--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Apples and oranges, Judy. If Lawson were saying he > > > had *witnessed* true levitation, then we'd be comparing > > > apples to apples. As far as I remember, he hasn't. I > > > have. For me, the phenomenon is part of my subjective > > > experience. I need no "objective" verification of it, > > > no more than I do for any other subjective experience > > > I've had in my life. And I have no need to try to > > > convince anyone it was "true." > > > > You got rather pissed off, as I recall, when Shemp > > expressed skepticism awhile back. > > You recall incorrectly. Nothing anyone has *ever* > said on FFL has ever gotten me "pissed off."
Not that you're willing to admit to, at any rate, the evidence of your obviously pissed-off attacks on Shemp notwithstanding. I think > you're projecting again. :-) > > > You may not need > > "objective" verification, but you're very firmly > > attached to the notion that your *subjective* > > experience was something more than fantasy on your > > part. > > Nope. If it was a fantasy, it was a rather persistent > one, but that's always possible. What amuses me is > the attempt by people such as yourself and Shemp to > *label* it a fantasy Ooopsy-daisy. Nope, I never labeled your experience a fantasy. That was Shemp, and you rather viciously attacked him for it. > because the experiences of some- > one who has witnessed levitation don't jibe with the > theories of someone (yourselves) who have not. :-) Pas moi, mon vieux. I'm agnostic both about the kind of levitation you claim you witnessed subjectively, and about the kind that would register on film. > > > Lawson is talking about a *theoretical* way of verifying > > > something he has never witnessed. He's talking about a > > > theoretical way that someone who believes in something > > > could use to convince someone else that the something > > > is real. I guess that photos are a nice enough way to > > > do that, > > > > You'd need more than photos (or film, for that > > matter) for convincing purposes, obviously, because > > they can be faked. The point of mentioning photos > > is to define the nature of the performance, i.e., it > > will show up on film, not just in your mind. For > > convincing, you would have to have "live" performance > > and objective measurements. > > NOTHING you could come up with in the realm of "proof" > would EVER convince 40% of the people on the planet > that levitation was real. Get over it. THAT is a > fantasy. > > (got bored with the subject, snipt the rest...you > can project your own reasons onto why...my reason > is that this morning it's bright an sunny and > unseasonably warm here and entering into *any* > discussion with you seems like more of a waste > of time than usual...so argue among yourself if > you need an argument, ok? :-) Actually your reason is that you decided you couldn't deal with my challenge to your argument about nothing ever convincing people. Just for fun, I'm going to reproduce it below: > if what is important to you in life is convinc- > ing other people that what you believe is some kinda > "Truth," [Added today: Remember that *you* introduced the idea of convincing people. Lawson was talking about criteria. Two different issues.] but it seems like a waste of time to me. The > bottom line is that people are going to believe what > they want to believe -- no amount of "evidence" that > you show them is going to convince them to believe > anything that they *don't* want to believe. But it isn't black and white, you see. There are different degrees of resistance, and repeated exposure to objective evidence can whittle it down. You could be absolutely convinced to start with that flying isn't possible, but it's going to be hard to maintain that belief if people are flying all around you on a regular basis. That's one end of the scale. In the middle, you may be willing to believe it's possible, and then become convinced once you see people flying. And on the other end of the scale, a Yogic Flying practitioner who is convinced it's possible *except in the gut*--as we were talking about earlier--is likely to give up the gut resistance if s/he's doing group program and sees others flying. I mean, we believe a lot of stuff about how the world works that isn't true largely because everybody *else* believes it--consensus reality. An individual's belief system isn't a closed loop; it's open to external influence. > But don't let any of that stop you in your ongoing > attempts to impose what you believe on the world as some > kind of "Truth." *Somebody's* got to be the obligatory > religious fanatic on this group...might as well be you. :-) But see, I could make exactly the same argument even if I were totally convinced it *wasn't* possible to fly. As usual, you're making an unwarranted assumption for the sake of being able to come up with a putdown. As it happens, I'm agnostic (except for those instants I described during the practice). All I'm doing here is showing that your argument doesn't hold up. Maybe there are *better* arguments that do, but yours doesn't fill the bill. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
