--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote:
I don't like the insto-get-out clause that magic gives you. Then you might enjoy the Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson books starting with Peter and Star Catchers. That was what I liked about them. No easy outs. I mean, even the use of the dolphins who could communicate and the treacherous mermaids were pretty consistent in what they could and could not do. We had them as audio books and remained pretty riveted on some long drives. http://www.davebarry.com/books-by-type.php?type=Young <http://www.davebarry.com/books-by-type.php?type=Young> Adult > I saw the Lord of the Rings movies and almost really enjoyed > them - part 2 was sublime actually - Trouble was the magic, in > the first episode the main hobbit gets a spear the size of a > telegraph pole right through his chest pinning him to a concrete pillar! > > I thought that must be the end and got up to leave but no! He > was wearing a magic waistcoat. How it might work I don't know, > maybe some sort of quantum superposition? I guess you're supposed > to suspend your disbelief at that point but I can't, I have to have > a consistent metaphysics or I think the writer is just being lazy. > > Iain Banks does it in some of his sci-fi, one of his characters > will be in an impossible situation with no possible escape and > suddenly we find out that he's a shape shifter, which never got mentioned before, and he slides out of an air vent or something. > Lazy, lazy... > > I think if you are going to have spells then they have to be > consistently used, if Harry Potter could kill the bad guy with > a wave of his wand, why doesn't he do it from a safe distance > rather than waiting till he's hanging upside down in a cellar? > > Sorry. It's a pet peeve. > > > > ________________________________ > > From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 1:07 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > Oh my lord! That means you can't abide that English woman, Jo Rowling!!!!! > > > > Deary me no, Harry Potter and the Gob of Shite. Admittedly I > > haven't read any of the books and why my (female) friends used > > to recommend them to me I don't know, but I sat through one of the movies and wanted to gnaw my legs off after 5 minutes. > > > > I think I'm a bit too old for Voldemort being past puberty as I > > am... > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: salyavin808 > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:41 AM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi > > > > > > > > > > > > à> > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: > > > > > > > > Awww, Come on Sal, why you don't like Deepak? > > > > > > I don't like any of these guru types who make a fortune out > > > of seekers, even if it is their own choice. I don't like the > > > reliance on quantum physics as a prop for woolly thinking > > > and undeliverable promises or pushing untested folk medicine. > > > I don't like the whole "veda is truth" thing. Basically my > > > same reasons for disliking the TMO. > > > > > > I am interested in his split from the TMO though, in our old > > > tape cupboard at the academy we had a huge box of videos > > > featuring Deepak with a "not to be played" sign on them. I > > > gather he went from quite the darling to public enemy number one > > > very swiftly but I never managed to get a straight answer about > > > why from anybody. > > > > > > Usually it was that he changed Marshy's teaching (I thought it > > > was him teaching Marshy about AV) or that he made some personal > > > money out of it which TM bigwigs saw as some sort of ultimate > > > crime. Bizarrely, as they still sell no end of courses in vedic #wisdom promising a fruitful career. Maybe they were annoyed as > > > he was the only one who ever did make a buck out of the TMO. > > > I know precious few who ever got any "nature" support from that direction. > > > > > > > > > > > I know I have enjoyed his writing - especially his first fiction novel, Return of Merlin which he supposedly wrote the bulk of during the year when he was looking after the Big M subsequent to his being poisoned. I loved that novel. > > > > > > Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy > > > novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's > > > sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: salyavin808 > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:22 AM > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ãâà> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Seraphita" wrote: > > > > > > > > > If you're interested in the debate with materialists, you > > > > > could do a lot better than Chopra. He's not what I would > > > > > call a rigorous thinker. > > > > > > > > He's an asshole. > > > > > > > > > You might try Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the > > > > > Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost > > > > > Certainly False." > > > > > > > > > > Nagel got in a lot of trouble with the big-time materialists; > > > > > the book really upset them, so he must have hit close to the > > > > > bone. > > > > > > > > LOL. > > > > > > > > > >
