--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn" <emilymae.reyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > (snip> > > > > I see traditional systems as an attempt to define that > > > > mystery within their POV. I believe it is premature to > > > > buy into that. Not to ignore their input, but not jump > > > > the gun and interpret inner experience of altered states > > > > within their framework. I think we are babies at this > > > > and many people act like they don't know this. Altered > > > > states may not be higher states at all. > > > > > > > > EM: Perhaps this take is what Judy disagrees with. > > > > > > First, just to be clear, what I was objecting to in Curtis's > > > previous post--the one that triggered a heated discussion-- > > > were not the kind of things he's said in this one. > > > > > > As to his paragraph above, it should be noted that human > > > beings have been interpreting inner experience of altered > > > states for many millennia; we're hardly "babies at this." > > > > "We are babies at interpreting them through the knowledge > > base we have on brain states and psychology today. > > Oh, you didn't specify that.
And you didn't get that from my references to brain states and neurotransmitters? Of course I was talking about a modern understanding with all that it implies. > > > So yes neuroscience is in its infancy and we are gunna need > > that info to evaluate the value of these states. > > Or (much more likely, IMHO) we're never going to get a > meaningful evaluation of these states from neuroscience. So we will see. According to Maharishi's model we already have made some headway here so you must be referring to a different system. In his system there was a full expectation of higher states linked to brain functioning and he believed it could be known this way. > > > > Other than that, what he says is too vague and general for > > > me to say whether I agree or disagree with it. I will say > > > I don't think it much matters what ontological framework > > > one uses to explicate higher states of consciousness (by > > > which I mean those resulting from meditation and other > > > spiritually oriented practices of the Eastern traditions)-- > > > as long as the framework isn't imposed on others or used > > > to exalt groups or individuals above others. > > > > So you are not interested in accuracy all of a sudden? > > Huh? > > > You don't want to really know with more certainty, you are > > happy with any version of interpretation. So seeing your > > meditation as opening you up to demon possession which is > > the fundamentalist's view is equal to your understanding > > from Maharishi? > > Huh?? > > Think you could come up with a few more non sequiturs? > > (Which Eastern fundamentalists, by the way, claim that > meditation opens you up to demon possession?) Did I say Eastern? Non Sequitur to the point. Would you need me to find an Eastern one? OK, the Thugg hash smokers. Just as good as the TM model? > > > > (snip) > > > > > TM was a very regimented system in how we were trained > > > > > in a vocabulary for how to express our experiences. > > > > > At first this was very exhilarating and allowed us to > > > > > share our inner lives with a shared word and phrase > > > > > group. But now I see it as a limited language of > > > > > groups like TM, providing more emotional experience of > > > > > understanding something due to pattern recognition > > > > > instead of actually, deeply thinking about how to > > > > > express inner experience outside the buzz words. So I > > > > > am at once handicapped by my experience and positively > > > > > affected by having taken it all so far that I realize > > > > > that mystical subjective experience is something > > > > > interesting. But not necessarily in the way that the > > > > > groups think of it. > > > > > > > > EM: Interesting. Judy may disagree with you here also > > > > > > I don't have much tolerance for the kind of psychobabble > > > Curtis is into these days; I don't think it has much to > > > do with the TM experience on its own terms. Or to put it > > > another way, I don't think psychobabble serves to > > > elucidate the nature of or reason for TM-babble. > > > > I purposely did not put this in Lifton's terms to avoid > > this criticism. > > Gosh, I don't think I said anything about Lifton's terms, > did I? Gosh that point doesn't matter does it? I was explaining how I was using it and how I chose it to avoid this predictable charge. > > > This is simple linguistic philosophy as well as anthropology. > > OK, "simple-linguistic-philosophy-babble" and "anthropology- > babble." So you are an anti -intellectual like Jim huh? All human knowledge like anthropology and linguistic philosophy is just babble to you? That all just BOOK learn'n! > > > Our use of language defines our sense of what is real > > and can confine us to a POV if we are speaking in > > specialized jargon as is used in the movement. > > On this level of abstract experience, what does it > matter what the "POV" is? Because POV shapes not only the abstract experiences and affects which ones we remember, but more importantly the meaning we assign them when we have them. For example if you define Unity as Supreme Knowledge, it ranks it. > > > > Here's an example of the latter: > > > > > > "...clear transcending, witnessing transcending, witnessing > > > the celestial level, realizing that what you are experiencing > > > as outside you is actually the same unboundeness as your own > > > Self, having that thread of unity woven into the cloth of > > > Brahaman as even those things not directly perceived are > > > enveloped by your Self..." > > > > > > Obviously these are incredibly abstract experiences that > > > have virtually nothing to do with everyday experience or > > > even of garden-variety altered states. To refer to this > > > kind of description as "providing more emotional > > > experience of understanding something due to pattern > > > recognition" strikes me as an attempt to force it into an > > > inappropriate psychological mold, to demystify the > > > mystical and thereby delegitimize it. > > > > The whole progress of human knowledge has been to demystify > > what was mystical. Or do you think that it would be better > > to view the sun's motion as Indra pulling it across the sky > > in a chariot instead of planetary gravitational theory? > > Huh??? What does Indra's chariot have to do with the kind > of experiences you cited that I quoted? That's *mythical*, > not "mystical." > > Haven't you had your coffee yet, Curtis? Are you unaware that Maharishi maintains that this was a literal perception of the Rishis? Oh yeah, you didn't study that did you? >
