Share,

I think you make a great case for taking care of yourself (diet and exercise), 
getting enough rest, and if you feel tired in the afternoon, take a nap. I am 
on board with all of that.

We are both welcome to our own interpretations of what part meditation plays in 
that. If it is something you value and enjoy it is none of my business. 

It was Maharishi's claim that I disagree with. I don't see any connection with 
what you said below with knowledge being different in different states of C. I 
suspect even at your most unsettled and unrested, if I asked you about 
something you know about, you would just answer me just as you do when you are 
feeling better. That is because your knowledge isn't different in different 
states of consciousness. That our variable feelings are different in different 
states would make a better case than about our "knowledge" being different. All 
we can say is that we feel better or worse at different times, and our body's 
state seems to affect this. The variable of how much consciousness I am 
experiencing at any one time seems like a very small variable among more 
important factors.

How much I care about something is the biggest predictor of how rich my 
knowledge is and given something I care about, I will fight through any fatigue 
factor to do it as much justice as I can to a subject I care about.

Again, we are just talking here. It is a great way to sort out thoughts isn't 
it?
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :

 Curtis and Steve, I'm also just thinking out loud, sort of fumbling around 
with all this. Because KISIC and KIDIDSOC always resonated with me as being 
true. They felt right. But it's also fun to try and reason them out as well. 
But as I said, I'm just fumbling around, exploring, also sort of playing with 
words and our accepted meaning of them.
 

 As I've said before, I don't really think in terms of higher and lower states 
of consciousness. I think of more developed brain states, meaning, more of the 
brain functioning in a very healthy way. Which I think would automatically be 
of benefit to the world. I'm assuming that if most of a person's brain was 
functioning in a very healthy way, then that is how they would behave. It seems 
like a reasonable assumption to me. 

 

 More fumbling, but here's an example from my life and I'm not claiming any 
higher SOC. But I do know that when I'm rested, when my physiology is settled, 
I feel more in harmony with the people around me. And I treat them more 
positively. That's a major value for me, and I think for them too.  OTOH, if 
I'm upset or distracted, I can't even be with them as completely, so my 
knowledge of them at that moment, is incomplete and therefore not as valuable 
for either of us in terms of living a rich human life.    

 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 1:09 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Okay, let's put it on the table: UFOs
 
 
   

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

 Share, 

 I agree that there is some conflating here of mental abilities and "knowledge".

C: You mean by Maharishi in his examples, right? He started the comparison 
which you are labeling conflation.

 

 S: I think it is the typical apple/orange thing.
 

 The way the concept was presented by Maharishi was the obvious difference 
between waking, sleeping, and dreaming states of consciousness which we note in 
every day experience.

C: That was another example he used. The clear and foggy, tired not tired 
example was also his. Of course saying that these are different mental states 
doesn't really make any practical case for how it might apply to our daily life 
which is why he needed to extend the example. Saying that our "knowledge" is 
different in deep sleep is a bit of a stretch because it is a state of zero 
consciousness. So it isn't that the knowledge is different as much as the 
knower is gone. In dreams we also have a very altered sense of self so there 
really isn't a parallel there either. It isn't that our knowledge, which is by 
his definition experience and understanding.The understanding part is missing 
because the experience is not organized as it is in waking state. So saying 
that these are different style experience does nothing to establish the 
principle he is attempting to establish, that "knowledge" is structured in 
"consciousness." The best he does is to point out that to know anything we must 
be aware and to know specific things we must be aware of those things and be in 
a state of mind capable of that. Not exactly an enlightened news flash.

 

 C: But where it gets interesting is when you consider the fourth, fifth, 
sixth, and seventh states, and how knowledge is perceived or acquired, 
differently in those states.
 

 But, if you don't buy into the reality of those states, then it is easy to 
dismiss the theory.

C: You can have had the experience of altered states without buying into them 
as higher states. If you have done heavy rounding you know that you can alter 
your mental functioning. What it means is the issue. And in all my own 
experience I can't find an example of my "knowledge" being different, just my 
experience of my own mental functioning. The understanding was being pumped in 
by hours of lectures of Maharishi trying to convince me how I should interpret 
the experience and its value and meaning. I had the same beliefs throughout the 
process of changing internal experience, there was not change in my knowledge. 
Then when my "knowledge" changed again and I rejected his teaching I could 
still experience the states I had when I was a believer, they are not connected.

 

 S: After all, they are subjective by nature, so if someone says "prove it", 
you may be hard pressed to do so.

C: If this was the kind of state extolled by Maharishi, the highest state of 
human development, there would be plenty of proof. Maharishi gave lots of 
examples of how we would see results in activity, he was not poo pooing proof 
for his claims, he as boldly claiming it could be proven.

His confidence has not held up to scrutiny over time. Maharishi was using a 
philosophical proof system to make his case. I am showing that it is a flawed 
one. Proof by analogy isn't valid, analogies are a way to explain something you 
have proven in another way.

In the beginning he could claim that people just didn't have the experience so 
no noticeable results could be shown to prove his claim. Now we have people 
claiming to be in these higher states. So now it turns out that even if 
knowledge IS structured in consciousness, other than self satisfaction, nothing 
is changed in their "knowledge" that does anyone else any good at all. It is 
indistinguishable from someone saying, "now that Jesus has saved me and I have 
eternal life, everything in my life is unfolding in God's perfect plan." So the 
idea of the value of knowledge is reduced to: 
" I feel good about myself now." Did it really take years of practice to 
achieve that? And isn't the concept of the value of human knowledge much more 
than that?

This is a great topic no matter where you stand on it, thanks for pitching in 
Steve. I am just thinking out loud here, sorting out my own perspective by 
expressing it. 










 

 On the other hand, you have someone like Barry owning up to having such 
experiences, but placing no particular importance to them.
 

 You have someone like Michael, who has waxed on about traversing the whole 
field of those higher states of consciousness, but then deciding that doing so 
sort of invalidates his oft repeated assumption that the technique doesn't work.
 

 So, I'm not sure what is going on with these guys. 
 

 It sounds to me that at least those two have already implicated themselves as 
to verifying that "knowledge is different in different states of consciousness"
 

 Barry said as much this morning.  
 

 Now, the fact that this seems to put him at odds with what Curtis is saying, 
may require him to backtrack some.  Or more likely, he doesn't really care.
 

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

 

 

 

 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