Yep, the data always gets in, in the same way, every time. But to hold onto what makes sense after the moment is gone, is attachment. The same data, as used for continuous learning and discovery, is instead used to reinforce a limited identity, a belief system. Like a transmission trying to operate, with glue in the gears. Attachment.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > but but but, Doc...all observations and therefore all learning are filtered > through our preconceived notions, our conditioning, the physical condition of > our brains and bodies, and if nothing else, our sense of who we like to think > we are, probably the most insidious of all. Maybe why we like jyotish so much > (-: > > > > > ________________________________ > From: "doctordumbass@..." <doctordumbass@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 7:33 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: RD's astrological analysis > > > > Â > No - Beliefs are based on attachment. *Learning* is built on observations. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > salyavin, I know of two jyotishis who made predictions about the last US > > election. Yep, one chose Obama and one chose Romney. Does that mean that > > Obama chooser is the better jyotishi? And what if it does? Why does that > > matter? Because basically we humans want to be happy. So even when we're > > infants, we become little scientists, observing what we need to do in order > > to be happy, making adjustments here and there along the way. We could even > > use turq's analogy of surfing the waves. We all want to be happy while > > surfing the waves of life. > > > > Now Adyashanti says deeper than the > > impulse to seek pleasure and avoid pain is the impulse to awaken. Whoops, > > I got into rereading his book The End of Your World.ÃÂ He also says that > > you can't have truth without love and you can't have love without truth. > > But I guess this is off topic ha ha. > > > > > > Anyway, at this point I'm wondering about knowledge and science and > > belief. Firstly I think we all agree that there are only probabilities > > of certainty. Meaning that not even science knows anything with 100% > > certainty. It seems like the main difference is that some thinkers think > > that direct observation is the way to the most valid knowledge. While > > other thinkers think that the knowledge of trusted others also has high > > validity. One assumes that that is also based on observation. > > > > Meaning, aren't even beliefs based on observations? > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: salyavin808 <fintlewoodlewix@> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 1:27 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: RD's astrological analysis > > > > > > > > ÃÂ > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.ravi@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Oh dear scientific salyavin, > > > > > > I am the only one who's doing the heavy lifting in favor of astrology > > > here and I wasn't even too interested in the first place. I have clearly > > > articulated the scope, parameters of how I use astrology and the goals I > > > have. Considering the limitations of astrology and the reputation of > > > astrology I have a very scientific approach that you should be proud of > > > salyavin !!! > > > > > > You surely missed the generous compliments Ann, raunchy, Share, Steve, > > > Jim, LG, empty bill and others (non-active posters) offline have directed > > > my way. Surely this is not some dumb, naive audience I'm dealing with > > > here. > > > > Generous compliments mean nothing as far as whether astrology has any > > actual reality outside of you saying nice things about people you've > > been interacting with for *years* on a chat forum. That people believe > > it is no surprise to me, people still believe in god etc. People can > > be weird in how they chose to see the world. Approval, eternal life > > and predictability are going to feature pretty high on most people > > wish list of things they'd like to be true. > > > > That you may have a handle on personality analysis says nothing > > about the working of horoscopes as they are open to interpretation. > > > > As I say, to convince a sceptic like moi you need to make predictions > > so we can see how it fares against the randomness of reality. What > > was the one I suggested the other day? > > > > > You must suffer from some Oppositional defiance disorder? > > > > I "suffer" from Inability to suspend disbelief due to lack of > > evidence order. The more I look into it the less convinced I am. > > > > > > > > As Barry would say - what purpose does it solve? Whose suffering are you > > > helping to resolve? > > > > > > John will come across as stupid with his predictions. No one can > > > legislate reality, no one has an insight into reality. That's what > > > happens studying with that idiot Sanjay. > > > > "no one has an insight into reality" Ah, here's something we agree on. > > > > > > > > I said I don't know how astrology was cognized, I don't care how it works > > > - it does, but your arguments are irrelevant. > > > > Not if you want to understand how it works. "Cognized" is a great word, I > > love how it supplants "worked out" in the minds of new agers. > > No more do we have to test hypotheses against heavily checked data, > > someone has "cognized" the truth! > > > > But I shouldn't be harsh, ideas can come from anywhere, all science > > starts with a guess, but ideas have to be tested against reality > > and this is where astrology fails as you yourself admit. > > > > Remember, the plural of anecdote is *not* data. People believing > > things is *not* evidence. Double blind testing is the only way > > to work out what is from what isn't and it's been done hilariously > > with astrology many times. People can't pick out their horoscopes > > from other peoples. In one test loads of people were given the same > > reading and asked how accurate it was, guess what? They all rated > > it as highly accurate. Simple psychology, we see what we want to > > see and fill in the cracks without realising. > > > > Astrology is people thinking about people. It's anthropomorphism > > taken to it's ultimate conclusion and includes actual planets > > and stars - except they are really avatars acting in the same way! > > Good dodge whoever thought of that ;-) > > > > > > > > They assigned certain inner qualities on to planets and yes they use the > > > actual mathematical calculations and astronomy. Apparently it has some > > > validity, no one has ever been disappointed with my interpretations. > > > > No, of course they haven't. But it isn't a proof that astrology > > is a science based on positions of stars and planets. It's *you* Ravi. > > > > As Richard would say - go figure, LoL! > > > > I'm trying but it doesn't work. Must be my mahadashum do you think? > > >