had from TM later using intellectual tools from outside the system. But our conclusions now couldn't be more different. He still seems to accept the higher states of consciousness model taught by Maharishi, but I reject it. He thinks of it differently than Maharishi did, but thinks of it as a more substantial shift than I do. I accept that we can change the way our minds function dramatically through such practices, but don't give it the mystical importance Robin still does. He maintains that his state of mind (a phrase he would probably reject as would most TM believers because they think their experience transcends the mind)was upheld by divine beings known as Devas (which you can think of as angels with those attractive almond shaped East Asian eyes). I believe that the most dramatic experiences brought on in those states are a result of a dissociative disorder caused by too much meditation and possibly a psychiatric predisposition. This is a fundamental difference in how we are looking at his claims of enlightenment and my own experiences of so called higher states while I was involved. > > "I took it as a statement about our own cognitive gaps, it was directed at > non-believers. We all hold beliefs that lack good rational support and act on > them too. I took it as a reminder to non-believers that we all share similar > emotion centered thinking in some areas of life." > > This, to me, says that you are acknowledging the fact that humans make > decisions from emotional places, as well as from a rational perspective. >  This point states the obvious in my mind, but were you making this point > because TM is "brain-centered" (if, in fact, it is) and focusing your > statement towards TM? Although the point seems obvious we see the results of not remembering that fact all over. And it is hard to shake. Not that I am advocating a rigid life ruled only by reason. But in areas of claims that have traditionally been let off the hook for any challenge on the basis of reason, like where spirituality makes claims about the world, I want to re-introduce it as a possibility. For example what if historians could prove that Joseph Smith's claims about finding golden tablets with instructions was historically false? Wouldn't that be as reasonable as challenging holocaust deniers on the basis of facts? But such an inquiry would be condemned as being religious bigotry. Other religious people, who think the claim is nonsense themselves, would fight to protect this belief from such scrutiny on the principle of leaving all religious claims in a protected category where reason can never enter. It is the only area of human knowledge where we take the position in society that if you state it, no on can challenge it on the basis of facts. It is a special class of beliefs for mankind. I am against this protection. (we should tax them too IMO) So yes it IS obvious, but it is still an important distinction to keep making for all our beliefs as best we can. I think spiritual beliefs should be classified among the arts rather than in a special protected class that can influence public policy without more challenge. > > > Can you do me a huge favor?  I suspect I am often at a loss here because I > am not sure I am defining "non-believer" and "true believer" correctly in the > context of FFL. Curiously, how do you define these terms? I don't see any reason to support a belief in any of the versions of God man has proposed. I don't share any of those beliefs, but know that it could possible be that ultimately there could be a God being. I'm pretty sure I would be the second to last to know and that super religious people who already think they do "know" for bad reasons would be the very last to get the actual memo from such a being. I actively doubt humans would be in a position to interface with such a creature if it did exists or that any man on earth speaks for the mind of a God. The term true believer as popularized by Eric Hoffer refers to a mindset of an unassailable belief structure which is closed to outside feedback and self perpetuating. When I fist got out of the midset of TM I was more interested in that term to explain why otherwise bright people can believe really wacky stuff. Now my interests have shifted to exploring the cognitive gaps we all share and see the super religious mindset as just my own cognitive vulnerability focused in one area. I am more concerned with how unintuitive statistics is to all of us because it may be that our demise as a species boils down to not understanding data properly and in context. I see people's inability to understand that honor killings are wrong in a modern moral sense, and people interfering with women's access to contraception and abortions as stemming from a more fundamental source of bad human thinking. People don't have to be what Hoffer calls a "true believer" to make these cognitive errors so that concerns me even more than the special case of true believers. In the same way it is religious moderates, not extremists who are causing the most problems in society by forcing society to conform to what they think God wants and that they can uniquely interpret for the rest of us. Society seems happy to spot a Hare Krishna and not base public policy on their odd beliefs but if you put a Mormon in a suit, he might become president. I see nothing fundamentally more wacky about Hare Krishna than Mormonism and nothing less. > > I reject religion myself in that I won't subscribe fully to any one > interpretation of "God" as *the one* in that all interpretations come through > human kind and are influenced by culture, time, etc. Not to say I can't learn > from them however - I usually try to focus on the larger essence of the > teaching if I'm in that mode, and I note that often, the teachings are all > saying similar things at the core.  And they are often saying really different things in the specific. You kind of have to gloss over some of the most important beliefs in a religion to see the similarities IMO. But I understand the appeal of that POV. > > I don't reject the idea that there is a larger energy I am a part of. Call it > "God", call it a higher power, call it the universe, call it Mother Nature, > call it whatever - all names for the same thing, in my mind.  If I can drop the "mother" from nature, I am cool with that term! Life itself is my mystical miracle, I don't need any overlay. > > You are correct, he does talk about "wood fires in fireplaces," but also > touches on the larger concepts of resources, air pollution, public health, > etc.  I think I was trying to make the point that "blanket statements" and > "moral imperatives" almost always have exceptions, depending on perspective. >  I couldn't agree more. Although I am not a complete moral relativist either. Honor killing really are wrong for me and there is no context that makes them right. > > > You did say the statement has something for everyone :) Thanks for inviting a more extended rap by your thoughtful comments. It is great to have an inducement to take some philosophy time out of our busy days isn't it? > > > ________________________________ > From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltablues@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, February 3, 2012 10:20 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Fireplace Delusion by Sam Harris > > > > --- In [email protected], Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@> wrote: > > > > This brings up the idea of moral absolutism for me. àI always say that I > > live in a "grey area between black and white" in most respects. àRe: > > burning wood or other dangerous activities, it isn't a matter of "refusing > > to believe", it's a matter of choosing one's action based on circumstances, > > about weighing situational pros and cons. à> > > > Burning wood is "bad," but if my power goes out, I will start a fire. > > Burning wood is "bad," but if camping or backpacking with or without > > children, I may start a fire. > > DEET is "bad," but I will slather it on to combat hoards of mosquitos. > > I can imagine that if I were an atheist, I might still decide to pray to a > > higher power if I found myself floating in the ocean after a shipwreck. à> > > > The last sentence doesn't really make sense to me except in the context > > that the analogy is used to indicate the difficulty in changing others' > > belief systems. > > > > "Of course, if you are anything like my friends, you will refuse to believe > > this. And that should give you some sense of what we are up against > > whenever we confront religion." > > I took it as a statement about our own cognitive gaps, it was directed at > non-believers.  We all hold beliefs that lack good rational support and act > on them too.  I took it as a reminder to non-believers that we all share > similar emotion centered thinking in some areas of life.  The reasons you > gave as exceptions are outside the area of his presentation I think. He was > specifically talking about fires in fireplaces by choice with no practical > reason. > > I can relate to that so well.  I have had fire places from time to time in > my different homes and apartments and sitting in front of a fire is a great > pleasure that I would not deny myself if I had the chance.  But his > analysis is factually correct so I would ignore those facts to enjoy my > fire.  It illustrates to non-believers that we can't be smug as if we are > completely different from believers, we all share these cognitive gaps. (Yes > I am equating belief in one of the Gods as demonstrating a cognitive gap in > reasonableness.) > > It is so easy for a believer to see through the reasons held by another > version of believers.  Who here would consider the possibility that Rev. > Moon is an avatar, literally God on earth?  It seems incomprehensible how > people could buy into that belief doesn't it? > > But not to moonies.  They can't conceive of how we could miss the obvious, > that Rev. Moon is God. > > Spiritual beliefs are cobbled together,the basic assumptions (like the belief > in God afterlife and soul) are often assumed during childhood without much > adult, conscious inspection.  The belief in God was that way for me.  At > the time I first considered the possibility that it was an optional belief, I > had never seriously considered that as an option.  It took some time to let > the possiblity of that idea even touch my awareness in a substantial > way.  It required a faith in myself as an individual who could imagine such > an absurdity.  I went through all the self-doubt that get tossed about by > theists to atheists, am I being arrogant?  Who am I to doubt the reality of > God when so many are so sure?  It this just me being egomaniacial to think > that I could just decide that the evidence I had been constructing as my > proof for God was in fact flawed.  Who did I think I was! > > But once the shift happened from surety to questions about the substantial of > my belief structure, for me it became impossible to keep it all together with > honesty and integrity. Once I decided that my choice of interpretation of > what my "mystical" experiences meant, was optional, that I could choose it > again, without the assumptions of my past, I couldn't keep the wheels > spinning.  That was in 1989 and they have never spun for me again. > > So Sam's piece was for me a reminder that everyone who considers themselves a > God believer has in fact rejected hundreds of versions of that belief that > sometimes millions of others dearly hold, and often for the same reasons I > do.  I share with most people here a skepticism that Joseph Smith found > gold tablets written by God.  But the republican front runner, the guy who > could potentially run the country is real sure about that as a fact, an > historical event that really happened.  How could he believe something that > to most posters here is transparently absurd? > > Hey, hand me the fire place poker will ya? I want to push that log back so I > can see those glowing embers, ain't they purdy? Cough cough! > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltablues@> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Friday, February 3, 2012 8:11 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Fireplace Delusion by Sam Harris > > > > > > > > Me: > > This is such an interesting piece about perspectives and our emotional > > investment to them.ààAnd it points out how vulnerable to the same > > emotional attachment to ideas both believers and non believers > > are.ààThere is something in this for everyone: > > > > Sam: > > It seems to me that many nonbelievers have forgottenââ¬"or never > > knewââ¬"what it is like to suffer an unhappy collision with scientific > > rationality. We are open to good evidence and sound argument as a matter of > > principle, and are generally willing to follow wherever they may lead. > > Certain of us have made careers out of bemoaning the failure of religious > > people to adopt this same attitude. > > > > However, I recently stumbled upon an example of secular intransigence that > > may give readers a sense of how religious people feel when their beliefs > > are criticized. It's not a perfect analogy, as you will see, but the > > rigorous research I've conducted at dinner parties suggests that it is > > worth thinking about. We can call the phenomenon "the fireplace delusion." > > > > On a cold night, most people consider a well-tended fire to be one of the > > more wholesome pleasures that humanity has produced. A fire, burning safely > > within the confines of a fireplace or a woodstove, is a visible and > > tangible source of comfort to us. We love everything about it: the warmth, > > the beauty of its flames, andââ¬"unless one is allergic to smokeââ¬"the > > smell that it imparts to the surrounding air. > > > > I am sorry to say that if you feel this way about a wood fire, you are not > > only wrong but dangerously misguided. I mean to seriously convince you of > > thisââ¬"so you can consider it in part a public service > > announcementââ¬"but please keep in mind that I am drawing an analogy. I > > want you to be sensitive to how you feel, and to notice the resistance you > > begin to muster as you consider what I have to say. > > > > Because wood is among the most natural substances on earth, and its use as > > a fuel is universal, most people imagine that burning wood must be a > > perfectly benign thing to do. Breathing winter air scented by wood smoke > > seems utterly unlike puffing on a cigarette or inhaling the exhaust from a > > passing truck. But this is an illusion. > > > > Here is what we know from a scientific point of view: There is no amount of > > wood smoke that is good to breathe. It is at least as bad for you as > > cigarette smoke, and probably much worse. (One study found it to be 30 > > times more potent a carcinogen.) The smoke from an ordinary wood fire > > contains hundreds of compounds known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, > > teratogenic, and irritating to the respiratory system. Most of the > > particles generated by burning wood are smaller than one micronââ¬"a size > > believed to be most damaging to our lungs. In fact, these particles are so > > fine that they can evade our mucociliary defenses and travel directly into > > the bloodstream, posing a risk to the heart. Particles this size also > > resist gravitational settling, remaining airborne for weeks at a time. > > > > Once they have exited your chimney, the toxic gases (e.g. benzene) and > > particles that make up smoke freely pass back into your home and into the > > homes of others. (Research shows that nearly 70 percent of chimney smoke > > reenters nearby buildings.) Children who live in homes with active > > fireplaces or woodstoves, or in areas where wood burning is common, suffer > > a higher incidence of asthma, cough, bronchitis, nocturnal awakening, and > > compromised lung function. Among adults, wood burning is associated with > > more-frequent emergency room visits and hospital admissions for respiratory > > illness, along with increased mortality from heart attacks. The inhalation > > of wood smoke, even at relatively low levels, alters pulmonary immune > > function, leading to a greater susceptibility to colds, flus, and other > > respiratory infections. All these effects are borne disproportionately by > > children and the elderly. > > > > The unhappy truth about burning wood has been scientifically established to > > a moral certainty: That nice, cozy fire in your fireplace is bad for you. > > It is bad for your children. It is bad for your neighbors and their > > children. Burning wood is also completely unnecessary, because in the > > developed world we invariably have better and cleaner alternatives for > > heating our homes. If you are burning wood in the United States, Europe, > > Australia, or any other developed nation, you are most likely doing so > > recreationallyââ¬"and the persistence of this habit is a major source of > > air pollution in cities throughout the world. In fact, wood smoke often > > contributes more harmful particulates to urban air than any other source. > > > > In the developing world, the burning of solid fuel in the home is a genuine > > scourge, second only to poor sanitation as an environmental health risk. In > > 2000, the World Health Organization estimated that it caused nearly 2 > > million premature deaths each yearââ¬"considerably more than were caused > > by traffic accidents. > > > > I suspect that many of you have already begun to marshal counterarguments > > of a sort that will be familiar to anyone who has debated the validity and > > usefulness of religion. Here is one: Human beings have warmed themselves > > around fires for tens of thousands of years, and this practice was > > instrumental in our survival as a species. Without fire there would be no > > material culture. Nothing is more natural to us than burning wood to stay > > warm. > > > > True enough. But many other things are just as naturalââ¬"such as dying > > at the ripe old age of thirty. Dying in childbirth is eminently natural, as > > is premature death from scores of diseases that are now preventable. > > Getting eaten by a lion or a bear is also your birthrightââ¬"or would be, > > but for the protective artifice of civilizationââ¬"and becoming a meal > > for a larger carnivore would connect you to the deep history of our species > > as surely as the pleasures of the hearth ever could. For nearly two > > centuries the divide between what is naturalââ¬"and all the needless > > misery that entailsââ¬"and what is good has been growing. Breathing the > > fumes issuing from your neighbor's chimney, or from your own, now falls on > > the wrong side of that divide. > > > > The case against burning wood is every bit as clear as the case against > > smoking cigarettes. Indeed, it is even clearer, because when you light a > > fire, you needlessly poison the air that everyone around you for miles must > > breathe. Even if you reject every intrusion of the "nanny state," you > > should agree that the recreational burning of wood is unethical and should > > be illegal, especially in urban areas. By lighting a fire, you are creating > > pollution that you cannot dispose. It might be the clearest day of the > > year, but burn a sufficient quantity of wood and the air in the vicinity of > > your home will resemble a bad day in Beijing. Your neighbors should not > > have to pay the cost of this archaic behavior of yours. And there is no way > > they can transfer this cost to you in a way that would preserve their > > interests. Therefore, even libertarians should be willing to pass a law > > prohibiting the recreational burning of wood in favor of cleaner > > alternatives (like > gas). > > > > I have discovered that when I make this case, even to highly intelligent > > and health-conscious men and women, a psychological truth quickly becomes > > as visible as a pair of clenched fists: They do not want to believe any of > > it. Most people I meet want to live in a world in which wood smoke is > > harmless. Indeed, they seem committed to living in such a world, regardless > > of the facts. To try to convince them that burning wood is harmfulââ¬"and > > has always been soââ¬"is somehow offensive. The ritual of burning wood is > > simply too comforting and too familiar to be reconsidered, its consolation > > so ancient and ubiquitous that it has to be benign. The > > alternativeââ¬"burning gas over fake logsââ¬"seems a sacrilege. > > > > And yet, the reality of our situation is scientifically unambiguous: If you > > care about your family's health and that of your neighbors, the sight of a > > glowing hearth should be about as comforting as the sight of a diesel > > engine idling in your living room. It is time to break the spell and burn > > gasââ¬"or burn nothing at all. > > > > Of course, if you are anything like my friends, you will refuse to believe > > this. And that should give you some sense of what we are up against > > whenever we confront religion. > > > > > >  Ã > > > > >  >
