[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Well, the Hindu belief system does. And I guess as a pseudo-outcaste Hindu you might share the belief that all is well and wisely put, that no child dying in pain didn't earn it in a past life. And as much as I find that view repugnant, it doesn't rise to the level of deceptive communication as asserting that any of this nonsense is scientifically based. Curtis, you can do better than that. The Hindu belief system isn't meant to be judgmental, the Hindu belief system doesn't say anything about not helping the child. Science and philosophy has no answers as to why that child is dying in pain nor does religion. Both science and religion would try to compassionately help the child in pain. The theory of Karma isn't to explain any answers, it is to learn surrender, that there are complex mysterious forces at play - as to why certain people suffer while others thrive. It empowers us to avoid the suffering that comes from pain, by holding you responsible for your suffering and providing you tools to overcome this suffering. Your perspective is well stated and reasonable. It probably represents what many educated and thoughtful Hindus believe. And like Christians who have proposed more reasonable perspectives on their religion, it ignores what the scriptures of that religion actually say. Many Hindu scriptures actually give the specific next life punishment for actions. And the reprehensible treatment of lower caste members is a direct result in their birth as a reflection of their past life's advancement. So you are better than Hinduism's teachings. That is a good thing. Curtis - for someone as intelligent and creative as you, you can again do better. You agree that religion is different than Science but you use the same yardstick to judge both which is what I have a problem with. Unlike science reason, logic cannot be used to understand religion. I do agree with your statement that religion should not use scientific terms, I think both believers like Buck and skeptics like you make a mistake by trying to integrate or invalidate the other, that they somehow have to be mutually exclusive or make sense using a similar criteria. I don't really see a need to. Even though I berate intellect I don't discard it myself. I'm a software engineer, a darn good one at work but I realize the limitations and proper use of it. I discard as soon as I am away from my computer. However when approaching religion I don't try to interpret it literally or using reason and logic. We do not use the same approach when dealing with different people, children, adults, mean, women. Hinduism is not just about caste system and retribution for actions, its not even a religion. I don't consider myself as a Hindu, I use the terms from Hinduism because I was born there I would have done different if I was a Christian. There are lot of Hindu scriptures like Tripura Rahasya and Vasishtha Yogathat don''t even address this, these are the scriptures that I have read, never came across the ones you mention. I would believe you, like the modern Hindus that you talk about, would be attracted to these rather than being fascinated with and pillorying the caste system and the like which had a specific purpose for a different mindset of people. What is it that attracts or pains you about these concepts that you quite clearly say is not in line with the modern educated Hindu thought? Why do you bother to give so much attention and try to paint it as what Hinduism is? I wonder what you are intentions are? Surely you are not living or battling in some feudal village in Northern India under the oppressive grip of upper castes?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
It is a seismically active area, with over 90 quakes this last week just in the SF Bay Area, and nearly 350 in California (www.earthquake.usgs.gov). Using this last week as an average, California will have at least 180,000 earthquakes in the next ten years. Its an easy thing to extrapolate from this and say, The Big One is coming..., but it really is a meaningless extrapolation, only suited for those who cling to their belief in an orderly Universe, using science as religion. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip When contemplating what the term The Big One could potentially mean for California, bear in mind that they are predictable. They occur in 150 to 200 year cycles. **Predictability is the holy grail that the earthquake scientists strive for. So far predicting earthquakes hasn't happened. Not for specific earthquakes, no, but statistically it can be said that California is due for a Big One within a decade or two. May or may not pan out, but that's a reasonable prediction.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
You were a philosophy major? curtisdeltablues: We spent a month on the philosophy of science... Well, I just don't get it - why on earth would anyone want to major in Philosophy at MUM? They don't even teach any Eastern Philosophy! You probably meant Western Philosophy. In order to study Eastern Philosophy, you'd have to know how to read, write, and translate at least six different languages. Most people who attend MUM can't even read and write a common prakrit. Go figure. To learn Western Philosphy, you'd need to know at least German, so you could read Hegel and Marx. LoL! 'The Open Society and its Enemies' The Spell of Plato (Vol 1) Hegel and Marx (Vol 2) By Karl Popper Routledge, 1949, 1963
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Your perspective is well stated and reasonable. It probably represents what many educated and thoughtful Hindus believe. And like Christians who have proposed more reasonable perspectives on their religion, it ignores what the scriptures of that religion actually say. Many Hindu scriptures actually give the specific next life punishment for actions. And the reprehensible treatment of lower caste members is a direct result in their birth as a reflection of their past life's advancement. So you are better than Hinduism's teachings. That is a good thing. Ravi: Curtis - for someone as intelligent and creative as you, you can again do better. You agree that religion is different than Science but you use the same yardstick to judge both which is what I have a problem with. Then I have not made myself clear. I evaluate the claims of religion by the standards of epistemology in a broader sense than the specific scientific method represents. For most religious claims that narrow method is not appropriate or productive. But people still need to have good reasons for beliefs and I find them lacking in religious claims. Ravi Unlike science reason, logic cannot be used to understand religion. Me: Here I disagree. Religious systems make claims about how the world actually is, and there is a lot of intersection with very practical concerns such as the beginning of life for the purposes of assessing whether or not contraception is a good or bad thing. It is not strictly the field of logic which applies, but the evaluation of the support for beliefs that is relevant and worthy of challenge. Ravi: I do agree with your statement that religion should not use scientific terms, Me: That was my most important point so we seem to have agreement on what had gotten me to write in the first place. Ravi I think both believers like Buck and skeptics like you make a mistake by trying to integrate or invalidate the other, that they somehow have to be mutually exclusive or make sense using a similar criteria. I don't really see a need to. Me: I know I make this point a lot but I need to say it again. Doug and I are both believers and skeptics both. These are context dependent functions of a normal human mind. No one believes everything and no one rejects everything. We are just applying different criteria as our threshold for good reasons to believe specific claims of the movement. Doug has joined me in skepticism about Rev. Moon being an incarnation of God on earth whose every utterance should be followed as scripture. He is just as skeptical as I am in that context or else he is just a really shitty moonie. Ravi Even though I berate intellect I don't discard it myself. I'm a software engineer, a darn good one at work but I realize the limitations and proper use of it. Me: As do I. As a musician and educator I am aware of a more holistic approach to intelligence. Ravi: I discard as soon as I am away from my computer. Me: I'm not sure this claim holds up. It may be just a balance a proportion. I am assuming that you aren't stopping to invest a lot of cash in 3 card Monte games on the street on your way home. Ravi: However when approaching religion I don't try to interpret it literally or using reason and logic. Me: Again it may be a function of emphasis but you certainly did use your intellect and skeptical mind in your analysis of Buddhism. Ravi: We do not use the same approach when dealing with different people, children, adults, mean, women. Hinduism is not just about caste system and retribution for actions, its not even a religion. ME: It servers as the source of religious beliefs for millions of people. And although it shouldn't be reduced to only being about the caste system, in terms of how millions of people are affected, that is an area of a massive ethical lapse from my POV. And modern India is coming to reject it as they modernize. My Indian friends face its implications when they visit their village homes of origin. Ravi: I don't consider myself as a Hindu, I use the terms from Hinduism because I was born there I would have done different if I was a Christian. There are lot of Hindu scriptures like Tripura Rahasya and Vasishtha Yogathat don''t even address this, these are the scriptures that I have read, never came across the ones you mention. I would believe you, like the modern Hindus that you talk about, would be attracted to these rather than being fascinated with and pillorying the caste system and the like which had a specific purpose for a different mindset of people. Me: People make the same argument about Southern slavery. I am not a cultural moral relativist. Cruelty doesn't have an acceptable context for me. Now that doesn't mean I
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Doug: which is corroborated by discoveries in modern physics and neuroscience, reveals an underlying cause: the build up of acute stress in the collective consciousness of societies, which fuels violence in the actions of man and imbalance in the events of nature. Me: There are scientific principles and theories in play here. The most important one is our mind's quest for order and explanation in a complex world. We see forms and shapes in random clouds and Jesus in a taco. It is what our mind does when faced with randomness or complexity. It is effortless and unconscious. The world seems like a safer, more understandable place if we can associate the thoughts we have in our heads with bad things like war and natural disasters. Oh, the opium of believing we can prevent these things from happening with our all powerful minds, like magic. And if you just spouted some religious belief that makes you feel all comfy inside, I wouldn't be tempted to write. But you had to throw in the term science, perverting its meaning in a dishonest attempt to prop up religious beliefs as if they were based on established scientific method derived theories. This is wrong. I know who you learned it from. The spin master himself. And this thoery that victimizes the victim, as if the people of Japan had it coming from all their stress and imbalance compared to any other people in the world is sick. Do you really think that all the people in the drought in Africa deserve this? Well, the Hindu belief system does. And I guess as a pseudo-outcaste Hindu you might share the belief that all is well and wisely put, that no child dying in pain didn't earn it in a past life. And as much as I find that view repugnant, it doesn't rise to the level of deceptive communication as asserting that any of this nonsense is scientifically based. Own your beliefs. You believe spiritual claims because it makes sense to you and it makes you feel good. Fair enough. But you can drop the drop the pseudo-scientific 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed posturing. It just doesn't fly anymore. Golly, what a grump. You were a philosophy major? Science grows out of doubt. Religion grows out of wonder. Between the two is philosophy; it has not yet decided -- it goes on hanging between doubt and wonder. Sometimes the philosopher doubts and sometimes the philosopher wonders: he is just in between. If he doubts too much, by and by he becomes a scientist. If he wonders too much, by and by he becomes religious. That's why philosophy is disappearing from the world -- because ninety-nine percent of philosophers have become scientists. And one person -- a Buber somewhere, or a Krishnamurti somewhere, or a Suzuki somewhere -- great minds, great penetrating intellects, they have become religious. Philosophy is almost losing its ground. Osho.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Well, the Hindu belief system does. And I guess as a pseudo-outcaste Hindu you might share the belief that all is well and wisely put, that no child dying in pain didn't earn it in a past life. And as much as I find that view repugnant, it doesn't rise to the level of deceptive communication as asserting that any of this nonsense is scientifically based. Curtis, you can do better than that. The Hindu belief system isn't meant to be judgmental, the Hindu belief system doesn't say anything about not helping the child. Science and philosophy has no answers as to why that child is dying in pain nor does religion. Both science and religion would try to compassionately help the child in pain. The theory of Karma isn't to explain any answers, it is to learn surrender, that there are complex mysterious forces at play - as to why certain people suffer while others thrive. It empowers us to avoid the suffering that comes from pain, by holding you responsible for your suffering and providing you tools to overcome this suffering.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
Science grows out of doubt. Religion grows out of wonder. Between the two is philosophy; it has not yet decided -- it goes on hanging between doubt and wonder. Sometimes the philosopher doubts and sometimes the philosopher wonders: he is just in between. If he doubts too much, by and by he becomes a scientist. If he wonders too much, by and by he becomes religious. That's why philosophy is disappearing from the world -- because ninety-nine percent of philosophers have become scientists. And one person -- a Buber somewhere, or a Krishnamurti somewhere, or a Suzuki somewhere -- great minds, great penetrating intellects, they have become religious. Philosophy is almost losing its ground. Osho. But when/if LHC, a bit oxymoronically, discovers the final chandas (RSi-devataa-chandas), at least physicists are kinda forced to become religious?? http://project-cernland.web.cern.ch/project-CERNland/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: Science grows out of doubt. Religion grows out of wonder. Between the two is philosophy; it has not yet decided -- it goes on hanging between doubt and wonder. Sometimes the philosopher doubts and sometimes the philosopher wonders: he is just in between. If he doubts too much, by and by he becomes a scientist. If he wonders too much, by and by he becomes religious. That's why philosophy is disappearing from the world -- because ninety-nine percent of philosophers have become scientists. And one person -- a Buber somewhere, or a Krishnamurti somewhere, or a Suzuki somewhere -- great minds, great penetrating intellects, they have become religious. Philosophy is almost losing its ground. Osho. But when/if LHC, a bit oxymoronically, discovers the final chandas (RSi-devataa-chandas), at least physicists are kinda forced to become religious?? http://project-cernland.web.cern.ch/project-CERNland/ Well the deeper the more intelligent physicists study the Universe, the more answers and a sense of wonder they are left with. It's only the eunuch idiotic philosophers like Curtis that make a lot of noise. That's why my Lover Pimp (LMNOP) scale has been such a wonderful practical invention in weeding out pimps(intellectuals) from lovers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: Science grows out of doubt. Religion grows out of wonder. Between the two is philosophy; it has not yet decided -- it goes on hanging between doubt and wonder. Sometimes the philosopher doubts and sometimes the philosopher wonders: he is just in between. If he doubts too much, by and by he becomes a scientist. If he wonders too much, by and by he becomes religious. That's why philosophy is disappearing from the world -- because ninety-nine percent of philosophers have become scientists. And one person -- a Buber somewhere, or a Krishnamurti somewhere, or a Suzuki somewhere -- great minds, great penetrating intellects, they have become religious. Philosophy is almost losing its ground. Osho. But when/if LHC, a bit oxymoronically, discovers the final chandas (RSi-devataa-chandas), at least physicists are kinda forced to become religious?? http://project-cernland.web.cern.ch/project-CERNland/ What a bunch of arrogant, pretentious religionist crap, both from Osho and from Card. Religion isn't about wonder, it's about it's opposite, certainty, or belief in either a dogma or an inner vision caused by believing that dogma. At least Card is honest about what he really feels -- he wants to *force* scientists to believe in religion. That's the whole problem with TM science in a nutshell, the 'tude that We already know the truth, because religion has told it to us. All we need to do now is find some way to cook the data to make it look as if science agrees with us. Then all those other scientists will finally have to agree with us, because we were RIGHT all along. Fortunately, many scientists prefer to remain scientists, and leave the religion to the gullible. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/23/a-higgs-setback-did-stephen-hawking-just-win-the-most-outrageous-bet-in-physics-history/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Doug: which is corroborated by discoveries in modern physics and neuroscience, reveals an underlying cause: the build up of acute stress in the collective consciousness of societies, which fuels violence in the actions of man and imbalance in the events of nature. Me: There are scientific principles and theories in play here. The most important one is our mind's quest for order and explanation in a complex world. We see forms and shapes in random clouds and Jesus in a taco. It is what our mind does when faced with randomness or complexity. It is effortless and unconscious. The world seems like a safer, more understandable place if we can associate the thoughts we have in our heads with bad things like war and natural disasters. Oh, the opium of believing we can prevent these things from happening with our all powerful minds, like magic. And if you just spouted some religious belief that makes you feel all comfy inside, I wouldn't be tempted to write. But you had to throw in the term science, perverting its meaning in a dishonest attempt to prop up religious beliefs as if they were based on established scientific method derived theories. This is wrong. I know who you learned it from. The spin master himself. And this thoery that victimizes the victim, as if the people of Japan had it coming from all their stress and imbalance compared to any other people in the world is sick. Do you really think that all the people in the drought in Africa deserve this? Well, the Hindu belief system does. And I guess as a pseudo-outcaste Hindu you might share the belief that all is well and wisely put, that no child dying in pain didn't earn it in a past life. And as much as I find that view repugnant, it doesn't rise to the level of deceptive communication as asserting that any of this nonsense is scientifically based. Own your beliefs. You believe spiritual claims because it makes sense to you and it makes you feel good. Fair enough. But you can drop the drop the pseudo-scientific 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed posturing. It just doesn't fly anymore. Golly, what a grump. You were a philosophy major? Philosophy is just intellectual gymnastics, it has nothing to do with reality. It talks, argues, creates magnificent systems of thought, but it does not change the man who is creating all this. He remains the same man. Osho. Ravi Yogi - he remains the same man, stumped, stunned and stunted by his intellectual hard-ons, a pimp (intellectual) in a co-dependent relationship with the whore (intellect).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: Science grows out of doubt. Religion grows out of wonder. Between the two is philosophy; it has not yet decided -- it goes on hanging between doubt and wonder. Sometimes the philosopher doubts and sometimes the philosopher wonders: he is just in between. If he doubts too much, by and by he becomes a scientist. If he wonders too much, by and by he becomes religious. That's why philosophy is disappearing from the world -- because ninety-nine percent of philosophers have become scientists. And one person -- a Buber somewhere, or a Krishnamurti somewhere, or a Suzuki somewhere -- great minds, great penetrating intellects, they have become religious. Philosophy is almost losing its ground. Osho. But when/if LHC, a bit oxymoronically, discovers the final chandas (RSi-devataa-chandas), at least physicists are kinda forced to become religious?? http://project-cernland.web.cern.ch/project-CERNland/ What a bunch of arrogant, pretentious religionist crap, both from Osho and from Card. Religion isn't about wonder, it's about it's opposite, certainty, or belief in either a dogma or an inner vision caused by believing that dogma. At least Card is honest about what he really feels -- he wants to *force* scientists to believe in religion. That's the whole problem with TM science in a nutshell, the 'tude that We already know the truth, because religion has told it to us. All we need to do now is find some way to cook the data to make it look as if science agrees with us. Then all those other scientists will finally have to agree with us, because we were RIGHT all along. Fortunately, many scientists prefer to remain scientists, and leave the religion to the gullible. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/23/a-higgs-setbac\ k-did-stephen-hawking-just-win-the-most-outrageous-bet-in-physics-histor\ y/ I quoted that Osho quote you low-vibe slime ball bitch(Bhakta). May be you have hang up with the word religion, let's use spirituality then. Spirituality is not belief you retard, it is about wonder. Just a because of bunch of cultists liked you reduce religion to belief doesn't make it so. Now you are the same Cultist Wolf in Skeptic Sheep garb.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: Science grows out of doubt. Religion grows out of wonder. Between the two is philosophy; it has not yet decided -- it goes on hanging between doubt and wonder. Sometimes the philosopher doubts and sometimes the philosopher wonders: he is just in between. If he doubts too much, by and by he becomes a scientist. If he wonders too much, by and by he becomes religious. That's why philosophy is disappearing from the world -- because ninety-nine percent of philosophers have become scientists. And one person -- a Buber somewhere, or a Krishnamurti somewhere, or a Suzuki somewhere -- great minds, great penetrating intellects, they have become religious. Philosophy is almost losing its ground. Osho. But when/if LHC, a bit oxymoronically, discovers the final chandas (RSi-devataa-chandas), at least physicists are kinda forced to become religious?? http://project-cernland.web.cern.ch/project-CERNland/ What a bunch of arrogant, pretentious religionist crap, both from Osho and from Card. Religion isn't about wonder, it's about it's opposite, certainty, or belief in either a dogma or an inner vision caused by believing that dogma. At least Card is honest about what he really feels -- he wants to *force* scientists to believe in religion. That's the whole problem with TM science in a nutshell, the 'tude that We already know the truth, because religion has told it to us. All we need to do now is find some way to cook the data to make it look as if science agrees with us. Then all those other scientists will finally have to agree with us, because we were RIGHT all along. Fortunately, many scientists prefer to remain scientists, and leave the religion to the gullible. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/23/a-higgs-setback-did-stephen-hawking-just-win-the-most-outrageous-bet-in-physics-history/ Interesting to note that the creator of the theory of the so-called God particle would probably be opposed to Card's notion. From Wikipedia: As an atheist, Higgs is reported to be displeased that the particle is nicknamed the God particle. Higgs is afraid the term might offend people who are religious. This nickname for the Higgs boson is usually attributed to Leon Lederman, but it is actually the result of Lederman's publisher's censoring. Originally Lederman intended to call it the goddamn particle, because of its elusiveness. [Isn't it interesting that an editor managed to change the entire concept of something by correcting it?] When oh when are so-called scientists going to admit, to themselves and to the world, that they bring a whole host of beliefs to their science, and that the beliefs win out over the science most of the time? I'm with Curtis in condemning the perversion of the term science as practiced by TMers and by others who are merely using the cover of science to attempt to get others to believe the things they believe. The last paragraph of the Scientific American article seems to me a backhanded form of this. First, it assumes the same thing that has gotten almost every physicist in history into this pickle in the first place -- that there was a first creation. Without that concept, there is *no need* to examine a question like Where did matter (mass) come from? In a non-created eternal universe, matter has always been, and has always existed in a relational way with energy, swapping costumes eternally. It's only the human *belief* that there was a time that matter did not exist that causes scientists to pursue this whole boondoggle. But then the closet True Believer in the SciAm author comes out, and he reacts to the failure of the LHC to pinpoint a creation that may never have happened by proposing an even bigger experiment, at an even more astronomical cost. Can you say Keep paying my salary, and in fact give me and my colleagues even more money so that we can continue to try to 'prove' our beliefs? I think you can. When it comes to extorting money so that they can continue to ponder their beliefs, scientists are often even better at it that religionists. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
Yep, Technicolor Consciousness, that's always been my experience of it in the super-collider of the Fairfield Dome program. -Buck But if the Higgs doesn't exist, where does mass in the universe come from? Theories that go beyond the standard model of particle physics (of which the Higgs is the keystonethe one missing piece needed to explain how the universe we know came to be) may be necessary. Steven Weinberg, who in his landmark 1967 paper on the unification of the electromagnetic and the weak interactions had made key use of the Higgs for breaking the symmetry and separating the electromagnetic from the weak forces, has since gone beyond the standard model in his research. Weinberg has proposed a theory called Technicolor, within which the primeval symmetry of our universe can be broken through a different mechanism than the action of the elusive Higgs. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/23/a-higgs-setback-did-stephen-hawking-just-win-the-most-outrageous-bet-in-physics-history/ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: Science grows out of doubt. Religion grows out of wonder. Between the two is philosophy; it has not yet decided -- it goes on hanging between doubt and wonder. Sometimes the philosopher doubts and sometimes the philosopher wonders: he is just in between. If he doubts too much, by and by he becomes a scientist. If he wonders too much, by and by he becomes religious. That's why philosophy is disappearing from the world -- because ninety-nine percent of philosophers have become scientists. And one person -- a Buber somewhere, or a Krishnamurti somewhere, or a Suzuki somewhere -- great minds, great penetrating intellects, they have become religious. Philosophy is almost losing its ground. Osho. But when/if LHC, a bit oxymoronically, discovers the final chandas (RSi-devataa-chandas), at least physicists are kinda forced to become religious?? http://project-cernland.web.cern.ch/project-CERNland/ What a bunch of arrogant, pretentious religionist crap, both from Osho and from Card. Religion isn't about wonder, it's about it's opposite, certainty, or belief in either a dogma or an inner vision caused by believing that dogma. At least Card is honest about what he really feels -- he wants to *force* scientists to believe in religion. That's the whole problem with TM science in a nutshell, the 'tude that We already know the truth, because religion has told it to us. All we need to do now is find some way to cook the data to make it look as if science agrees with us. Then all those other scientists will finally have to agree with us, because we were RIGHT all along. Fortunately, many scientists prefer to remain scientists, and leave the religion to the gullible. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/23/a-higgs-setback-did-stephen-hawking-just-win-the-most-outrageous-bet-in-physics-history/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/23/a-higgs-setback-did-stephen-hawking-just-win-the-most-outrageous-bet-in-physics-history/ As the gravity defying YF (Sanskrit: aakaasha-gamanam) is mainly based on aakaasha, perhaps Western physicist should try to figger out, WTF it is!? A linguistic hint: gam = to go; aa-gam = to come daa = to give; aa-daa = to take kaash = to shine, etc; aa-kaash* = to shine inwards??? LoL! * verbal root of the noun 'aakaasha'
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: Science grows out of doubt. Religion grows out of wonder. Between the two is philosophy; it has not yet decided -- it goes on hanging between doubt and wonder. Sometimes the philosopher doubts and sometimes the philosopher wonders: he is just in between. If he doubts too much, by and by he becomes a scientist. If he wonders too much, by and by he becomes religious. That's why philosophy is disappearing from the world -- because ninety-nine percent of philosophers have become scientists. And one person -- a Buber somewhere, or a Krishnamurti somewhere, or a Suzuki somewhere -- great minds, great penetrating intellects, they have become religious. Philosophy is almost losing its ground. Osho. But when/if LHC, a bit oxymoronically, discovers the final chandas (RSi-devataa-chandas), at least physicists are kinda forced to become religious?? http://project-cernland.web.cern.ch/project-CERNland/ What a bunch of arrogant, pretentious religionist crap, Oh, stop posturing. You brag endlessly about seeing Lentz levitate and speculate about the feat taking place in an alternate plane of reality that can be perceived only by certain Special People (yourself included, of course), and you call religionists arrogant? both from Osho and from Card. Religion isn't about wonder, it's about it's opposite, certainty, or belief in either a dogma or an inner vision caused by believing that dogma. But only because that's how you narrowly define it for the purpose of dumping on it and exalting yourself. For many people it *is* about wonder and never leads to certainty or dogma. At least Card is honest about what he really feels -- he wants to *force* scientists to believe in religion. He does no such thing. Nobody can force anybody to believe in something. You're a writer; you know how he's using the term forced. You have to dishonestly distort what he said to be able to dump on him. In the sense he's using the word, you were forced to develop a theory about an alternate plane of reality when you saw Lentz levitate--a theory most scientists would dismiss as religious. That's the whole problem with TM science in a nutshell, the 'tude that We already know the truth, because religion has told it to us. All we need to do now is find some way to cook the data to make it look as if science agrees with us. Uh-huh. Except that Card is talking about data from the LHC, not from TM. Then all those other scientists will finally have to agree with us, because we were RIGHT all along. And that would really burn your ass, wouldn't it? You want TMers to have been WRONG all along as much as--or more than--any TMer wants to have been RIGHT all along. And you're willing to twist what TMers say in order to MAKE them wrong in your own limited mind. Talk about cooking the data! Fortunately, many scientists prefer to remain scientists, and leave the religion to the gullible. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/23/a-higgs-setback-did-stephen-hawking-just-win-the-most-outrageous-bet-in-physics-history/ Not to mention twisting what *scientists* say in order to make TMers WRONG, as you do here. In this case, from Hawking's perspective, it's the overwhelming majority of *physicists* who have been gullible, believing in the existence of the Higgs boson.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: snip Interesting to note that the creator of the theory of the so-called God particle would probably be opposed to Card's notion. From Wikipedia: As an atheist, Higgs is reported to be displeased that the particle is nicknamed the God particle. Higgs is afraid the term might offend people who are religious. This nickname for the Higgs boson is usually attributed to Leon Lederman, but it is actually the result of Lederman's publisher's censoring. Originally Lederman intended to call it the goddamn particle, because of its elusiveness. [Isn't it interesting that an editor managed to change the entire concept of something by correcting it?] No, because it was the *publisher* who made the change, not the editor; and the publisher didn't correct it, the publisher *censored* goddamn because it was media- unfriendly, and also because the publisher thought God Particle as the title would sell more books. And in any case, it's not really a change in the concept. Lederman's goddamn referred to the particle's elusiveness--physicists can't find it, so they can't prove its existence. Obviously the same can be said of God. When oh when are so-called scientists going to admit, to themselves and to the world, that they bring a whole host of beliefs to their science, and that the beliefs win out over the science most of the time? I'm with Curtis in condemning the perversion of the term science as practiced by TMers and by others who are merely using the cover of science to attempt to get others to believe the things they believe. Wait. Scientists are bad because they bring beliefs to their science, and TMers are bad because, unlike real scientists, they bring beliefs to their own science? I keep telling you, you ought to read over what you write before you post it. Your stream-of-consciousness writing often stumbles over itself like this because your thinking processes are so sloppy. You might catch some of your idiocies if you had a second look. The last paragraph of the Scientific American article seems to me a backhanded form of this. First, it assumes the same thing that has gotten almost every physicist in history into this pickle in the first place -- that there was a first creation. Without that concept, there is *no need* to examine a question like Where did matter (mass) come from? In a non-created eternal universe, matter has always been, and has always existed in a relational way with energy, swapping costumes eternally. It's only the human *belief* that there was a time that matter did not exist that causes scientists to pursue this whole boondoggle. Well, no, there are actually reams of *data* involved. (Unless, of course, you want to maintain that the scientists are cooking the data to point to their desired conclusion--just like TMers.) I've pointed out before that a steady-state universe was at one time a major competing theory to the Big Bang-- but has been *discredited* on the basis of observational data. But then the closet True Believer in the SciAm author comes out, and he reacts to the failure of the LHC to pinpoint a creation that may never have happened by proposing an even bigger experiment, at an even more astronomical cost. Can you say Keep paying my salary, and in fact give me and my colleagues even more money so that we can continue to try to 'prove' our beliefs? I think you can. And if you did, you'd be just as wrong as Barry. The SciAm writer is not a physicist. He writes popular science books for the general reader and would benefit just as much either way. Barry *could* have found this out by reading the bio at the end of the article, but he's WAAY too smart to be bothered to back up his theories with actual data--you know, facts. Especially if it means he'd have to give up a putdown. And the writer never proposed an even bigger experiment, merely pointed out that it would be *necessary* if physicists wanted to continue searching for the Higgs boson. In fact, the impression I get from the tone of the article is Schadenfreude at the possibility that Hawking will win his bet and physics will have to give up on the God particle. When it comes to extorting money so that they can continue to ponder their beliefs, scientists are often even better at it that religionists. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Well, the Hindu belief system does. And I guess as a pseudo-outcaste Hindu you might share the belief that all is well and wisely put, that no child dying in pain didn't earn it in a past life. And as much as I find that view repugnant, it doesn't rise to the level of deceptive communication as asserting that any of this nonsense is scientifically based. Curtis, you can do better than that. The Hindu belief system isn't meant to be judgmental, the Hindu belief system doesn't say anything about not helping the child. Science and philosophy has no answers as to why that child is dying in pain nor does religion. Both science and religion would try to compassionately help the child in pain. The theory of Karma isn't to explain any answers, it is to learn surrender, that there are complex mysterious forces at play - as to why certain people suffer while others thrive. It empowers us to avoid the suffering that comes from pain, by holding you responsible for your suffering and providing you tools to overcome this suffering. Your perspective is well stated and reasonable. It probably represents what many educated and thoughtful Hindus believe. And like Christians who have proposed more reasonable perspectives on their religion, it ignores what the scriptures of that religion actually say. Many Hindu scriptures actually give the specific next life punishment for actions. And the reprehensible treatment of lower caste members is a direct result in their birth as a reflection of their past life's advancement. So you are better than Hinduism's teachings. That is a good thing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
I don't see science as growing out of doubt. Because you can't prove a negative, it is the opposite. You have to state a hypothesis and then support it with evidence. So the growth of science is a positive thing. Science doesn't doubt religious claims any more than they doubt the stories of Shakespeare. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Doug: which is corroborated by discoveries in modern physics and neuroscience, reveals an underlying cause: the build up of acute stress in the collective consciousness of societies, which fuels violence in the actions of man and imbalance in the events of nature. Me: There are scientific principles and theories in play here. The most important one is our mind's quest for order and explanation in a complex world. We see forms and shapes in random clouds and Jesus in a taco. It is what our mind does when faced with randomness or complexity. It is effortless and unconscious. The world seems like a safer, more understandable place if we can associate the thoughts we have in our heads with bad things like war and natural disasters. Oh, the opium of believing we can prevent these things from happening with our all powerful minds, like magic. And if you just spouted some religious belief that makes you feel all comfy inside, I wouldn't be tempted to write. But you had to throw in the term science, perverting its meaning in a dishonest attempt to prop up religious beliefs as if they were based on established scientific method derived theories. This is wrong. I know who you learned it from. The spin master himself. And this thoery that victimizes the victim, as if the people of Japan had it coming from all their stress and imbalance compared to any other people in the world is sick. Do you really think that all the people in the drought in Africa deserve this? Well, the Hindu belief system does. And I guess as a pseudo-outcaste Hindu you might share the belief that all is well and wisely put, that no child dying in pain didn't earn it in a past life. And as much as I find that view repugnant, it doesn't rise to the level of deceptive communication as asserting that any of this nonsense is scientifically based. Own your beliefs. You believe spiritual claims because it makes sense to you and it makes you feel good. Fair enough. But you can drop the drop the pseudo-scientific 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed posturing. It just doesn't fly anymore. Golly, what a grump. You were a philosophy major? Science grows out of doubt. Religion grows out of wonder. Between the two is philosophy; it has not yet decided -- it goes on hanging between doubt and wonder. Sometimes the philosopher doubts and sometimes the philosopher wonders: he is just in between. If he doubts too much, by and by he becomes a scientist. If he wonders too much, by and by he becomes religious. That's why philosophy is disappearing from the world -- because ninety-nine percent of philosophers have become scientists. And one person -- a Buber somewhere, or a Krishnamurti somewhere, or a Suzuki somewhere -- great minds, great penetrating intellects, they have become religious. Philosophy is almost losing its ground. Osho.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Golly, what a grump. You were a philosophy major? We spent a month on the philosophy of science and during that month our teacher did everything he could to subvert its methods to protect the religious beliefs of the movement. I am familiar with the routine you and Hegelin run from the inside, having been pretty good at it myself when I was, like you, a propagandist for Maharishi's beliefs. It makes it all seem so much more reasonable to hit the buzzwords of science to try to bypass people's critical thinking. Most people's understanding of its methods is so poor that just invoking some of its terms are enough for them to give an idea a pass from scrutiny. But trying to point out when the terms of science are being misused to deceive makes me far from grumpy. It delights me. That is why you are one of my favorite posters here. Without you we would be bereft of the movement propaganda POV, and that would detract from my enjoyment in posting here very much. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Doug: which is corroborated by discoveries in modern physics and neuroscience, reveals an underlying cause: the build up of acute stress in the collective consciousness of societies, which fuels violence in the actions of man and imbalance in the events of nature. Me: There are scientific principles and theories in play here. The most important one is our mind's quest for order and explanation in a complex world. We see forms and shapes in random clouds and Jesus in a taco. It is what our mind does when faced with randomness or complexity. It is effortless and unconscious. The world seems like a safer, more understandable place if we can associate the thoughts we have in our heads with bad things like war and natural disasters. Oh, the opium of believing we can prevent these things from happening with our all powerful minds, like magic. And if you just spouted some religious belief that makes you feel all comfy inside, I wouldn't be tempted to write. But you had to throw in the term science, perverting its meaning in a dishonest attempt to prop up religious beliefs as if they were based on established scientific method derived theories. This is wrong. I know who you learned it from. The spin master himself. And this thoery that victimizes the victim, as if the people of Japan had it coming from all their stress and imbalance compared to any other people in the world is sick. Do you really think that all the people in the drought in Africa deserve this? Well, the Hindu belief system does. And I guess as a pseudo-outcaste Hindu you might share the belief that all is well and wisely put, that no child dying in pain didn't earn it in a past life. And as much as I find that view repugnant, it doesn't rise to the level of deceptive communication as asserting that any of this nonsense is scientifically based. Own your beliefs. You believe spiritual claims because it makes sense to you and it makes you feel good. Fair enough. But you can drop the drop the pseudo-scientific 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed posturing. It just doesn't fly anymore. Golly, what a grump. You were a philosophy major? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: What do conflicts in the Middle East and natural disasters in Japan have in common? Very little on the surface of things one is man-made, the other nature-made. But a closer analysis of the mechanics of how nature functions at the deepest levels from the perspective of the ancient Vedic science of consciousness, which is corroborated by discoveries in modern physics and neuroscience, reveals an underlying cause: the build up of acute stress in the collective consciousness of societies, which fuels violence in the actions of man and imbalance in the events of nature. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Are conflicts in the Middle East and disasters in Japan preventable? Technologies of the ancient Vedic science of consciousness can reduce violence in society, imbalances in nature As predicted nearly 5 years ago, a large group of meditation experts in Iowa produces dramatic fall in US violent crime rates, number of destructive hurricanes I invite all well-wishers of peace to fully investigate the scientific principles and the research which underlie these technologies and then, if your questions are answered, to partner with us in promoting a world of permanent peace. Dr. John Hagelin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
My dear Judy Stein forgive it's 1:30 in the night and the angry ghost of Gertrude do not let me sleep before I edit one sentence in your brilliant post (I fear Getrude anger more than yours, Judy Stein [;)] esp. during night) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: snip Your steam-of-consciousness writing often stumbles over itself like this because your thinking processes are so sloppy. You might catch some of your idiocies if you had a second look. snip note You could write that this is pure steam of consciousness writing of the Kunstfigur turquoiseb. Anything written in there was taken off the tip of turquoiseb mind, Barry's representation, effective impersonation of a person from the past turquoise bee,Tshangyang Gyatso, an egalitarian poet, the sixth Dalai Lama, in a narrative or -if you want- dramatic (or cabaret)role of art at FFL. Anything written in here was taken off the tip of turquoiseb(ee) mind scraped off the first layer of many many deeper one. It does not reflect Barry's innermost thoughts -or lack of [:D] . Hope B. knows that he can- in contrast to USA- copyright his persona(s) in Europe
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
Dear CurtisDB, Thanks, I love you too for the same reason in reverse. Someone needs to speak up for the true-bliever here to make it worthwhile, this is a hard job. Oh,I took the same classes. -Buck in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Golly, what a grump. You were a philosophy major? We spent a month on the philosophy of science and during that month our teacher did everything he could to subvert its methods to protect the religious beliefs of the movement. I am familiar with the routine you and Hegelin run from the inside, having been pretty good at it myself when I was, like you, a propagandist for Maharishi's beliefs. It makes it all seem so much more reasonable to hit the buzzwords of science to try to bypass people's critical thinking. Most people's understanding of its methods is so poor that just invoking some of its terms are enough for them to give an idea a pass from scrutiny. But trying to point out when the terms of science are being misused to deceive makes me far from grumpy. It delights me. That is why you are one of my favorite posters here. Without you we would be bereft of the movement propaganda POV, and that would detract from my enjoyment in posting here very much. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Doug: which is corroborated by discoveries in modern physics and neuroscience, reveals an underlying cause: the build up of acute stress in the collective consciousness of societies, which fuels violence in the actions of man and imbalance in the events of nature. Me: There are scientific principles and theories in play here. The most important one is our mind's quest for order and explanation in a complex world. We see forms and shapes in random clouds and Jesus in a taco. It is what our mind does when faced with randomness or complexity. It is effortless and unconscious. The world seems like a safer, more understandable place if we can associate the thoughts we have in our heads with bad things like war and natural disasters. Oh, the opium of believing we can prevent these things from happening with our all powerful minds, like magic. And if you just spouted some religious belief that makes you feel all comfy inside, I wouldn't be tempted to write. But you had to throw in the term science, perverting its meaning in a dishonest attempt to prop up religious beliefs as if they were based on established scientific method derived theories. This is wrong. I know who you learned it from. The spin master himself. And this thoery that victimizes the victim, as if the people of Japan had it coming from all their stress and imbalance compared to any other people in the world is sick. Do you really think that all the people in the drought in Africa deserve this? Well, the Hindu belief system does. And I guess as a pseudo-outcaste Hindu you might share the belief that all is well and wisely put, that no child dying in pain didn't earn it in a past life. And as much as I find that view repugnant, it doesn't rise to the level of deceptive communication as asserting that any of this nonsense is scientifically based. Own your beliefs. You believe spiritual claims because it makes sense to you and it makes you feel good. Fair enough. But you can drop the drop the pseudo-scientific 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed posturing. It just doesn't fly anymore. Golly, what a grump. You were a philosophy major? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: What do conflicts in the Middle East and natural disasters in Japan have in common? Very little on the surface of things one is man-made, the other nature-made. But a closer analysis of the mechanics of how nature functions at the deepest levels from the perspective of the ancient Vedic science of consciousness, which is corroborated by discoveries in modern physics and neuroscience, reveals an underlying cause: the build up of acute stress in the collective consciousness of societies, which fuels violence in the actions of man and imbalance in the events of nature. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Are conflicts in the Middle East and disasters in Japan preventable? Technologies of the ancient Vedic science of consciousness can reduce violence in society, imbalances in nature As predicted nearly 5 years ago, a large group of meditation experts in Iowa produces dramatic fall in US violent crime rates, number of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: But earthquakes, where this can be measured, are also rated by the distance that the fault line itself has shifted. For example, during the San Francisco quake that burned down major portions of the city, the fault line in question only shifted a few inches. When contemplating what the term The Big One could potentially mean for California, bear in mind that they are predictable. They occur in 150 to 200 year cycles. **Predictability is the holy grail that the earthquake scientists strive for. So far predicting earthquakes hasn't happened. Keep in mind that the crust shifting on two different plates is dynamic, and as long as the plates don't get stuck, and the pressure between them continues to equalize through small quakes pretty regularly, which is what is happening now, we're in good shape here in California. If they get stuck, then that can obviously cause an issue. The last one was back during the Civil War. During that one, the entire San Andreas fault line shifted something like eight feet. According to historical records, it knocked almost every existing building in California off its foundation. **You don't need a displacement of 8 feet to knock a building from its foundation. Also, I doubt the anecdote, as I have visited the town of San Juan Bautista many times, its about a 90 minute drive south of here - They have an outdoor restaurant there, Jardines, with excellent food, music, roosters, margaritas and a cactus garden, but I digress...- The town dates from the mid-1700's and no damage was done to the foundations of the Mission, the hotel, the stables, or any of the houses from that period, and it sits possibly 1/2 a mile from the San Andreas fault.:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: snip When contemplating what the term The Big One could potentially mean for California, bear in mind that they are predictable. They occur in 150 to 200 year cycles. **Predictability is the holy grail that the earthquake scientists strive for. So far predicting earthquakes hasn't happened. Not for specific earthquakes, no, but statistically it can be said that California is due for a Big One within a decade or two. May or may not pan out, but that's a reasonable prediction.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
Are conflicts in the Middle East and disasters in Japan preventable? Technologies of the ancient Vedic science of consciousness can reduce violence in society, imbalances in nature As predicted nearly 5 years ago, a large group of meditation experts in Iowa produces dramatic fall in US violent crime rates, number of destructive hurricanes --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Earthquakes are interesting. There is very little that shakes your belief in Reality As You Know It as everything shaking under your feet. The very term terra firma comes into question. I've been in a few. The biggest was in Agadir, Morocco in 1960. Years later, working in a tall office building in downtown L.A., I experienced another one. It rattled windows and we could feel the whole building swaying, but it passed without damage, and we all stood around for a few minutes talking about it, and pretending that we hadn't just seen our lives flash before our eyes. :-) Talk gravitated to the other 'quakes we'd experienced. One of the programmers I'd been working on the same floor as for some time mentioned Agadir, and I was surprised so I took him aside and followed up on it. Turns out he was originally Moroccan, forced to leave in the Jewish diaspora several years later, and now living and working in the US. As we chatted, we realized in a moment of mutual shock that many, many years earlier we had sat in the same room together. It was during a showing of the film Exodus on the Air Force base my parents lived at. A lot of Jewish residents of nearby Marrakesh had gotten permission to visit the base so that they could see the movie, which was naturally banned from local theaters. So it turned out that this fellow and I had been sitting in the same movie theater. Go figure. When I moved from California to New York, one of the things in the back of my mind was, Well, at least I won't have to worry about earthquakes any more. So what happens during my first week of work on the 40th floor of a NY office building? An earthquake. We were later told that the building was measured swaying four feet back and forth; I can certainly assure you that this is exactly what it felt like, from the 40th floor. :-) The thing is, the earthquake itself was in Nova Scotia. As was explained on the News in the days that followed, the East coast of the US is even more susceptible to damage from a major earthquake than the West coast is. The basic infrastructure of West coast, because of the constant grinding against each other of the tectonic plates, is more fractured. The waves of an earthquake thus don't tend to travel very far, the energy being dissipated to some extent in the fractured ground. But on the East coast, the ground is more solid, so the effects of a large earthquake can travel much further -- hundreds of miles. So Washington, D.C. was lucky. This one seems to have been localized, and in an area that confined its effects to a small area. In Agadir, a 'quake one point lower than this one on the Richter scale destroyed a third of the city. And just to give our California dwellers pause, the Richter scale is not the only measure. It is logarithmic, and thus illusory -- a 6.8 is 100 times more powerful than a 5.8, and a 7.8 is 1000 times more powerful. But earthquakes, where this can be measured, are also rated by the distance that the fault line itself has shifted. For example, during the San Francisco quake that burned down major portions of the city, the fault line in question only shifted a few inches. When contemplating what the term The Big One could potentially mean for California, bear in mind that they are predictable. They occur in 150 to 200 year cycles. The last one was back during the Civil War. During that one, the entire San Andreas fault line shifted something like eight feet. According to historical records, it knocked almost every existing building in California off its foundation. Weird facts like this make me happy that I live in the Netherlands rather than California. We're pretty earthquake-free here. And it's not as if a nation that is largely below sea level has anything to fear from climate change and rising ocean levels. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Are conflicts in the Middle East and disasters in Japan preventable? Technologies of the ancient Vedic science of consciousness can reduce violence in society, imbalances in nature As predicted nearly 5 years ago, a large group of meditation experts in Iowa produces dramatic fall in US violent crime rates, number of destructive hurricanes I invite all well-wishers of peace to fully investigate the scientific principles and the research which underlie these technologies and then, if your questions are answered, to partner with us in promoting a world of permanent peace. Dr. John Hagelin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Earthquakes are interesting. There is very little that shakes your belief in Reality As You Know It as everything shaking under your feet. The very term terra firma comes into question. I've been in a few. The biggest was in Agadir, Morocco in 1960. Years later, working in a tall office building in downtown L.A., I experienced another one. It rattled windows and we could feel the whole building swaying, but it passed without damage, and we all stood around for a few minutes talking about it, and pretending that we hadn't just seen our lives flash before our eyes. :-) Talk gravitated to the other 'quakes we'd experienced. One of the programmers I'd been working on the same floor as for some time mentioned Agadir, and I was surprised so I took him aside and followed up on it. Turns out he was originally Moroccan, forced to leave in the Jewish diaspora several years later, and now living and working in the US. As we chatted, we realized in a moment of mutual shock that many, many years earlier we had sat in the same room together. It was during a showing of the film Exodus on the Air Force base my parents lived at. A lot of Jewish residents of nearby Marrakesh had gotten permission to visit the base so that they could see the movie, which was naturally banned from local theaters. So it turned out that this fellow and I had been sitting in the same movie theater. Go figure. When I moved from California to New York, one of the things in the back of my mind was, Well, at least I won't have to worry about earthquakes any more. So what happens during my first week of work on the 40th floor of a NY office building? An earthquake. We were later told that the building was measured swaying four feet back and forth; I can certainly assure you that this is exactly what it felt like, from the 40th floor. :-) The thing is, the earthquake itself was in Nova Scotia. As was explained on the News in the days that followed, the East coast of the US is even more susceptible to damage from a major earthquake than the West coast is. The basic infrastructure of West coast, because of the constant grinding against each other of the tectonic plates, is more fractured. The waves of an earthquake thus don't tend to travel very far, the energy being dissipated to some extent in the fractured ground. But on the East coast, the ground is more solid, so the effects of a large earthquake can travel much further -- hundreds of miles. So Washington, D.C. was lucky. This one seems to have been localized, and in an area that confined its effects to a small area. In Agadir, a 'quake one point lower than this one on the Richter scale destroyed a third of the city. And just to give our California dwellers pause, the Richter scale is not the only measure. It is logarithmic, and thus illusory -- a 6.8 is 100 times more powerful than a 5.8, and a 7.8 is 1000 times more powerful. But earthquakes, where this can be measured, are also rated by the distance that the fault line itself has shifted. For example, during the San Francisco quake that burned down major portions of the city, the fault line in question only shifted a few inches. When contemplating what the term The Big One could potentially mean for California, bear in mind that they are predictable. They occur in 150 to 200 year cycles. The last one was back during the Civil War. During that one, the entire San Andreas fault line shifted something like eight feet. According to historical records, it knocked almost every existing building in California off its foundation. Weird facts like this make me happy that I live in the Netherlands rather than California. We're pretty earthquake-free here. And it's not as if a nation that is largely below sea level has anything to fear from climate change and rising ocean levels. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
What do conflicts in the Middle East and natural disasters in Japan have in common? Very little on the surface of things one is man-made, the other nature-made. But a closer analysis of the mechanics of how nature functions at the deepest levels from the perspective of the ancient Vedic science of consciousness, which is corroborated by discoveries in modern physics and neuroscience, reveals an underlying cause: the build up of acute stress in the collective consciousness of societies, which fuels violence in the actions of man and imbalance in the events of nature. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Are conflicts in the Middle East and disasters in Japan preventable? Technologies of the ancient Vedic science of consciousness can reduce violence in society, imbalances in nature As predicted nearly 5 years ago, a large group of meditation experts in Iowa produces dramatic fall in US violent crime rates, number of destructive hurricanes I invite all well-wishers of peace to fully investigate the scientific principles and the research which underlie these technologies and then, if your questions are answered, to partner with us in promoting a world of permanent peace. Dr. John Hagelin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Earthquakes are interesting. There is very little that shakes your belief in Reality As You Know It as everything shaking under your feet. The very term terra firma comes into question. I've been in a few. The biggest was in Agadir, Morocco in 1960. Years later, working in a tall office building in downtown L.A., I experienced another one. It rattled windows and we could feel the whole building swaying, but it passed without damage, and we all stood around for a few minutes talking about it, and pretending that we hadn't just seen our lives flash before our eyes. :-) Talk gravitated to the other 'quakes we'd experienced. One of the programmers I'd been working on the same floor as for some time mentioned Agadir, and I was surprised so I took him aside and followed up on it. Turns out he was originally Moroccan, forced to leave in the Jewish diaspora several years later, and now living and working in the US. As we chatted, we realized in a moment of mutual shock that many, many years earlier we had sat in the same room together. It was during a showing of the film Exodus on the Air Force base my parents lived at. A lot of Jewish residents of nearby Marrakesh had gotten permission to visit the base so that they could see the movie, which was naturally banned from local theaters. So it turned out that this fellow and I had been sitting in the same movie theater. Go figure. When I moved from California to New York, one of the things in the back of my mind was, Well, at least I won't have to worry about earthquakes any more. So what happens during my first week of work on the 40th floor of a NY office building? An earthquake. We were later told that the building was measured swaying four feet back and forth; I can certainly assure you that this is exactly what it felt like, from the 40th floor. :-) The thing is, the earthquake itself was in Nova Scotia. As was explained on the News in the days that followed, the East coast of the US is even more susceptible to damage from a major earthquake than the West coast is. The basic infrastructure of West coast, because of the constant grinding against each other of the tectonic plates, is more fractured. The waves of an earthquake thus don't tend to travel very far, the energy being dissipated to some extent in the fractured ground. But on the East coast, the ground is more solid, so the effects of a large earthquake can travel much further -- hundreds of miles. So Washington, D.C. was lucky. This one seems to have been localized, and in an area that confined its effects to a small area. In Agadir, a 'quake one point lower than this one on the Richter scale destroyed a third of the city. And just to give our California dwellers pause, the Richter scale is not the only measure. It is logarithmic, and thus illusory -- a 6.8 is 100 times more powerful than a 5.8, and a 7.8 is 1000 times more powerful. But earthquakes, where this can be measured, are also rated by the distance that the fault line itself has shifted. For example, during the San Francisco quake that burned down major portions of the city, the fault line in question only shifted a few inches. When contemplating what the term The Big One could potentially mean for California, bear in mind that they are predictable. They occur in 150 to 200 year cycles. The last one was back during the Civil War. During that one, the entire San Andreas fault line shifted something like eight feet. According to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
Doug: which is corroborated by discoveries in modern physics and neuroscience, reveals an underlying cause: the build up of acute stress in the collective consciousness of societies, which fuels violence in the actions of man and imbalance in the events of nature. Me: There are scientific principles and theories in play here. The most important one is our mind's quest for order and explanation in a complex world. We see forms and shapes in random clouds and Jesus in a taco. It is what our mind does when faced with randomness or complexity. It is effortless and unconscious. The world seems like a safer, more understandable place if we can associate the thoughts we have in our heads with bad things like war and natural disasters. Oh, the opium of believing we can prevent these things from happening with our all powerful minds, like magic. And if you just spouted some religious belief that makes you feel all comfy inside, I wouldn't be tempted to write. But you had to throw in the term science, perverting its meaning in a dishonest attempt to prop up religious beliefs as if they were based on established scientific method derived theories. This is wrong. I know who you learned it from. The spin master himself. And this thoery that victimizes the victim, as if the people of Japan had it coming from all their stress and imbalance compared to any other people in the world is sick. Do you really think that all the people in the drought in Africa deserve this? Well, the Hindu belief system does. And I guess as a pseudo-outcaste Hindu you might share the belief that all is well and wisely put, that no child dying in pain didn't earn it in a past life. And as much as I find that view repugnant, it doesn't rise to the level of deceptive communication as asserting that any of this nonsense is scientifically based. Own your beliefs. You believe spiritual claims because it makes sense to you and it makes you feel good. Fair enough. But you can drop the drop the pseudo-scientific 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed posturing. It just doesn't fly anymore. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: What do conflicts in the Middle East and natural disasters in Japan have in common? Very little on the surface of things one is man-made, the other nature-made. But a closer analysis of the mechanics of how nature functions at the deepest levels from the perspective of the ancient Vedic science of consciousness, which is corroborated by discoveries in modern physics and neuroscience, reveals an underlying cause: the build up of acute stress in the collective consciousness of societies, which fuels violence in the actions of man and imbalance in the events of nature. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Are conflicts in the Middle East and disasters in Japan preventable? Technologies of the ancient Vedic science of consciousness can reduce violence in society, imbalances in nature As predicted nearly 5 years ago, a large group of meditation experts in Iowa produces dramatic fall in US violent crime rates, number of destructive hurricanes I invite all well-wishers of peace to fully investigate the scientific principles and the research which underlie these technologies and then, if your questions are answered, to partner with us in promoting a world of permanent peace. Dr. John Hagelin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Earthquakes are interesting. There is very little that shakes your belief in Reality As You Know It as everything shaking under your feet. The very term terra firma comes into question. I've been in a few. The biggest was in Agadir, Morocco in 1960. Years later, working in a tall office building in downtown L.A., I experienced another one. It rattled windows and we could feel the whole building swaying, but it passed without damage, and we all stood around for a few minutes talking about it, and pretending that we hadn't just seen our lives flash before our eyes. :-) Talk gravitated to the other 'quakes we'd experienced. One of the programmers I'd been working on the same floor as for some time mentioned Agadir, and I was surprised so I took him aside and followed up on it. Turns out he was originally Moroccan, forced to leave in the Jewish diaspora several years later, and now living and working in the US. As we chatted, we realized in a moment of mutual shock that many, many years earlier we had sat in the same room together. It was during a showing of the film Exodus on the Air Force base my parents lived at. A lot of Jewish residents of nearby Marrakesh had gotten permission to visit the base so that they could see the movie, which was naturally banned from local theaters. So it turned out
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
Haven't felt one out here above a 2 or a 3 for awhile, knock on wood. Yeah, everyone here knows about the Richter being logarithmic vs linear. Funny how when stuff like this happens in the power centers of DC and NY it somehow is a bigger deal than just another quake on the west coast. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 08/24/2011 04:26 AM, turquoiseb wrote: And just to give our California dwellers pause, the Richter scale is not the only measure. It is logarithmic, and thus illusory -- a 6.8 is 100 times more powerful than a 5.8, and a 7.8 is 1000 times more powerful. Doesn't give us pause because that's just Earthquake 101 and mentioned around here every time there is a report of an earthquake anywhere in the world. I was listening to Thom Hartmann's show when the earthquake hit and he really freaked out as the studio was really shaking.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the earth move for you, too?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Doug: which is corroborated by discoveries in modern physics and neuroscience, reveals an underlying cause: the build up of acute stress in the collective consciousness of societies, which fuels violence in the actions of man and imbalance in the events of nature. Me: There are scientific principles and theories in play here. The most important one is our mind's quest for order and explanation in a complex world. We see forms and shapes in random clouds and Jesus in a taco. It is what our mind does when faced with randomness or complexity. It is effortless and unconscious. The world seems like a safer, more understandable place if we can associate the thoughts we have in our heads with bad things like war and natural disasters. Oh, the opium of believing we can prevent these things from happening with our all powerful minds, like magic. And if you just spouted some religious belief that makes you feel all comfy inside, I wouldn't be tempted to write. But you had to throw in the term science, perverting its meaning in a dishonest attempt to prop up religious beliefs as if they were based on established scientific method derived theories. This is wrong. I know who you learned it from. The spin master himself. And this thoery that victimizes the victim, as if the people of Japan had it coming from all their stress and imbalance compared to any other people in the world is sick. Do you really think that all the people in the drought in Africa deserve this? Well, the Hindu belief system does. And I guess as a pseudo-outcaste Hindu you might share the belief that all is well and wisely put, that no child dying in pain didn't earn it in a past life. And as much as I find that view repugnant, it doesn't rise to the level of deceptive communication as asserting that any of this nonsense is scientifically based. Own your beliefs. You believe spiritual claims because it makes sense to you and it makes you feel good. Fair enough. But you can drop the drop the pseudo-scientific 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed posturing. It just doesn't fly anymore. Golly, what a grump. You were a philosophy major? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: What do conflicts in the Middle East and natural disasters in Japan have in common? Very little on the surface of things one is man-made, the other nature-made. But a closer analysis of the mechanics of how nature functions at the deepest levels from the perspective of the ancient Vedic science of consciousness, which is corroborated by discoveries in modern physics and neuroscience, reveals an underlying cause: the build up of acute stress in the collective consciousness of societies, which fuels violence in the actions of man and imbalance in the events of nature. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Are conflicts in the Middle East and disasters in Japan preventable? Technologies of the ancient Vedic science of consciousness can reduce violence in society, imbalances in nature As predicted nearly 5 years ago, a large group of meditation experts in Iowa produces dramatic fall in US violent crime rates, number of destructive hurricanes I invite all well-wishers of peace to fully investigate the scientific principles and the research which underlie these technologies and then, if your questions are answered, to partner with us in promoting a world of permanent peace. Dr. John Hagelin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Earthquakes are interesting. There is very little that shakes your belief in Reality As You Know It as everything shaking under your feet. The very term terra firma comes into question. I've been in a few. The biggest was in Agadir, Morocco in 1960. Years later, working in a tall office building in downtown L.A., I experienced another one. It rattled windows and we could feel the whole building swaying, but it passed without damage, and we all stood around for a few minutes talking about it, and pretending that we hadn't just seen our lives flash before our eyes. :-) Talk gravitated to the other 'quakes we'd experienced. One of the programmers I'd been working on the same floor as for some time mentioned Agadir, and I was surprised so I took him aside and followed up on it. Turns out he was originally Moroccan, forced to leave in the Jewish diaspora several years later, and now living and working in the US. As we chatted, we realized in a moment of mutual shock that many, many years earlier we had sat in the same room together. It was during a
