--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :
 
 Curtis, from your first paragraph, it sounds like you're equating knowledge 
with mental abilities. But I don't think that's what Maharishi meant. I think 
what he meant by knowledge is conclusions drawn from perceptions.

C: I agree, His definition was experience and understanding are the components 
of knowledge. In his example he doesn't keep this distinction clear. But if we 
examine your point his claim is even lamer. Once I have solid knowledge born of 
experience and understanding, I can't be rocked by any lack of sleep which was 
his example. For example I play gigs and teach all the time with very little 
sleep. It has an insignificant affect on my ability to think clearly and 
present my material because I have it rooted in lots of experience and 
understanding.


 S: One of the classical examples is that of the blind men touching different 
parts of the elephant and then coming to different conclusions about the 
identity of the object being touched in different places.

C: I don't believe more analogies help support the claim. In that case they 
lack experience and understanding both, it has nothing to do with their 
consciousness or even state of mind. I know Maharishi was fond of proof by 
analogy but it is not a valid proof. It just means you have a cute story to 
tell that is entertaining. It does not make any case about the claim.


 S: Another classic example is the snake and the string wherein the agitated 
person sees something threatening and the calm person sees something 
nonthreatening.

C: Again this is a lack of experience or understanding but says nothing about 
the state of consciousness. Both the calm person and the agitated person lacked 
information, and it was too dark for experience to kick in. The agitation may 
make a person jump to this conclusion faster but the problem was lack of 
knowledge, not a state of mind. When the person is shown it is a string they 
have just as much ability for "knowledge" as the calm man. And the reverse 
would be true too in this case. If the guy was calm with no evidence that there 
was no a snake in the dark, he could be bitten. The agitated guy might have 
survived because he was on guard when there was a lack of clear knowledge. So 
again, his analogy fails to prove anything about our state or mind being an 
advantage, it all depends on whether or not it happened to be a snake or a 
string after the fact.


 S: Even in every day life, if 10 people witness an accident, there will be 10 
different reports. And how about the party game of telephone? Why doesn't the 
message stay the same with each hearing and repeating?

C: Because we are unreliable witnesses due to a cognitive gap we have when we 
lack experience or understanding about an event. Our minds fill in gaps and 
give us a perverse confidence that we know what we are talking about as we 
describe our "experience." These points speak to the unreliability of our 
cognitive abilities across the board, but make no case that anyone in a 
"higher" state would be any better at this than we are. 

You have made a case that we have known cognitive gaps, and that with the 
influx of overwhelming data, we each pay attention to a selection of things 
combined with our perceptual biases to form our conclusions about what 
happened. There is nothing in the growth of consciousness model that even 
addresses this problem except to make the religious claim that somehow you will 
magically notice the right things about an event from the many things you could 
have noticed. (If you hung around Maharishi long enough you could see that he 
was no better than any of us at noticing things properly.)

Thanks for extending the discussion. Have I missed something about your points?

 

 

 

 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:59 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Okay, let's put it on the table: UFOs
 
 
   --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :

 
 Both the Turq's claim that he saw the Lenz-Rama-guy levitate many times and 
Curti's claim that "knowledge is not different in different states of 
consciousness" loom over these two guys forever. 

C: Nabbie with your attention to the details of what I write you could easily 
be mistaken for a fanboy.

Yes, this is one of my favorite topics and thanks for reminding me. Let's 
revisit it to see if my views have changed

I am denying that Maharishi has made a convincing case for his claim that:

Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness.

The example he used was that when we are sleepy our "knowledge" is different. 
When I was a young man, and more easily swayed by my internal feelings when 
thinking, I agreed with him. But now I do not find this to be the case. As an 
adult professional I have learned how to functions at a certain level mentally 
no matter what my level of rest or fatigue. My "knowledge" is not significantly 
affected. Being more likely to forget something can happen. But this is a long 
way from the breadth of this claim. I would say that fatigue exerts no more 
than a 10% influence over my mental abilities. So the comparison falls flat in 
my experience. Are you really incapable of doing your job well if you are 
tired? Does it make that much of a difference in your functioning really? You 
might enjoy it less but that is a different claim.

And as far as extending this into the so called "higher states" as if this 
analogy would prove anything about them even if it were true, I call bullshit. 
I have seen nothing from any of the so called enlightened guys, Maharishi 
included, that couldn't be replicated from anyone familiar with their use of 
language and a Hinduism 101 course.

Light some incense:

"The mind is a shallow boat surrounded by the ocean of infinity. The mind 
experiences pleasure and pain, It associates with the objects of perception 
which sells out the infinite full potential of their inner nature for a 
localized, finite experience. When the mind expands into its limitless source, 
it becomes one with that infinite nature, and takes on the qualities of 
truth,consciousness and bliss awareness, beyond the limitations of space and 
time. This is what the ancient rishis called Sat Chit Ananda."

You guess who wrote that from the "knowledge" it contains. Is there anything in 
those words that would make it impossible for the writer to be in waking state? 
Is there something so different from what a person who was not experiencing 
that reality could write, if they knew the language form and structure of the 
claims in that philosophy? Can you really tell if that was real or Memorex?

So Nabbie, you defend your teachers assertion that he did not prove. He just 
asserted it. Now is your moment to show how your elevated consciousness has 
such a superior state of knowledge, that you can turn my objections to ashes 
before my eyes. Being scornful of my objections is not an argument. Show us why 
we should accept that knowledge is different in different states of 
consciousness without resorting to the proof by bogus analogy, blatant 
unsupported assertion, or appeal to the authority of Hindu holy books that 
Maharishi tried. Do your guru a solid and help him make his case for the 
infidels. 

But we both know that no one can because you just bought into a belief that 
doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  

Same 3 choices every time you take a swing at me. You can defend your belief 
with reasoned argument to convince me where what I wrote was wrong somehow or 
missing an important point, you can follow angry Jim and go ad hominem as he 
recently did AGAIN, or you can slink away to take another sucker punch another 
day, never defending your position or refuting mine with reason, like an 
internet troll. 






It's a good thing that Richard keep reminding every possible lurker here how 
far out of any possible self-insight these two guy's are.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote :

 On 11/15/2014 4:23 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote:

   Sal is adjusting his speak every day now. Watch out, one of these days he'll 
even retract his extremely silly judgements on the Crop Circles.


 >
 "Adjusting his speak" - that's a good one! Apparently he already believes in 
tall tales - he has yet to reply to Barry's levitation claims about Rama. Go 
figure.
 
 "And I don't just mean explaining things away, to be convincing you have to 
show that something more realistic happened, more credible and using 
explanations we already understand and are known to happen in certain 
circumstances." - salyavin808
 >
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
<no_re...@yahoogroups.com> mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
<sharelong60@...> mailto:sharelong60@... wrote :
 
 Salyavin, I love your last paragraph: folklore in action; techno ghost stories 
for the nuclear age. As for me, I believe there is life somewhere else in the 
vast universe. And I think they are more highly advanced than us and maybe here 
with us. And I think it's great. 
 

 We can believe what we like. I have no opinion on intelligent life elsewhere, 
we don't know the variables that allow for it to develop. We could be unique or 
the universe could be teeming or maybe there's just one or two per galaxy over 
it's entire history. But the chances of there being other humanoids visiting 
Earth at the just same time as we've understood where we are cosmically? It 
beggars belief. Alien craft is the least likely explanation for UFO's. But I 
hope it's true.
 

 But at that point, I'm more like turq. It doesn't really impact my life one 
way or the other. Either way, what is the action step? (-:

 

 I don't know, just enjoy the ride, the evolving myth. We are apparently on the 
brink of something called "disclosure". We've been here before a few times as I 
recall, it never amounts to much but it's fun watching the TB's get excited 
that their favourite daydream is to be officially confirmed. 
 
 
 But it won't be, the UFO's won't land and Maitreya won't appear. It's the way 
of things. The connection between the two is that people want there to be more, 
want there to be a reason and for there to be salvation from a higher power, 
whether it's alien or spiritual. We're talking deep human needs here.
 
 
 From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 3:06 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Okay, let's put it on the table: UFOs
 
 
   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
<no_re...@yahoogroups.com> mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 Sal doesn't like UFO's because they aren't scientific :-)
 

 It's an interesting point Nabs. The thing is one can only get scientific about 
something if it is available to study, UFO's are so fleeting and ephemeral that 
there really isn't anything to study other than hearsay or suspiciously absent 
film taken by higher powers to keep the whole thing secret.
 
 
 But a great many people have studied what they can about UFO sightings, and 
done it with as much rigour as you can with such a paucity of hard evidence. 
I'm not sure there is an encounter that hasn't got a better explanation that 
doesn't involve us being visited by beings from another world. And I don't just 
mean explaining things away, to be convincing you have to show that something 
more realistic happened, more credible and using explanations we already 
understand and are known to happen in certain circumstances. Even testing soil 
damage and skin burns for alternative causes. People are being scientific about 
UFO's.
 
 
 But here's the thing you overlook in your quip, I've been interested in UFO's 
for as long as I remember, I've a got a shelf full of the classic books on the 
subject. Even the true believer stuff from "serious" researchers like Timothy 
Good and the abductionists like Bud Hopkins. I bet I know all the great 
encounters by heart - Cortile, Ramirez, Roswell, Pascagoula, Ilkley Moor, 
Rendlesham...
 
 
 I love it but I don't take it at face value. To me, UFO's are folklore in 
action. The evolving myth of abduction and what they are supposedly doing here 
are the legends of our time, a new religion, encapsulating our fears about 
technology and promising us freedom from our destructive ways, yet always 
remaining remarkably evidence free. There's always a new vision to add to the 
mythos but conveniently never any hard evidence to help decide one way or the 
other. And the longer that scenario goes on the more convinced any casual 
observer should be that we are kidding ourselves, because deep down we like 
ghost stories and that's really what they are. Something scary always just out 
of reach. Techno ghost stories for the nuclear age.
 

 

 Former Astronaut Explains The UFO Cover-Up 2013 1080p HD
 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AAJ34_NMcI
 
 Former Astronaut Explains The UFO Cover-Up 2013 ... Edgar Dean Mitchell, Sc.D. 
is an American pilot, retired Captain in the United States Navy and NASA 
astronaut. As the lunar module pilot of Apollo 14, ...


 
 View on www.youtube.com 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

 

 

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
<steve.sundur@...> mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote :
 
 I didn't really read what sal has written below, but I think the gist of it 
is, that he doesn't like the person who coined the word "flying saucer" 
 
 Is that what his dissertation is about this time?
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
<no_re...@yahoogroups.com> mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 
 There is not one astronaut who has NOT reported seeing UFO's, sometimes huge 
and in large nubers, back to NASA and/or their families.
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
<no_re...@yahoogroups.com> mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
<no_re...@yahoogroups.com> mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 If Gordon is not crazy, then the American government is purposefully, 
mindfully, ABSOLUTELY evil.
 
 If there are aliens visiting us and we're not being told -- it robs every 
person on Earth.
 
 EVERY PERSON ON EARTH.
 
 Neither you, nor I, nor anyone ever could possibly be who we are now if we 
knew that UFOs are real.
 
 IT. WOULD. CHANGE. EVERYTHING.
 
 And that's why it might be kept a secret -- the concept "money" would be 
bereft of allure.
 
 If you say that it would NOT be "all that much of a big deal, cuz everyone's 
so inured already by Hollywood films," then YOU DON'T KNOW JACK SHIT ABOUT 
PSYCHOLOGY.
 
 Every person in every way:  changed.
 
 
 Agreed. Luckily I don;t suppose it will come to that. Which is a shame as I'd 
be the happiest person on Earth if it turned out that UFO's were alien 
spacecraft, but the truth of sightings always turns out to be more mundane.
 
 
 Take the name "flying saucers", everyone sees saucer shaped craft but the name 
is a mistake from the first encounter anyone had. Kenneth Arnold (an 
experienced pilot) saw a squadron of highly reflective crescent shaped aircraft 
flying at great speed in a V formation over the Rocky mountains in 1947. He 
described them as flying like a saucer would if skipped across water. 
 
 
 A journalist made up the name flying saucer and after that everyone saw saucer 
shaped craft when they saw something mysterious in the sky. The power of 
suggestion. Sadly there's no such thing as a reliable witness and any one can 
be fooled, Arnold most likely saw a flock of pelicans and mistook them for 
unknown aircraft and miscalculated their distance from him. We all make 
mistakes but the influence his mistake had is immeasurable. 
 
 
 Because we people are so unreliable, if I had to bet I would say that Cooper 
saw some atmospheric effect from flying at supersonic speed that no one had 
noticed before and mistook it for real craft moving above him. 
 
 
 And early radar was hopelessly unreliable, the UK air defence system in the 
cold war was always telling us that giant UFOs were crossing the north sea but 
when planes were scrambled to look it turned out to have been temperature 
inversions confusing the equipment. When these anomalies were understood and 
ironed out UFO reports stopped coming in. It's the way it goes, people see 
stuff and imagination plugs any gaps, popular culture is rife with imagery that 
came before the sightings. I can't trust myself let alone anyone else!
 
 
 I would like to see this film they took though but, I don't suppose we ever 
will. That's the way 

(Message over 64 KB, truncated) 
































 


 









Reply via email to