[FairfieldLife] Re: TM Tru-believers?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would you trust your Spiritual life, to a TM-TB'er now? wai, ai söötnli vud!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, endlessrainintoapapercup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TurqB., you're a bit of a wild man, but that's all part of your charm. I enjoyed our conversation yesterday, but remain puzzled by the apparent lack of any congruence and understanding between us regarding the subject of reality/Reality. Reality is your crutch, dude, not mine. Don't expect me to get all passionate about it. :-) Hint: skip to the bottom of this post and read the headers and figure out who I was talking to. If you don't get it, I'll explain at the end. That's okay. I don't perceive myself to be any kind of authority on the subject, and have no vested interest in convincing you that there is any validity in anything I say. But I'd like to point out that the way you appear to be interpreting my words on the subject of reality does not actually represent my perspective at all. Perhaps we're dwelling in different... uh...realities. :-) Maybe you are referring to another conversation you had with someone else...? If it is our conversation you are referring to, you haven't actually understood what I said. Not that you're short on understanding, but words, such as reality, convey different conceptual meanings to each of us. See? You CAN get my point if you try. :-) That was it. Reality implies a perceiver. Without one there is no possibility of such a concept, or distinguishing reality from non-reality. And when there is a perceiver, there is a point of view. And where there is a point of view, there are other points of view on the same thing or things being perceived. I read the words you write, which appear to be an inferred representation of my understanding of reality/Reality, and they honestly don't represent my perception at all. Different realities, dude. :-) When you speak back what you think I'm saying, it becomes something else entirely. See? You CAN get these things if you try. :-) I'll make an effort to communicate more clearly and not assume that there is any kind of shared understanding in regard to future topics. There is no shared understanding at all. In the universe. It's all points of view, each unique, each trying to find some agreement with other points of view, endlessly. IMO, of course. And maybe you could resist the impulse to make statements about what you think I believe and experience? Unless that's too much to ask. Like I said, your wildness is part of your charm. Not a WORD of the rap below had anything to do with what YOU believe. The you's in the rap were rhetorical, or directed to Jim (Sandi Ego), whom I was conversing with, not you. The fact that you see the post as being directed to YOUR point of view when it wasn't tends to prove my point about points of view IMO, and rein- forces what Tom said. We color our perceptions by perceiving them; we project our selves into the things we perceive. You seem to have done so, and that's one kind of...uh...reality, I guess. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote: Barry writes snipped: I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. TomT: For me it appears to be a Baskin and Robbins store with trillions of flavors and ultimately the only thing you can know is the flavor of you the perceiver. It has your flavor as it is filtered through the DNA you are made of. You impart the flavor by the act of perceiving. Have fun. TOm so the Saganesque and Baskin and Robbins store containers are what each of you conceptually use as your metaphors for reality with a capital R. What I think we are saying (I hope Tom will forgive me for speaking for him) is that we don't feel any need to delude ourselves into thinking that 1) there is such a thing as Reality with a capital R, or 2) that we know what it is. reality (or realities) with a lowercase r is just fine for us. The point I've been trying to make is that reality is merely a *concept*. It can't stand on its own; it does not and cannot have an existence independent of a perceiver. It needs a perceiver to *perceive* reality, or to distinguish it from (if such a thing existed) non-reality. It's a codependent relationship. :-) And the moment you bring a perceiver into the equation, you have Point Of View. That POV, in the perceiver, has to color the nature of the perceived. Some claim that they can attain a state of consciousness or POV that is color- less, and that as a result what they perceive is accurate -- Reality. I don't buy it. (As an aside, you may feel that
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Om, their grand experiment... What could they possibly do to get the numbers they need for their utopia? People seem to be staying outside or not coming back in. What could they do to change that direction? They could do what the producers of Dallas did. The last thirty years of treating people like dirt and declaring them anathema for thinking for them- selves or for seeing other teachers never happened. It was all a dream. Bobby's been in the shower all this time, and Maharishi never allowed the TMO to become what it seemed to become in the dream. C'mon back to the fold, Pam...it was just a bad dream.
[FairfieldLife] China is ready for the Olympics?
http://www.gypsii.com/place.cgi?op=viewid=60452
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the War Monger or the Young Woman Predator or the Atheists who tossout spirituality with religion's bathwater, would just stop regularly glorifying in their malignancies, I wouldn't be posting my vitriol. This shows such a lack of awareness of the people you are referring to Edg. Really lowbrow lack of insight. I think you can do better. I doubt it. It seems to be the epitome of Edg's writing skills -- ranting to hear oneself rant, without a care for communication. :-) I kinda like being referred to as the Young Woman Predator, even if that fantasy is only in Edg's head, the kinds of actions he projects onto me because he's too afraid to do them himself. And technically I *am* an atheist (although I prefer 'non-theist.' And I actually ENJOY tossing babies (they bounce real good), so I have no problem with his characterizations. BTW I'll see you at the religious rite for Zeus tonight right? As an aside, do you think they broke plates at Greek god get-togethers the way they do at Greek restaurants? Do the plates actually break if you throw them at a cloud? It is the holiest day of the Zeus year and anyone who fails to attend will be disrespecting God in his truest form. You aren't going to tell me that you view Zeus as a myth are you now Edg and expose your atheistic heart concerning the only real god? Zeus will smite his sorry ass if he does. Probably with a plate. Spirituality. That word and $40 dollars will get ya blown in Atlantic City. And by a real person, not a CGI representation of one. :-) Have you ever considered the possibility that Edg was so offended by the CGI babe because she didn't fall for HIS predator stuff? No matter how he tried to impress her with his wise older guy act, all she did was roll her eyes and follow the cursor. No slavish devotion like he was hoping for, no words of praise like, Oh...you're just the BEST, Edg. Please type some more. More, more. DO it, Edg. :-) [ Let's face it...if Edg is still holding onto his fantasies of me as a predator after all this time, it's HIS fantasy about what he'd like to do to young women, not mine. Me, I've been tending to gravitate to older women these days...some of them have even been in their...gasp!...forties. ] Include the word God and another $40 and she'll take you all the way around the world. Those are such powerful words. Curtis, you ignored the real meat of Edg's rant. It's in the last sentence. Zoom back up to the top. and modify it by leaving off the last two words. If we weren't saying the things we say, he wouldn't be posting PERIOD. Because he has NOTHING TO SAY unless he can springboard off of someone else's words. He LOVES the people he rails against, because they give him the opportunity to pretend that he HAS something to say. And personally, I think he LOVES the fact that we get away with things he's afraid to do. Or to even think. Him ragging on us is a form of bhakti, of devotion. And, like those rakshasas in the Vedas who became enlightened as a result of one-pointed hatred of one of the gods, perhaps he'll become enlightened via one-pointed bashing of us, and the inadvertent focus on our magnificent humility. If that happens, we could set up a business and put ads in the Fairfield papers and become millionaires. History tells us they'll buy anything. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beelzebub
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Harry Angel: Louis Cyphere...Lucifer. Even your NAME is a dime store joke. Louis Cyphere: Mephistopheles is SUCH a mouthful in Manhattan. [From: Angelheart (1987) starring Mickey Rourke and Robert de Niro] Interesting. Is it any good? Dark, but excellent. Let's face it...how many times do you get to see one of the greatest actors of a generation play one of the greatest characters in human history? De Niro makes the movie.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Has had published, in major physics journals. (This was pre-MUM, but Lawson's point is that he was already doing professional-level work in this area.) Yes I know what JH was doing befor he got involved in TM, he was not only writing theoretical papers on string theory but was working at CERN laboratory in switzerland. I only hope he's happier duping the TB's on astrology than working at the actual cutting edge of physics because they are switching on their new particle accelerator soon. Possibly some real big discoveries on the way, Who wouldn't want to be involved in that? Or if you think that isn't the case you'd better ask why not. Isn't it good enough? You have to be kidding. You can't give an advanced physics lecture to people who aren't well schooled in physics. No, I'm not kidding but I meant it the other way round, if his stuff done at MUM is really finishing Einstiens work why isn't he presenting it to his old pals at CERN, he would get a nobel prize in seconds. I heard that Lawrence Domash said to MMY about no-one knowing if consciousness was the UF and MMY said WE are the leaders of this field How far would any of them have got in the TMO if they'd put their foot down and said let's stick to the facts? What are you supposed to do if you have a new fact nobody else knows about yet? Discard it? First you establish if it is indeed a new fact (and not wishful thinking due to having to fit in with your gurus teachings). Then you check against current theories to see if it is compatible with the latest ideas. If it isn't you have to prove that the other theories are wrong. I wish JH luck in that as his ideas haven't given anyone much trouble so far. snip Do you honestly think the rest of the scientific world are trailing in his wake? He comes over as a nice guy but he has clearly abandoned science, he wouldn't even hand over his data on the washington study on the ME. No wonder he got the Ignoble prize. Er, the data for the D.C. study were from public records. You weren't aware of that? How the data was manipulated is what people are interested in, JH refused to hand over his work, which is just one of the reasons no- one took it seriously and he ended up with the Ignobel rather than the real thing. FWIW I would be overjoyed if it does turn out that JH is right and my meditating has had a positive effect on the world but I won't lose sleep if, as I suspect, it doesn't. Why can't people just be happy doing it rather than telling everyone it lowers crime rates, brought down the berlin wall, controls the weather, is responsible for the massive upsurge in positivity in the world etc etc. Can't we just get on with enjoying it rather than having to think we know everything and are the only people that are going to save the world. It's megalomania.
[FairfieldLife] 'The Plot Thickens'
The plot thickens. Ever since January 25 when powerful Pluto entered Capricorn, the sign of the builder, you have been examining conditions you have left (or are leaving) and have been wondering where you want to put your energy and ambitions. What projects do you want to invest in? Where do you want your life to take you? These are changing times and you are feeling every bit of it! Now, on April 2, Pluto turns retrograde for the first time in its new sign -- giving you the opportunity to review the blueprint of your life plan. Additionally, Mercury's entrance into Aries on April 2 (new ideas) and Venus' transit into the same sign on April 5 (a new love interest?) encourage you to be bold, not to shy away from these important new beginnings. Now is the time to transform your life. You are embarking on a new chapter of a whole new story. The journey ahead is filled with all of the twists and turns that make a great novel and, since you are the author, this Pluto review in the midst of Aries energy offers you the opportunity to write, re-write and edit your amazing life story! - You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Has had published, in major physics journals. (This was pre-MUM, but Lawson's point is that he was already doing professional-level work in this area.) Yes I know what JH was doing befor he got involved in TM, he was not only writing theoretical papers on string theory but was working at CERN laboratory in switzerland. I only hope he's happier duping the TB's on astrology than working at the actual cutting edge of physics because they are switching on their new particle accelerator soon. Possibly some real big discoveries on the way, Who wouldn't want to be involved in that? Big difference, one that I learned hanging out with scientists from the National Labs at Los Alamos. Scientists don't get groupies. You can be doing the best cutting-edge research in the world -- real megadeath stuff -- and does it help you get laid on a Saturday night? Noo. But being a big fish in a small pond...? Or if you think that isn't the case you'd better ask why not. Isn't it good enough? You have to be kidding. You can't give an advanced physics lecture to people who aren't well schooled in physics. No, I'm not kidding but I meant it the other way round, if his stuff done at MUM is really finishing Einstiens work why isn't he presenting it to his old pals at CERN, he would get a nobel prize in seconds. If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith. -- Albert Einstein Locksmiths get more groupies than scientists, too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:05 AM, claudiouk wrote: Yes I think the cortex thikening is interesting. I must say I had assumed that the evidence of health benefits of TM was well established. But I came across this 2007 independent review which doesn't appear to rate any of the meditation research.. (same one cited on the programme?): http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf Surely this is just too negative? Nope, it's actually an excellent review of the science used in meditation research and just how scientific it is. Of course it is... But really, much of what's touted by TM researchers was disproved way back in the 80's. In some cases the TM researchers didn't even bother to respond when independent researchers pointed out the errors in their research! If anything, TMO-based meditation research is a good example of how NOT to do meditation research! Another nice review of meditation research can be found in The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on meditation and neurosceince objectively reviews some of the exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, esp. the specious claim of coherence during TM. It turns out what they've been touting for years now is statistically insignificant and often seen in normal waking state! This paper can be found at: http://www.box.net/shared/kcnprcg5fq The fact that it is written by Buddhist meditators doesn't call into question any aspect of what it says, whereas meditation research done by TMers is automatically suspect, because, well, TM is a religion, while Buddhism isn't... Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: snip Another nice review of meditation research can be found in The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on meditation and neurosceince objectively reviews some of the exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, esp. the specious claim of coherence during TM. It turns out what they've been touting for years now is statistically insignificant and often seen in normal waking state! As Vaj knows but doesn't tell you, there are several *very* serious problems with the treatment of TM research in this study, including that the authors didn't bother to look at the most recent *20 years* of research on TM. And of course, this is incorrect. There was TM research as recent as the year of publication. And of course the study in question only lists the studies they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known as the APA style, common in almost all research for publication. Er, but not in a survey of research, where there is a 20 year gap... Really since as early as the 1980's it was known and shown--and replicated sometimes as many as 3 times--that TM claims were and still are fallacious. Really after that was proven and replicated repeatedly, there wasn't much reason to emphasize the newer bogus research, but there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that these leading researchers are missing anything at all worth mentioning. Fortunately the Alberta study does show for us the continuing poor quality as it does show that TM research still is pretty much still just bad marketing research. But, replications of no effect studies are a dime a dozen. The smaller the study, the more likely it is to find no effect, so in fact, no effect studies are CHEAPER to do then studies that have a decent chance of finding an effect. It's called statistical power. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that do show methodologies and results they would accept for any meditation practice? How could we answer that, since we're not the researchers in question? However, there are quite a few studies out there that were not examined... For example, in the Cambridge Handbook meditation section, studies between 1986 and 2004 on TM were cited, even though that was the period when the first studies on the correlation of breath suspension and samadhi were published--the studies that prompted Robert Forman to coin the term Pure Consciousness Episode/Experience AKA PCE. Google that term and you'll find its a very common term used in philosophical and theoretical discussions of meditation in general, even though the only research on that topic is done on TMers. In the other study that Vaj cited, 65 TM studies that fit the criteria for inclusion were inexplicably ignored by the researchers, even though the researchers were explicitly informed of their existence by one of the peer-reviewers in his critique of the paper before it was published. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Presumably you've read the thing and know what their criteria were for rejecting the ones they did reject. They've got a whole list and they state their reasons briefly. Criteria also emerge from their own procedures. If you're knowledgeable about these things, why not just cite the studies? Yo: any and all studies from 1986 to 2004 are possible candidates for inclusion. Many of the studies might not have met their criteria for inclusion, but to suggest that NONE of the literally 100+ studies published in that time met the criteria while a whole mess of studies from the period 1973 to 1986 (which was a rather sparse period for TM research, BTW, with only a few dozen studies published), did, is to be, well Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: snip Well, most people who push the Consciousness as teh Unified Field idea don't understand Hagelin's writings about it. For that matter, those that COULD understand Hagelin's ideas about it, haven't read his more serious essays on the subject. Have you? I mean the original math-laden papers, not the What the Bleep sound bites, or the lectures he gives to the TM faithful at MUM. The lectures he gives to the faithful are the same stuff he tries to get published aren't they? Has had published, in major physics journals. (This was pre-MUM, but Lawson's point is that he was already doing professional-level work in this area.) Most of his published scientific research was from AFTER he joined MIU faculty. Here's his SLAC bibliography listing in publication date order: http://tinyurl.com/ypn3du Do you honestly think the rest of the scientific world are trailing in his wake? He comes over as a nice guy but he has clearly abandoned science, he wouldn't even hand over his data on the washington study on the ME. No wonder he got the Ignoble prize. Er, the data for the D.C. study were from public records. You weren't aware of that? This is an obvious reference to the controversy over the earlier study where Prof. Barry Markovsky asked for the CD of the data and the researchers refused to comply until he publicly apologized for his radio interview where he called them dishonest. He refused to apologize so they refused to release the detailed data to him. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 9:08 AM, gruntlespam wrote: On a side note, what's interesting about this BBC synopsis on the show, and the BBC show it self - is how the BBC now feel the need to dumb- down everything and add drama all the time. They make it seem like research is just starting, when it's been going on for years. While pilot-style research has been going on for years, really good research is just starting by and large. I haven't really seen any good research from the TMO, with controls, lack of bias, etc. There has however been some good independent research on TM since the heyday of the TMO, but it sadly reverses many of the specious claims of the TMO. Of course, the study done by SKip Alexander of MUM along with researchers from Harvard, where each researcher was a proponent of a different form of meditation (TM, Benson's Relaxation Response and Mindfulness), done with randomized subjjects in a double-blind controlled study, which found that TM worked better than the other techniques on a variety of measures, couldn't possibly be a good study, even though it is one of the only studies ever done on any form of meditation where the researchers attempted to control expectations by having meditation teachers (each trained by proponents of that respective meditation technique) to present positive research and lectures on the subject. Nyah, couldn't possibly be a good study cause 1) it found something positive about TM compared to other techniques; 2) Vaj never heard of it; 3) was larger than most other controlled studies on meditation of any kind ever conducted. Lawson And the point about interest in meditation [could] turn out to be a passing fad is just moronically funny - yeah, like a fad lasting 5,000 years or more. :-) But as I mention above, the research about part of the cortex actually thickening by around .1mm to .2mm is simply astonishing. A demostratable physical change of substance - not just lines on a graph or MRI scans. It was a major step forward for neuroplasticity as a real phenomenon. Some of the new research from that same lab is just astounding and seeing publication in major, highly reputed journals. Hold onto your seat as in the next two years you're going to be seeing the results of the most detailed research on meditation yet, with controls, excellent study design and no bias.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great summary links. Thanks. With all those descriptive parts directly written about other techniques in these papers, anyone in the dome probably ought to have their badges revoked immediately for just reading these papers. Worst than confusing, this material is outright corrupting to the security of the teaching. ..have you ever visited any research of other spiritual technologies? Only to someone with an anti-TM bias. To a neutral party, theBuddhist meditation research is, at best, as suspect as the TM research. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, uns_tressor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: I thought she should have learned TM as she tried the others, but you don't know what went on behind the scenes, she may have asked to film the teaching or asked for a freebie... The fee would not have been an issue. The Beeb has deep pockets. Don't forget that the programme was pitched for the layman, although she touched on advanced topics. The tragedy is that the price structure and organisation in the UK is not capable of making the most of the event. What is Vedic City ? MIU? Is so, a bit pretentious. Anyway, where is your cathedral? Tell me it isn't the dome. Uns. Actually, Vedic City is a genuine city in Iowa that sits next door to MUM. They have a website. Note the last part of the URL: http://www.maharishivediccity-iowa.gov/ Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam gruntlespam@ wrote: Quantum physics and jyotish nuff said. Well, most people who push the Consciousness as teh Unified Field idea don't understand Hagelin's writings about it. For that matter, those that COULD understand Hagelin's ideas about it, haven't read his more serious essays on the subject. Have you? I mean the original math-laden papers, not the What the Bleep sound bites, or the lectures he gives to the TM faithful at MUM. The lectures he gives to the faithful are the same stuff he tries to get published aren't they? Or if you think that isn't the case you'd better ask why not. Isn't it good enough? Er, do you think, regardless of whether or not his theories are valid (I'm not claiming that his current theories are, BTW) that what he presents to layman would EVER be worthy of publication in a scientific journal? John's science-oriented stuff is so esoteric that only a relative handful of physicists ever read it directly. Cutting edge superstring theory published in collaboration with the top names in that field, isn't normal reading, even for the average PhD in Physics. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 1:02 PM, authfriend wrote: And of course the study in question only lists the studies they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known as the APA style, common in almost all research for publication. More disingenuity. The *problem* is that they did not refer to those later studies *because they did not look at them*. As in previous desperate attempts to somehow make a state of the art paper look bad, this one falls on all but other TB ears as BS Judy. In no decently written papers of this kind have I seen wanton referral to research that is not directly linked to something included in the paper. And, true to APA form, these writers refer to each and every point they are making by a parenthetical citation. All others--in other different meditation studies--need not be included as they are quite able to cover all their assertions with what they are currently using. It makes no sense whatsoever to include studies for the sake of writing their names as references. And of course such strawman thinking does also not support your rather odd claim that 'because TM studies are omitted, they haven't read them'. They had all the citations needed. Of course if the actual purpose of the paper was to examine all TM studies, then they could be in error. But that is clearly not the case with this paper. But, Vaj, they only looked at studies published in the 70's through 1986 and based their conclusions about TM on those studies. They didn't lok at anything newer save one 2004 study which they dismissed as not containing any physiological evidence for its conclusions, which is certainly true, because the abstract clearly identified it as a psychological study--a followup on an earlier physiological study on the same group of people. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 2:29 PM, claudiouk wrote: How about: Transcendental Meditation Effective In Reducing High Blood Pressure, Study Shows ScienceDaily (Dec. 5, 2007) � People with high blood pressure may find relief from transcendental meditation, according to a definitive new meta-analysis of 107 published studies on stress reduction programs and high blood pressure, which will be published in the December issue of Current Hypertension Reports. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071204121953.htm As with many pieces of TM research Claudia, this one hinges on the fact that most people will be fooled by an exaggerated conclusion. So, the TMers are guilty of bias, while the Buddhist researchers, who are on record (according to the mp3 file you referred us to recently) as saying that they have always believed that Buddhist meditation doesn't need scientific confirmation, are beyond bias... [much speculation about the dishonorable practices of TM researchers snipt] Lawson
[FairfieldLife] 'Hillary= Smelling like a 'Rocky's Cheese Steak?'
Hillary's like Philly's Rocky? Please... Is this comparison is so cheesey, or is it me? Proof! she will do anything to win... - You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Rationale for the Maharishi Effect
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally I care alot more about the ME. Hagelin predicted the market going to 18,000 by the end of 2008. Does this count as a disconfirmable prediction? Well, based on the assumption that the numbers in the domes would exceed the ME requirement for 2008. The dates and times where that number has been met are marked in red: http://invincibleamerica.org/tallies.html Personally, I think a case can be made that SOME measurable effect should be found whenever the sum of the squares of the morning and evening figures meet or exceed the minimum figure (1700^2), based on the assumption that there's some accumulative effect even when people are only making the accumulated goal for the entire day rather than for a single meditation period. HOW measurable isn't established, but the assumption is inherent in how the theory is explained. The ME goal is 1% of the population of the USA, or about 3 million. That could be 3 million inidividual meditators, or (1700-ish x 1700-ish) sidhas in one groupo or some combination of smaller groups. If the number is met once a day, there should be a threshold effect. if the number is met twice a day, the effect should be considerably larger. Lawson Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Straight Shooting from Tuzla
On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:07 PM, authfriend wrote: AS staff members who traveled with the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to Bosnia in March 1996, we have followed with more than passing interest the extensive news coverage of her landing in Tuzla. Video footage clearly shows that Mrs. Clinton's assertions that she landed under fire and that the arrival ceremony was canceled were wrong. She said so herself last week. Yet she repeated the lie at least 4 times, and stopped only when she realized the jig was up. Yet even since she acknowledged her mistake, It wasn't a mistake, Judy, it was clearly deliberate, unless you and the writer want to imply that HRC is now delusional. the commentary has continued unabated. Because most people don't believe she *is* delusional. Reports are now being embellished (to borrow the term du jour) to suggest that Bosnia was not really a danger zone. Her visiting American troops on a peacekeeping mission in a hostile environment is now being treated as if it were a trip to the beach. Oh, please. Nobody's suggesting that except the idiot who's writing this article. Suggesting there wasn't any sniper fire hardly qualifies something as a trip to the beach. Unfortunately, articles like this one and others you've been posting, Judy, are so over the top it might explain why nobody takes them seriously. Sal
[FairfieldLife] The Hillary Waltz
The Hillary Waltz function getSharePasskey() { return
'ex=1364875200en=4f4640567b166b99ei=5124';} function getShareURL() {
return
encodeURIComponent('http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/opinion/02dowd.html'); }
function getShareHeadline() { return encodeURIComponent('The Hillary Waltz');
} function getShareDescription() {return encodeURIComponent('One of the
most valuable lessons the gritty Hillary Clinton can teach the languid Barack
Obama #151; and the timid Democrats #151; is that the whole point of a
presidential race is to win.'); } function getShareKeywords() { return
encodeURIComponent('Presidential Election of 2008,United States Politics and
Government,Presidential Elections (US),Democratic Party,Hillary Rodham
Clinton,Barack Obama'); } function getShareSection() { return
encodeURIComponent('opinion'); } function getShareSectionDisplay() { return
encodeURIComponent('Op-Ed Columnist'); } function getShareSubSection() { return
encodeURIComponent(''); } function getShareByline() { return
encodeURIComponent('By MAUREEN DOWD'); } function getSharePubdate() { return
encodeURIComponent('April 2, 2008'); } By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: April 2, 2008
Democrats getting jittery about the alienating effects of the endless soap
opera they call their campaign should buck up. These hand-wringers, as the
Hillary strategist Harold Ickes calls them, are not seeing the larger picture.
Hillary is cruelly misunderstood, and she deserves more credit for her
benevolence. Not only does she have a lot in common with Rocky, as she said
Tuesday in Philadelphia, but she has a lot in common with another famous
character the Marschallin in Strausss bittersweet comic opera Der
Rosenkavalier.
The Marschallin is a princess married to a Viennese field marshal who has a
liaison dangereuse with a younger man, Count Octavian. Though shes worried
about her fleeting youth and the fickleness of men, she instructs the young man
on the ways of love and then gracefully sets him free, allowing him to find
happiness with young Sophie as a soaring waltz plays.
Whether or not she wins, Hillary has already given noble service as a
sophisticated political tutor for Obama, providing her younger colleague with
much-needed seasoning. Who else was going to toughen him up? Howard Dean? John
Edwards? Dennis Kucinich?
Obama had not been hit hard until this campaign; he sailed through his Senate
race. Without Hillary, he never would have learned to be a good debater. He
never would have understood how to robustly answer distorted and personal
attacks. He never would have been warned about how harmful an unplugged spouse
can be. He never would have realized how a luminous speech can be effective
damage control.
When pressed about whether hes ready for Swift-boating, Obama has seemed a
bit cavalier. But the Hillary camp will garrote him with his mistakes until he
fully appreciates what garroting feels like. Ickes told a Web site Tuesday that
he has been pursuing superdelegates by pressing the Rev. Wright issue.
Besides coaching Obama, Hillary is also shielding him. If she had not fibbed
about the Tuzla airport landing, and then fibbed to get out of a fib, the press
would have stayed focused on Wright. She has been an invaluable lightning rod.
Hillary has clearly raised Obamas consciousness about the importance of
courting the ladies. Touring a manufacturing plant in Allentown, Pa., Tuesday,
he was flirtatious, winking and grinning at the women working there, calling
one Sweetie, telling another she was beautiful, and imitating his
daughters dance moves by twirling around.
Later, at a Scranton town hall, he went up to Denise Mercuri, a pharmacist
from Dunmore wearing a Hillary button. What do I need to do? Do you want me on
my knees? he charmed, before promising: Ill give you a kiss.
Obama has been less adept at absorbing the lesson of Hillarys metamorphosis
from entitled queen of the party to scrappy blue-collar mama. His strenuous and
inadvertently hilarious efforts to woo working-class folk in Pennsylvania have
only made him seem more effete. Keeping his tie firmly in place, he genteelly
sipped his pint of Yuengling beer at Sharkys sports cafe in Latrobe and bowled
badly in Altoona. Challenging Obama to a bowl-off, Hillary kindly offered to
spot him two frames.
At the Wilbur chocolate shop in Lititz Monday, he spent most of his time
skittering away from chocolate goodies, as though he were a starlet obsessing
on a svelte waistline.
Oh, now, the woman managing the shop told him with a frown, you dont
worry about calories in a chocolate factory.
The Timess Michael Powell reports that, after watching five plump,
white-haired women in plastic hairnets spin the chocolate into such confections
as Phantom of the Opera masks and pink high heels, he ventured: Do you
actually eat the chocolate or do you
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:29 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 1:02 PM, authfriend wrote: And of course the study in question only lists the studies they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known as the APA style, common in almost all research for publication. More disingenuity. The *problem* is that they did not refer to those later studies *because they did not look at them*. As in previous desperate attempts to somehow make a state of the art paper look bad, this one falls on all but other TB ears as BS Judy. In no decently written papers of this kind have I seen wanton referral to research that is not directly linked to something included in the paper. No, this is yet more disingenuity. One more time: The Buddhist researchers purport to have evaluated TM research, but they ignored the two most recent decades' worth of published studies. That's absurd on its face. Has nothing to do with APA form, as you know, or any of the other red herrings and flimflam you've tried to throw in. It would have made sense for them to have ignored the *earier* studies and focused entirely on the most recent ones that dealt with the topics they chose to discuss. You clearly have little background in or understanding of science. I'm sorry Judy, you're TB faith in TM research, all it tells me is that you believe what you're told, with little critical comprehension or understanding. Nothing any of of us can say or do will shake your belief in the bible of McMeditation research, so I won't pretend to be surprised at your wind-up doll retorts. But thanks anyway. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:47 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 2:29 PM, claudiouk wrote: How about: Transcendental Meditation Effective In Reducing High Blood Pressure, Study Shows ScienceDaily (Dec. 5, 2007) — People with high blood pressure may find relief from transcendental meditation, according to a definitive new meta-analysis of 107 published studies on stress reduction programs and high blood pressure, which will be published in the December issue of Current Hypertension Reports. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071204121953.htm As with many pieces of TM research Claudia, this one hinges on the fact that most people will be fooled by an exaggerated conclusion. We'd really need to examine the data closely as TM researchers in the past have been very clever at the way the hide things and deceive. Given a past history of fraudulent conclusions There is no such past history, as Vaj knows. That's *his* highly biased conclusion, not an established fact. No it was (and repeatedly replicated, an important part of science Judy) actually a group of independent scientists who investigated TM researchers claims way back in the 80's!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:07 PM, authfriend wrote: AS staff members who traveled with the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to Bosnia in March 1996, we have followed with more than passing interest the extensive news coverage of her landing in Tuzla. Video footage clearly shows that Mrs. Clinton's assertions that she landed under fire and that the arrival ceremony was canceled were wrong. She said so herself last week. Yet she repeated the lie at least 4 times, and stopped only when she realized the jig was up. Does this sound familiar? Remember the oft-repeated (but strangely never verified) claim that Transcendental Meditation was already a familiar and frequently-used term when Maharishi started using it? Strangely those claims petered out when challenged, too. :-) Yet even since she acknowledged her mistake, It wasn't a mistake, Judy, it was clearly deliberate, unless you and the writer want to imply that HRC is now delusional. As was the claim about Transcendental Meditation being a common term, and that being a problem. As I said, I worked with the copyright lawyers during the process in which the term was trademarked, and not one of them had ever heard of the term being used before, and not one of them could find instances of it being used before. But...uh...someone claims that it's true, and will probably claim AGAIN that it's true when she reads this, just because she claimed it and can't admit *her* prevarication. Judy likes Hillary because she *identifies* with Hillary. Hillary *thrives* on conflict and adver- sarial situations. If they don't exist, she provokes them, just to create a situation in which she can appear to be a strong woman and attract attention to herself. That's exactly why she'd make as shitty a President as McCain would. the commentary has continued unabated. Because most people don't believe she *is* delusional. Merely completely self-serving and willing to say anything and do anything to get what she believes she's entitled to. And that sense of entitlement extends to being regarded as someone who knows what she's talking about, especially when she clearly doesn't. Hillary gets indignant and more than a little crazy when someone challenges her claims. Again, does this behavior sound familiar?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 1, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: Sorry, about that last truncated message that got sent by accident before I finished typing it. So, what I was gonna say was Well, then, I'd like an explanation for why they would just ignore twenty years worth of research. If true, that is suspect on the face of it. Whaddaya say, Vaj? There's no evidence that they ignored anything. All of the claims they make covering meditation research have citations backing their claims. So unless there's some specific area that is missing a valid, scientific claim, there's no need for more citations. This is just another Judy red herring. What they have done, and most TB's who spout TM research clearly aren't aware of, TM was investigated rigorously and independently long ago. Many TM falsehoods were shown to be just that, decades ago. These results were dupicated by other independent scientists at that time. In some cases you have 4 investigations, all independent researchers in agreement and 1 study by Tm researchers with varying data (and of course, conclusions). Through such investigation they were able to reach sound conclusions on TM in regards to blood pressure and the nature of the Tm relaxation technique by using adequate controls. So unless TM has somehow changed in the interim, the original findings still stand as good and valid science. We see the same trends in other corporations like oil companies who want to constantly counter established science on global warming by seeding doubt with questionable research. The idea isn't to plant the seeds of truth, it's to sell their product and falsely alter collective opinion by mass dissemination of lies and spin.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 2, 2008, at 4:44 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:05 AM, claudiouk wrote: Yes I think the cortex thikening is interesting. I must say I had assumed that the evidence of health benefits of TM was well established. But I came across this 2007 independent review which doesn't appear to rate any of the meditation research.. (same one cited on the programme?): http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf Surely this is just too negative? Nope, it's actually an excellent review of the science used in meditation research and just how scientific it is. Of course it is... But really, much of what's touted by TM researchers was disproved way back in the 80's. In some cases the TM researchers didn't even bother to respond when independent researchers pointed out the errors in their research! If anything, TMO-based meditation research is a good example of how NOT to do meditation research! Another nice review of meditation research can be found in The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on meditation and neurosceince objectively reviews some of the exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, esp. the specious claim of coherence during TM. It turns out what they've been touting for years now is statistically insignificant and often seen in normal waking state! This paper can be found at: http://www.box.net/shared/kcnprcg5fq The fact that it is written by Buddhist meditators doesn't call into question any aspect of what it says, Another red herring. It wasn't written by Buddhist meditators in was written by Neuroscientists, one of which has studied Hindu, Buddhist and transcendental meditation. In other words, he's an expert in meditation research, including TM! whereas meditation research done by TMers is automatically suspect, because, well, TM is a religion, while Buddhism isn't... No TMO researchers have been caught a number of times with bad data and exaggerated claims, so it's only natural to be suspicious if you're a scientist (if you're not, you might not even notice). They lost credibility decades ago. Not to mention the natural bias present when researchers promoting a product try to push their own research.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 2, 2008, at 4:53 AM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that do show methodologies and results they would accept for any meditation practice? How could we answer that, since we're not the researchers in question? However, there are quite a few studies out there that were not examined... For example, in the Cambridge Handbook meditation section, studies between 1986 and 2004 on TM were cited, even though that was the period when the first studies on the correlation of breath suspension and samadhi were published Unfortunately none of these meet the criteria for samadhi. Maybe they should've called it Maharishi samadhi? :-) TM does not range outside of normal human circadian rhythms according to independent researchers. And the apnea study is so biased and non-randomized that I doubt a real scientist would even consider it science. The fact is, there no examples in TM lit. of samadhi at all, just theoretical conclusions they expect us to accept as beliefs. In order to do so they'd have to show that they had attained samadhi, in which case they'd be able to go into samadhi at will, for whatever length of time they chose and be unperturbed by their environment. This level of attainment is not present in even long term TMers. After 30+ years, it's seriously doubtful they ever will. That's not of course to say that TM isn't relaxing--it is. And relaxing is good for most people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam gruntlespam@ wrote: Quantum physics and jyotish nuff said. Well, most people who push the Consciousness as teh Unified Field idea don't understand Hagelin's writings about it. For that matter, those that COULD understand Hagelin's ideas about it, haven't read his more serious essays on the subject. Have you? I mean the original math-laden papers, not the What the Bleep sound bites, or the lectures he gives to the TM faithful at MUM. The lectures he gives to the faithful are the same stuff he tries to get published aren't they? Or if you think that isn't the case you'd better ask why not. Isn't it good enough? Er, do you think, regardless of whether or not his theories are valid (I'm not claiming that his current theories are, BTW) that what he presents to layman would EVER be worthy of publication in a scientific journal? John's science-oriented stuff is so esoteric that only a relative handful of physicists ever read it directly. Cutting edge superstring theory published in collaboration with the top names in that field, isn't normal reading, even for the average PhD in Physics. Lawson Oh how convenient, he's just so ar ahead. That probably explains why, when I stopped at the local, very large and well stocked bookshop and checked the indexes of every physics book in there, I couldn't find his name anywhere. Surely someone who has finished Einsteins work would get a footnote or two at the very least. Perhaps the deafening silence of the rest of the scientific world actually speaks very loudly indeed. I think Penrose at least might have given the guy a mention. Him being the only other advocate of any sort of quantum theory of consciousness I'm aware of, though definitely not the UF variety, not yet anyway and as he's a genuine working scientist he won't be making unsubstantiated claims about the ultimate nature of reality in a hurry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Has had published, in major physics journals. (This was pre-MUM, but Lawson's point is that he was already doing professional-level work in this area.) Most of his published scientific research was from AFTER he joined MIU faculty. Here's his SLAC bibliography listing in publication date order: Ah, OK, thanks for the correction. http://tinyurl.com/ypn3du Do you honestly think the rest of the scientific world are trailing in his wake? He comes over as a nice guy but he has clearly abandoned science, he wouldn't even hand over his data on the washington study on the ME. No wonder he got the Ignoble prize. Er, the data for the D.C. study were from public records. You weren't aware of that? This is an obvious reference to the controversy over the earlier study where Prof. Barry Markovsky asked for the CD of the data and the researchers refused to comply until he publicly apologized for his radio interview where he called them dishonest. He refused to apologize so they refused to release the detailed data to him. I thought that might be the case. Hugheshugo has the Hagelin's D.C. study confused with Orme-Johnson et al.'s Jerusalem study. He's a little mixed up about what the Ig Nobels are awarded for, too.
[FairfieldLife] Spiritually Hot in Fairfield, w/ Saniel Bonder Thursday Nite
Waking Down founder in FF April 3, 7pm First National Bank Meeting Rm. info: 472-6562
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Dome Numbers
On Apr 1, 2008, at 11:14 PM, dhamiltony2k5 wrote: The numbers. I got introduced to someone who had lunch with Howard Settle last week. Howard is wondering, why are there so few Fairfield meditators in the domes? What would you tell Howard about this? I'd ask him if he was familiar with the concept of support of nature. I'd also explain that this is actually different from support of millionaires.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Has had published, in major physics journals. (This was pre-MUM, but Lawson's point is that he was already doing professional-level work in this area.) Yes I know what JH was doing befor he got involved in TM, he was not only writing theoretical papers on string theory but was working at CERN laboratory in switzerland. I only hope he's happier duping the TB's on astrology than working at the actual cutting edge of physics because they are switching on their new particle accelerator soon. Possibly some real big discoveries on the way, Who wouldn't want to be involved in that? Big difference, one that I learned hanging out with scientists from the National Labs at Los Alamos. Scientists don't get groupies. You can be doing the best cutting-edge research in the world -- real megadeath stuff -- and does it help you get laid on a Saturday night? Noo. But being a big fish in a small pond...? I'm shocked! I would have thought diddling with particle accelerators all day would be an absolute sure-fire babe magnet. I'm going to stop opening dates with a discussion on macro evolution in the cambrian fossil record and see if I get any better results, or anything at all for that matter ;-) I'd love to know if JH feels it's better to have a little crown and be thought of as world renowned by the very few left in the TMO than be working at CERN and be pushing boundaries. The TMO are so convinced that he can revive their fortunes that they have sent out a 40DVD pack to centres everywhere and have instructed them to charge people to listen. Apparently MMY said that if anyone wants to know what he thinks they should ask JH! This has obviously made everyone think JH is enlightened, which wouldn't hurt the groupie count I'll bet. Or if you think that isn't the case you'd better ask why not. Isn't it good enough? You have to be kidding. You can't give an advanced physics lecture to people who aren't well schooled in physics. No, I'm not kidding but I meant it the other way round, if his stuff done at MUM is really finishing Einstiens work why isn't he presenting it to his old pals at CERN, he would get a nobel prize in seconds. If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith. -- Albert Einstein Locksmiths get more groupies than scientists, too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:07 PM, authfriend wrote: AS staff members who traveled with the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to Bosnia in March 1996, we have followed with more than passing interest the extensive news coverage of her landing in Tuzla. Video footage clearly shows that Mrs. Clinton's assertions that she landed under fire and that the arrival ceremony was canceled were wrong. She said so herself last week. Yet she repeated the lie at least 4 times, and stopped only when she realized the jig was up. Does this sound familiar? Remember the oft-repeated (but strangely never verified) claim that Transcendental Meditation was already a familiar and frequently-used term when Maharishi started using it? Strangely those claims petered out when challenged, too. :-) Yet even since she acknowledged her mistake, It wasn't a mistake, Judy, it was clearly deliberate, unless you and the writer want to imply that HRC is now delusional. As was the claim about Transcendental Meditation being a common term, and that being a problem. As I said, I worked with the copyright lawyers during the process in which the term was trademarked, and not one of them had ever heard of the term being used before, and not one of them could find instances of it being used before. But...uh...someone claims that it's true, and will probably claim AGAIN that it's true when she reads this, just because she claimed it and can't admit *her* prevarication. It wasn't a prevarication, of course. It *may* have been a mistake, as I've already acknowledged. Having acknowledged that, why would I claim AGAIN that it's true? Barry's fantasizing, as usual. What *wasn't* a mistake was what led me to say transcendental meditation was a common term, i.e., that TM critics had made that claim. If it was not a common term, then *they* made a mistake, or were prevaricating, something we know from long experience that TM critics are wont to do. Silly me for believing those TM critics! The reason this arose in the first place, let us remember, was that Barry had plastered egg all over his face several times in a row concerning the difference between Gnostic and gnostic, absurdly claiming that capitalizing a term could not possibly change its definition. Barry claimed that was true, and will probably claim AGAIN that it's true when he reads this, just because he claimed it and can't admit *his* prevarication. But I'll be fair to Barry here; it probably wasn't a prevarication, just ignorance, at least the first time he made the claim. The second and third times, however, it *was* a prevarication, because he had been informed that he was mistaken--complete with definitions from Oxford English Dictionary, plus a whole bunch of examples of other terms for which capitalization makes a difference in definition--such as one particularly appropriate for Barry: know-nothing vs. Know-Nothing. And he actually won't make his claim again; he'll just ignore this post, because the *last* thing he wants to do is highlight the fact that he made a dumb mistake and then insisted he hadn't even after it had been proved that he did. Judy likes Hillary because she *identifies* with Hillary. Hillary *thrives* on conflict and adver- sarial situations. I don't particularly like Hillary, of course, as I've said here a number of times (more Barry fantasy). I do think she would make a better president than Obama this time around because she thrives on conflict and adversarial situations, which are what the next Democratic president is going to have to face, and what I seriously doubt Obama has the stones to deal with. If they don't exist, she provokes them, just to create a situation in which she can appear to be a strong woman and attract attention to herself. That's exactly why she'd make as shitty a President as McCain would. B.S. the commentary has continued unabated. Because most people don't believe she *is* delusional. Merely completely self-serving and willing to say anything and do anything to get what she believes she's entitled to. And that sense of entitlement extends to being regarded as someone who knows what she's talking about, especially when she clearly doesn't. Hillary gets indignant and more than a little crazy when someone challenges her claims. Again, does this behavior sound familiar? Reminds me of Barry, actually, a lot more than it does of Hillary.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Has had published, in major physics journals. (This was pre-MUM, but Lawson's point is that he was already doing professional-level work in this area.) Most of his published scientific research was from AFTER he joined MIU faculty. Here's his SLAC bibliography listing in publication date order: Ah, OK, thanks for the correction. http://tinyurl.com/ypn3du Do you honestly think the rest of the scientific world are trailing in his wake? He comes over as a nice guy but he has clearly abandoned science, he wouldn't even hand over his data on the washington study on the ME. No wonder he got the Ignoble prize. Er, the data for the D.C. study were from public records. You weren't aware of that? This is an obvious reference to the controversy over the earlier study where Prof. Barry Markovsky asked for the CD of the data and the researchers refused to comply until he publicly apologized for his radio interview where he called them dishonest. He refused to apologize so they refused to release the detailed data to him. I thought that might be the case. Hugheshugo has the Hagelin's D.C. study confused with Orme-Johnson et al.'s Jerusalem study. Well you thought wrong, but it's interesting to hear, I shall look into that one, I wonder why he thought they were dishonest. As far as I know they were just totally crap at science, they failed to take into account the fact that a field effect would naturally have an affect in all directions and there was no corresponding upsurge in positivity in nearby Jerusalem. And they didn't take religious holidays into account, it's rubbish even I can see that. You should read the critics a bit more carefully because that is how science moves forward, by disproving theories causing them to be refined or abandoned. If the TMO really cared about science, they would put their hands up and say Oops! we'll have another go. They could stop the Iraq war for instance, actually I remember there are already enough pundits to have done that. And enough to have made America invincible. God, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, I'm starting to feel guilty. He's a little mixed up about what the Ig Nobels are awarded for, too. You wish.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Hillary was fired from Watergate committee
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: So?...Laura Bush killed her boyfriend. ...and I suppose, then, that Bill Clinton brually raped and sodomized Juanita Broderick... What's your point? To play ca-ca poo-poo tit-for-tat? Yes. Hillary aspires to be the most powerful person on the face of the planet. Er, not. America used to be powerful, now it is the lapdog of the world. This article brings out insights into her character. Politicians lie... ...Surprised are you? Just as people feel that it is important to discuss the ramifications of who Barack Obama's pastor has been for the past 20 years. Let's put this in perspective. GW Bush's pastor who called him on the phone on a weekly basis until about a year ago...was Ted Haggard. And to reprint that article about John McCain that someone did a few weeks ago on this forum that accused him of pretty much everything short of the Kennedy assassination. Do you not feel that it is appropriate to uncover character traits for the person who aspires to be president? Nope, because the Masons run the whole thing anyways. OffWorld
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
Many, if not most, dome-goers attend program only because they are virtually forced to. For CCP, it meant show up regularly or face a humiliating trip to the course office to explain why you are not regular. For students, it meant miss a minimal number of programs or fail. I cn't imagine what the pressue on Purusha has been historically...I just remember back in the late 80s one Purushnik I knew from Cambridge telling me he had to hop regularly in order to stay on. --- bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The numbers. I got introduced to someone who had lunch with Howard Settle last week. Howard is wondering, why are there so few Fairfield meditators in the domes? What would you tell Howard about this? *** Since paying dome fees is now entirely voluntary, that can't be an obstacle, but many people got used to not going to the dome when the monthly fees were a problem. Many people also prefer to meditate in the comfort of their Sthapathya Ved homes, and even those whose homes are not OK in vastu probably feel it's less of a hassle just to meditate at home, especially in the morning. There is also the substantial problem of work schedules -- people on campus have work schedules that work around dome times, but people in town have different commitments. Also, for people with kids, child care can be very expensive. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.
On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:31 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I just played a blues show for a facility of Alzheimer and dementia patients today. Oh, you mean you uploaded some music to FFL, Curtis? Cool. :) Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: where are vedic city pundits?
On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:49 PM, off_world_beings wrote: They're too toxic? Hadn't heard any of that. I'll try to take a ride out there tomorrow and see if I can sight any intelligent life out there, my own excepted of course. :) They live underground in a giant underground compund that spans the whole of Jefferson county. There they convene with the Hadesians, Balrogs, Morlocks, and a giant UFO sneaks in the back door once a week, shuttling yogis and pundits back and fourth to the Andromeda Galaxy. Sounds like Raja Wynne should fit right in. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse
http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/press/Newsweek_lotus_synapse.htmlThe Lotus and the SynapseTuesday, March 25, 2008 3:42 PMBy Sharon BegleyMy favorite story about the Dalai Lama doesn't concern his activities on behalf of Tibet, which is one unrelieved tragedy, but is about his interest in neuroscience. A few years ago the Dalai Lama was visiting an American medical school and watched a brain operation. Afterwards, he chatted with the surgeon, telling him how his scientist friends had patiently explained to him that all of our thoughts, feelings, memories, dreams and other mental activities are the products of electrical and chemical activity in the brain. But he had always wondered something, the Dalai Lama told the surgeon. If electricity and chemistry can produce thoughts and all the rest, can thoughts act back on the physical stuff of the brain to change its chemical, electrical and other physical properties?The surgeon dismissed the question with a polite but indulgent no. (The Dalai Lama's English translator, Thupten Jinpa, told me this story in 2005.) The brain produces and shapes mental activity, the brain surgeon said; mental activity does not alter the brain.That wasn''t a stupid answer 10 years ago, before scientists had fully grasped the potential of the adult brain to change in structure and function—an ability called neuroplasticity. But now researchers have documented a long list of examples of how the brain, once thought to be basically unchangeable after the ripe old age of 3, can indeed change.The first things that were found to change the brain were sensory inputs. If you spend a lot of years playing violin, say, then the regions of the motor and somatosensory cortexes that correspond to the fingering digits (the fingers on the left hand, if you're right-handed) expand.But now neuroscientists have documented how mere thoughts can also sculpt the brain. Just thinking about playing a piano piece, over and over, can expand the region of motor cortex that controls those fingers; just thinking about depressive thoughts in new ways can dial down activity in one part of the brain that underlies depression and increase it in another, leading to clinical improvement.The scientist who has worked most closely with the Dalai Lama is Richard Davidson of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Davidson first met the Dalai Lama in 1992, and since about 2000 has been investigating a question dear to the heart of the leader of Tibetan Buddhism: can mental training such as meditations change the brain in an enduring way? That enduring is key: of course the brain changes in the sense that some areas become more active when you meditate, just as it changes when you think of pink elephants, watch Obama or try to remember your first kiss. Everything we think has a corresponding brain activity. But once the thought stops, so does the activity. Usually. What Davidson wanted to know was whether meditation left a long-lasting imprint on the brain, some change of function or structure.Since 2004, Davidson and his colleagues have reported that meditation can alter the brain's attention capabilities and that it can increase production of brainwaves called gamma, which are associated with consciousness. Now they have found another long-lasting brain change produced by Buddhist meditation: practicing compassion meditation (more on this below) alters regions of the brain that make us empathetic, Davidson and his colleagues are reporting this evening in PLoS ONE.In compassion meditation, as the French-born Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard explained it to me when we were both visiting the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala for a meeting of neuroscientists and Buddhist scholars, you focus on the wish that all sentient beings be free of suffering. You generate an intense feeling of love for all beings, not fixating on individuals but encompassing all of humanity. It takes practice, since the natural tendency is to focus on one or a few specific suffering people.Davidson conducted his new study as he has his others on meditation, enlisting expert meditators (the Dalai Lama has asked Buddhist scholars to volunteer their brains to Davidson's research). Antoine Lutz has the meditators (monks who have 10,000 hours or more of meditation under their belts saffron robes) lie in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) tube. The fMRI detects which regions of the brain are active during meditation and which are quiet. It also detects which are active during periods between meditations. The scientists compare these readings to those on non-meditators, who undergo a quickie course in compassion meditation. In this case, Davidson and Lutz enlisted 16 monks plus 16 age-matched controls, members of the UW-Madison community.Each of the 32 subjects lay in the fMRI and turned compassion meditation on and off, on Lutz's command. Throughout, Lutz piped in happy sounds (a baby laughing and cooing), distressed ones (a woman who sounded as if she
[FairfieldLife] Study shows compassion meditation changes the brain
Study shows compassion meditation changes the brain March 25, 2008 by Dian Land Can we train ourselves to be compassionate? A new study suggests the answer is yes. Cultivating compassion and kindness through meditation affects brain regions that can make a person more empathetic to other peoples' mental states, say researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Published March 25 in the Public Library of Science One, the study was the first to use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to indicate that positive emotions such as loving-kindness and compassion can be learned in the same way as playing a musical instrument or being proficient in a sport. The scans revealed that brain circuits used to detect emotions and feelings were dramatically changed in subjects who had extensive experience practicing compassion meditation. The research suggests that individuals — from children who may engage in bullying to people prone to recurring depression — and society in general could benefit from such meditative practices, says study director Richard Davidson, professor of psychiatry and psychology at UW-Madison and an expert on imaging the effects of meditation. Davidson and UW-Madison associate scientist Antoine Lutz were co- principal investigators on the project. The study was part of the researchers' ongoing investigations with a group of Tibetan monks and lay practitioners who have practiced meditation for a minimum of 10,000 hours. In this case, Lutz and Davidson worked with 16 monks who have cultivated compassion meditation practices. Sixteen age-matched controls with no previous training were taught the fundamentals of compassion meditation two weeks before the brain scanning took place. Many contemplative traditions speak of loving-kindness as the wish for happiness for others and of compassion as the wish to relieve others' suffering. Loving-kindness and compassion are central to the Dalai Lama's philosophy and mission, says Davidson, who has worked extensively with the Tibetan Buddhist leader. We wanted to see how this voluntary generation of compassion affects the brain systems involved in empathy. Various techniques are used in compassion meditation, and the training can take years of practice. The controls in this study were asked first to concentrate on loved ones, wishing them well-being and freedom from suffering. After some training, they then were asked to generate such feelings toward all beings without thinking specifically about anyone. Each of the 32 subjects was placed in the fMRI scanner at the UW- Madison Waisman Center for Brain Imaging, which Davidson directs, and was asked to either begin compassion meditation or refrain from it. During each state, subjects were exposed to negative and positive human vocalizations designed to evoke empathic responses as well as neutral vocalizations: sounds of a distressed woman, a baby laughing and background restaurant noise. We used audio instead of visual challenges so that meditators could keep their eyes slightly open but not focused on any visual stimulus, as is typical of this practice, explains Lutz. The scans revealed significant activity in the insula — a region near the frontal portion of the brain that plays a key role in bodily representations of emotion — when the long-term meditators were generating compassion and were exposed to emotional vocalizations. The strength of insula activation was also associated with the intensity of the meditation as assessed by the participants. The insula is extremely important in detecting emotions in general and specifically in mapping bodily responses to emotion — such as heart rate and blood pressure — and making that information available to other parts of the brain, says Davidson, also co-director of the HealthEmotions Research Institute. Activity also increased in the temporal parietal juncture, particularly the right hemisphere. Studies have implicated this area as important in processing empathy, especially in perceiving the mental and emotional state of others. Both of these areas have been linked to emotion sharing and empathy, Davidson says. The combination of these two effects, which was much more noticeable in the expert meditators as opposed to the novices, was very powerful. The findings support Davidson and Lutz's working assumption that through training, people can develop skills that promote happiness and compassion. People are not just stuck at their respective set points, he says. We can take advantage of our brain's plasticity and train it to enhance these qualities. The capacity to cultivate compassion, which involves regulating thoughts and emotions, may also be useful for preventing depression in people who are susceptible to it, Lutz adds. Thinking about other people's suffering and not just your own helps to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I thought that might be the case. Hugheshugo has the Hagelin's D.C. study confused with Orme-Johnson et al.'s Jerusalem study. Well you thought wrong, OK, let's see your documentation, please, for Hagelin having refused to release his (publicly available) data. but it's interesting to hear, I shall look into that one, I wonder why he thought they were dishonest. As far as I know they were just totally crap at science, they failed to take into account the fact that a field effect would naturally have an affect in all directions and there was no corresponding upsurge in positivity in nearby Jerusalem. And they didn't take religious holidays into account, it's rubbish even I can see that. You should read the critics a bit more carefully because that is how science moves forward, by disproving theories causing them to be refined or abandoned. Um, yes, I'm very well aware of that. Have you read Orme-Johnson's *response* to the critics? snip He's a little mixed up about what the Ig Nobels are awarded for, too. You wish. Actually, on the basis of this from you: He comes over as a nice guy but he has clearly abandoned science, he wouldn't even hand over his data on the washington study on the ME. No wonder he got the Ignoble prize. Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that the Ig Nobels are awarded for abandoning science or for not handing over data, because if you did, that would be hard evidence that you're a little mixed up about what the Ig Nobels are awarded for. So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 2, 2008, at 8:46 AM, hugheshugo wrote: God, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, I'm starting to feel guilty. I know how you feel!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla
On Apr 2, 2008, at 6:10 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Judy likes Hillary because she *identifies* with Hillary. Hillary *thrives* on conflict and adver- sarial situations. If they don't exist, she provokes them, just to create a situation in which she can appear to be a strong woman and attract attention to herself. That's exactly why she'd make as shitty a President as McCain would. Yep, and provoking conflict is something she and Bill have been doing at least as long as when he was pres, if not before. They both thrive on it. In that sense, they're perfectly matched. the commentary has continued unabated. Because most people don't believe she *is* delusional. Merely completely self-serving and willing to say anything and do anything to get what she believes she's entitled to. And boy, did she ever believe she was entitled to this nomination. And that sense of entitlement extends to being regarded as someone who knows what she's talking about, especially when she clearly doesn't. Hillary gets indignant and more than a little crazy when someone challenges her claims. And unfortunately, advocates like Judy, who usually can advocate fairly and even reasonably, go bonkers when that happens because, I imagine, they know the challenges have merit. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:57 AM, authfriend wrote: So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for? It's for research that's considered laughable and that cannot, or should not, be reproduced. Lacking reproducibility of course is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse
I remember reading in a book on meditation several years back that studies had been done on Buddhist monks who had meditated for decades. They then did the same studies on TMers who had been meditating for just a few months...and they got the same results! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/press/Newsweek_lotus_synapse.html The Lotus and the Synapse Tuesday, March 25, 2008 3:42 PM By Sharon Begley My favorite story about the Dalai Lama doesn't concern his activities on behalf of Tibet, which is one unrelieved tragedy, but is about his interest in neuroscience. A few years ago the Dalai Lama was visiting an American medical school and watched a brain operation. Afterwards, he chatted with the surgeon, telling him how his scientist friends had patiently explained to him that all of our thoughts, feelings, memories, dreams and other mental activities are the products of electrical and chemical activity in the brain. But he had always wondered something, the Dalai Lama told the surgeon. If electricity and chemistry can produce thoughts and all the rest, can thoughts act back on the physical stuff of the brain to change its chemical, electrical and other physical properties? The surgeon dismissed the question with a polite but indulgent no. (The Dalai Lama's English translator, Thupten Jinpa, told me this story in 2005.) The brain produces and shapes mental activity, the brain surgeon said; mental activity does not alter the brain. That wasn''t a stupid answer 10 years ago, before scientists had fully grasped the potential of the adult brain to change in structure and functionââ¬âan ability called neuroplasticity. But now researchers have documented a long list of examples of how the brain, once thought to be basically unchangeable after the ripe old age of 3, can indeed change. The first things that were found to change the brain were sensory inputs. If you spend a lot of years playing violin, say, then the regions of the motor and somatosensory cortexes that correspond to the fingering digits (the fingers on the left hand, if you're right- handed) expand. But now neuroscientists have documented how mere thoughts can also sculpt the brain. Just thinking about playing a piano piece, over and over, can expand the region of motor cortex that controls those fingers; just thinking about depressive thoughts in new ways can dial down activity in one part of the brain that underlies depression and increase it in another, leading to clinical improvement. The scientist who has worked most closely with the Dalai Lama is Richard Davidson of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Davidson first met the Dalai Lama in 1992, and since about 2000 has been investigating a question dear to the heart of the leader of Tibetan Buddhism: can mental training such as meditations change the brain in an enduring way? That enduring is key: of course the brain changes in the sense that some areas become more active when you meditate, just as it changes when you think of pink elephants, watch Obama or try to remember your first kiss. Everything we think has a corresponding brain activity. But once the thought stops, so does the activity. Usually. What Davidson wanted to know was whether meditation left a long-lasting imprint on the brain, some change of function or structure. Since 2004, Davidson and his colleagues have reported that meditation can alter the brain's attention capabilities and that it can increase production of brainwaves called gamma, which are associated with consciousness. Now they have found another long-lasting brain change produced by Buddhist meditation: practicing compassion meditation (more on this below) alters regions of the brain that make us empathetic, Davidson and his colleagues are reporting this evening in PLoS ONE. In compassion meditation, as the French-born Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard explained it to me when we were both visiting the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala for a meeting of neuroscientists and Buddhist scholars, you focus on the wish that all sentient beings be free of suffering. You generate an intense feeling of love for all beings, not fixating on individuals but encompassing all of humanity. It takes practice, since the natural tendency is to focus on one or a few specific suffering people. Davidson conducted his new study as he has his others on meditation, enlisting expert meditators (the Dalai Lama has asked Buddhist scholars to volunteer their brains to Davidson's research). Antoine Lutz has the meditators (monks who have 10,000 hours or more of meditation under their belts saffron robes) lie in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) tube. The fMRI detects which
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I thought that might be the case. Hugheshugo has the Hagelin's D.C. study confused with Orme-Johnson et al.'s Jerusalem study. Well you thought wrong, OK, let's see your documentation, please, for Hagelin having refused to release his (publicly available) data. I read it somewhere, not good enough? Sorry it's all I can be bothered to look for just now and that isn't an admission that I'm wrong I just can't be arsed, this argument goes round and round and round the simple facts are if all this research was so good why did nobody believe it? Could it be that it's too easy to disprove? Just google it and look I can't be bothered to wade through it again, I've read it all a million times. As we know, scientists, don't believe it so the TMO should do it again, but wait! They are doing it on the invincible america course! And the result is.. No, it doesn't need an answer does it. You should read the critics a bit more carefully because that is how science moves forward, by disproving theories causing them to be refined or abandoned. Um, yes, I'm very well aware of that. Have you read Orme-Johnson's *response* to the critics? Yes, I didn't find it particularly convincing, if it's a field it either works as a field or it doesn't in which case stop calling it one. Jesus, does anyone on here actually think the war in Lebanon was affected by the ME? I think it's an insult to the peope who died, it's time for the TMO to prove it or shut up about it as far as I'm concerned. Can't we just talk about movies or something it's a lot more fun, remember fun? snip He's a little mixed up about what the Ig Nobels are awarded for, too. You wish. Actually, on the basis of this from you: He comes over as a nice guy but he has clearly abandoned science, he wouldn't even hand over his data on the washington study on the ME. No wonder he got the Ignoble prize. Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that the Ig Nobels are awarded for abandoning science or for not handing over data, because if you did, that would be hard evidence that you're a little mixed up about what the Ig Nobels are awarded for. So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for? God, this is tedious. They are awarded for research that cannot or should not be reproduced. The end.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:07 PM, authfriend wrote: [quoting from a NYTimes op-ed:] AS staff members who traveled with the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to Bosnia in March 1996, we have followed with more than passing interest the extensive news coverage of her landing in Tuzla. Video footage clearly shows that Mrs. Clinton's assertions that she landed under fire and that the arrival ceremony was canceled were wrong. She said so herself last week. Yet she repeated the lie at least 4 times, and stopped only when she realized the jig was up. Yet even since she acknowledged her mistake, It wasn't a mistake, Judy, it was clearly deliberate, unless you and the writer want to imply that HRC is now delusional. Delusional and deliberate aren't the only two choices here, Sal. Memory is fallible, especially when one is under stress, and it's clear the Tuzla landing was a stressful situation, even without actual sniper fire. You carefully didn't quote the writers' description to that effect. Eyewitness testimony to a crime at trial used to be considered ironclad evidence. But it's been shown over and over and *over* again that it's highly unreliable, even from those who are doing their damndest to be honest and accurate. As to deliberate, that defies common sense. People who have a tendency to lie (and I don't think that's the case with Hillary, but just for the sake of argument), especially when they're in the public eye and *especially* when they're running for president, aren't going to lie about an event that many other people witnessed and that cameras were recording as it happened. Such a person *would* have to be delusional to tell a lie that could be so easily and definitively exposed, and as you yourself note-- the commentary has continued unabated. Because most people don't believe she *is* delusional. --most people don't believe Hillary is delusional. The only explanation that makes any sense is that she simply misremembered. She *did* remember that it was a stressful, dangerous situation, and her mind filled in the details to justify that memory. We all do that kind of thing; we'd be abnormal if we didn't. Given her (entirely undeserved, IMHO) reputation for lying--which the right wing, with the eager assistance of the media, has been feeding us for decades--the *last* thing Hillary would be likely to do is to deliberately tell a story that would be immediately shown to be false. Reports are now being embellished (to borrow the term du jour) to suggest that Bosnia was not really a danger zone. Her visiting American troops on a peacekeeping mission in a hostile environment is now being treated as if it were a trip to the beach. Oh, please. Nobody's suggesting that except the idiot who's writing this article. Oh, really? From the Dallas Morning News: Networks aired stock footage this week of Clinton's 1996 trip to a by-then-pacified Bosnia, showing the smiling first lady and her daughter arriving at the Tuzla airbase with the insouciance of starlets deplaning at Palm Beach for the weekend. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stor ies/DN-hillary_27edi.ART.State.Edition1.15c4684.html http://tinyurl.com/34assm Want to do a little rethink on your claim, Sal? snip Unfortunately, articles like this one and others you've been posting, Judy, are so over the top it might explain why nobody takes them seriously. Well, that's a pretty empty claim, Sal. Which other articles are you referring to, and on what basis do you suggest they're over the top? And on what basis do you say nobody takes them seriously? Put up or shut up. For that matter, I don't believe I've seen you complaining that the Hillary-hating crap Robert has been posting is over the top. Double standards much? If you can't tell the difference between what he's been posting and what I've been posting in terms of credibility, it calls your objectivity, not to mention your discernment, into serious question.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beelzebub
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Harry Angel: Louis Cyphere...Lucifer. Even your NAME is a dime store joke. Louis Cyphere: Mephistopheles is SUCH a mouthful in Manhattan. [From: Angelheart (1987) starring Mickey Rourke and Robert de Niro] Interesting. Is it any good? Dark, but excellent. Let's face it...how many times do you get to see one of the greatest actors of a generation play one of the greatest characters in human history? De Niro makes the movie. Yes, De Niro was good in Angelheart (especially that one fingernail on his pinky that he let grow very long...nice touch!). De Niro used to be my favourite actor but he really hasn't had a good role since Jackie Brown...and even that was average at best. Unless he has an out there kind of role -- such as Travis Bickle or Jake LaMotta -- he simply doesn't shine. When he plays an average Joe or he is doing a parody of his earlier roles (such as the Analyze this and that films) I find it quite boring. His turns at comedy all seem to be calculated to make him money...not that I'm against it (I'm not) it's just not great art (I'm talking of course of the Fokker films). He can be great at comedy when it's not a vehicle where he has points; his straight man role as the bounty hunter in Midnight Run to Charles Grodin's comedic turn is classic...one of the best Road movies ever. But that was almost 20 years ago. How much money is enough? He's pretty damn good as a director; let him hang it up as an actor so he can concentrate as a director for the rest of his life.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse
What was the name of the alleged book? On Apr 2, 2008, at 10:15 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: I remember reading in a book on meditation several years back that studies had been done on Buddhist monks who had meditated for decades. They then did the same studies on TMers who had been meditating for just a few months...and they got the same results!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Study shows compassion meditation changes the brain
March 26: Coverage of the Lutz et al. paper in PLoS ONE • UW Madison News: Study shows compassion meditation changes the brain • Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse • Scientific American: Meditate on This: You Can Learn to Be More Compassionate • WebMD: Brain Can Learn Compassion via Meditation • US News World Reports: Meditation Can Wish You Well, Study Says • CNN Video: Can you learn compassion? • BBC News: Scientists probe meditation secrets • MSNBC/LiveScience: Neuroscience may explain the Dalai Lama On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Vaj wrote: Study shows compassion meditation changes the brain March 25, 2008 by Dian Land Can we train ourselves to be compassionate? A new study suggests the answer is yes. Cultivating compassion and kindness through meditation affects brain regions that can make a person more empathetic to other peoples' mental states, say researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Published March 25 in the Public Library of Science One, the study was the first to use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to indicate that positive emotions such as loving-kindness and compassion can be learned in the same way as playing a musical instrument or being proficient in a sport. The scans revealed that brain circuits used to detect emotions and feelings were dramatically changed in subjects who had extensive experience practicing compassion meditation. The research suggests that individuals — from children who may engage in bullying to people prone to recurring depression — and society in general could benefit from such meditative practices, says study director Richard Davidson, professor of psychiatry and psychology at UW-Madison and an expert on imaging the effects of meditation. Davidson and UW-Madison associate scientist Antoine Lutz were co-principal investigators on the project. The study was part of the researchers' ongoing investigations with a group of Tibetan monks and lay practitioners who have practiced meditation for a minimum of 10,000 hours. In this case, Lutz and Davidson worked with 16 monks who have cultivated compassion meditation practices. Sixteen age-matched controls with no previous training were taught the fundamentals of compassion meditation two weeks before the brain scanning took place. Many contemplative traditions speak of loving-kindness as the wish for happiness for others and of compassion as the wish to relieve others' suffering. Loving-kindness and compassion are central to the Dalai Lama's philosophy and mission, says Davidson, who has worked extensively with the Tibetan Buddhist leader. We wanted to see how this voluntary generation of compassion affects the brain systems involved in empathy. Various techniques are used in compassion meditation, and the training can take years of practice. The controls in this study were asked first to concentrate on loved ones, wishing them well- being and freedom from suffering. After some training, they then were asked to generate such feelings toward all beings without thinking specifically about anyone. Each of the 32 subjects was placed in the fMRI scanner at the UW- Madison Waisman Center for Brain Imaging, which Davidson directs, and was asked to either begin compassion meditation or refrain from it. During each state, subjects were exposed to negative and positive human vocalizations designed to evoke empathic responses as well as neutral vocalizations: sounds of a distressed woman, a baby laughing and background restaurant noise. We used audio instead of visual challenges so that meditators could keep their eyes slightly open but not focused on any visual stimulus, as is typical of this practice, explains Lutz. The scans revealed significant activity in the insula — a region near the frontal portion of the brain that plays a key role in bodily representations of emotion — when the long-term meditators were generating compassion and were exposed to emotional vocalizations. The strength of insula activation was also associated with the intensity of the meditation as assessed by the participants. The insula is extremely important in detecting emotions in general and specifically in mapping bodily responses to emotion — such as heart rate and blood pressure — and making that information available to other parts of the brain, says Davidson, also co- director of the HealthEmotions Research Institute. Activity also increased in the temporal parietal juncture, particularly the right hemisphere. Studies have implicated this area as important in processing empathy, especially in perceiving the mental and emotional state of others. Both of these areas have been linked to emotion sharing and empathy, Davidson says. The combination of these two effects, which was much more noticeable in the expert meditators as opposed to the novices, was very powerful. The findings
[FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 6:10 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: And that sense of entitlement extends to being regarded as someone who knows what she's talking about, especially when she clearly doesn't. Hillary gets indignant and more than a little crazy when someone challenges her claims. And unfortunately, advocates like Judy, who usually can advocate fairly and even reasonably, go bonkers when that happens because, I imagine, they know the challenges have merit. It's a devotion-related phenomenon. When someone has invested a lot in a political candidate (or a spiritual teacher), they often become what is called professional apologists for that person. They think they're expressing devotion, but in reality by consistently justifying the unjustifi- able they're being *enablers* of the unjustifiable actions, and the people who perform them. On the other hand, if one has spent, say, 30 or more years of one's life AS a professional apologist, say in the context of the TM movement, there might be a great career waiting for them in politics. :-) Imagine what someone who still believes that bouncing on one's butt is flying could do for a Hillary or a McCain. Hell, an experienced TM professional apologist could probably make McCain sound like a dove. :-) And the best thing about spiritual professional apologists, the thing that would make them so perfect for politics, is that they are so *ephemeral*. They mainly *react* to the latest perceived insult, and they can't remember the fact that they've done the same thing several times a week for the last few decades. They're in the moment, and *can't remember* any other moments. This makes them perfect for deny- ing that their candidate has done anything wrong, because in all honestly they can't remember back that far. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Hillary's Brain vs Obama's Brain -- at 3am (Straight Shooting from Tuzla)
Judy's gonna love this concept. I feel like I'm giving her a birthday present. Does anyone else here see the irony that we have one thread going here that is proving that thoughts change the brain's anatomy, but on another thread Judy is having to bat down all these Hillary naysayers who refuse to acknowledge that the woman spent four decades in politics and as a daily MENTAL TECHNIQUE was thinking thinking thinking about all the things that a leader, a politician, or a do-gooder-for-the-masses thinks about and YEP -- BUILDING HER BRAIN. On this basis alone -- monkey see, monkey do -- science tells us that Obama's leadership experiences are of a lower order than Hillary's when one considers the kind of brain he's been building. I love what he built -- presuming that he had a lot of deep-hearted meditations, but Hillary's brain certainly must be quite able to handle a ton of stuff that Obama's not even begun to practice doing. Like what? First, consider your own brain. Imagine this: you get a phone call from an official from Iran who tells you that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been following the posts at FFL and has determined that YOU and he should have a dialog at FFL and would you be willing to do so? What would your brain do if the above ridiculous scenario were presented such that you actually really really believed it was true and that you were indeed being offered this spectacular 15 MINUTES OF FAME by interacting with this man and knowing that virtually the whole world would be reading every word of both of you? Safe to say you wouldn't get any sleep for awhile, that your phone would ring off the hook, that a thousand reporters will show up outside your home with satellite trucks, and that you'd in all likelihood be more stressed out by this than, say, having your house burn down on your wedding day and finding out you'd won a lottery but that someone is claiming you stole the ticket from them and your son just signed up with the Marines. Like that. Hillary's brain would simply say, Yeah, okay, let's do it, and she'd not miss a wink of sleep. Obama has not been on the international stage, hasn't shaken hands with THE FREAKING LEADERS OF EVERY COUNTRY THAT MATTERS, has not had years of 18 hour days with incredibly powerful movers and shakers. Nope, Obama's going to be severely tested before he can match Hillary's brain. She'll walk into any meeting anywhere and be calmand clear headed. Obama's brain will be scanning the room nervously and churning out thoughts like: I can't believe I'm the president and that across this table is another president and that if we don't do this right there will be hell on earth. There's a reason why eight years in the White House takes such a toll on the president -- look at the bags under the eyes of Bill for all the proof you need. The job ravages a nervous system with overload after overload. Every second of your day is as important as if you were starting WWIII on purpose. Will I now vote for Hillary -- only if I have to. Go figure. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 6:10 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Judy likes Hillary because she *identifies* with Hillary. Hillary *thrives* on conflict and adver- sarial situations. If they don't exist, she provokes them, just to create a situation in which she can appear to be a strong woman and attract attention to herself. That's exactly why she'd make as shitty a President as McCain would. Yep, and provoking conflict is something she and Bill have been doing at least as long as when he was pres, if not before. They both thrive on it. In that sense, they're perfectly matched. the commentary has continued unabated. Because most people don't believe she *is* delusional. Merely completely self-serving and willing to say anything and do anything to get what she believes she's entitled to. And boy, did she ever believe she was entitled to this nomination. And that sense of entitlement extends to being regarded as someone who knows what she's talking about, especially when she clearly doesn't. Hillary gets indignant and more than a little crazy when someone challenges her claims. And unfortunately, advocates like Judy, who usually can advocate fairly and even reasonably, go bonkers when that happens because, I imagine, they know the challenges have merit. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipThe you's in the rap were rhetorical, or directed to Jim (Sandi Ego), whom I was conversing with, not you. snip I see you understand Spanish too- lol.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu buttsplicer@ wrote: That was really excellent Stu. I especially dug your soul description! I too have no soul, but I sure got soul! I just played a blues show for a facility of Alzheimer and dementia patients today. They had an amazing ability to appear as if they were reacting. Of course some were some of the time, but especially in conversation the surface veneer of behavioral rapport fell apart. This computer generated face reminded me so much of the vacuous appearance of rapport they gave me. My moms slowly working her way towards Alzheimers. Right now her memory is about 5 minutes long. She still has her emotions and manages to be happy, though that probably the anti-depressants talking. Its been toughest on my father who has devoted his life to her care now. I have learned one important lesson from it. That Ram Das slogan Be Here Now ain't whats its cracked up to be. Take away our memories and our ability to plan for the future and we become blithering idiots. At best the lesson we take from living in the moment is to appreciate our marbles. Interestingly music is one of the first cerebral skills we gain and last to go so I was able to connect with them musically. At least I think I did! It was all very challenging and confusing for me to perform for them. I've performed for autistic kids and other kids who go to special facilities because they can't be educated in the school system. There were some similarities when I went into the audience with my instruments to connect personally. The whole experience left me with a lot of questions about what it means to be human. I like your idea of the story. That was one of the things that was missing. Andrew Sachs just wrote a book about this very thing, Musicophilia. He has an interesting theory about how a melody requires a person to hear where it comes from and how its going to resolve. It allows patients with memory problems to take part in an emotional story as it unfolds. I think its very cool your playing at these facilities. A buddy and I get together weekly to play jazz standards and we always talk about playing the nursing homes but it never seems to develop. By the time we get the guts to play in front of old folks we will have to update our repertoire. I guess the CGI chick is a first stage of something interesting. But I agree that right now the creepy factor is too high. I did find that if you hold down the control key and type out the letters HEAD she will appear to give you oral. It only took me about 4 hours to figure out that trick but it was well worth it. Tried yr trick and was literally blown away. Subsequently I've been searching for a USB device that would complete the job. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
Vaj, I'm close to my limit for the week. I'll get to your deceitful bafflegab about the TM research on Saturday. In the meantime, I'll deal with *this* piece of deceit from you: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:57 AM, authfriend wrote: So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for? It's for research that's considered laughable Oops, no, you didn't get that quite right, Vaj. From the Ig Nobel Web site: The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative -- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology. http://www.ignobel.com/ig/ You've gotten this wrong before, and I've corrected you. Your repetition of your error means we can chalk up to your account one more deliberate attempt to mislead. (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) and that cannot, or should not, be reproduced. Lacking reproducibility of course is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience. True dat. But should not be reproduced ain't quite the same thing, is it, now? According to Marc Abrams, the founder of the awards, in no way is the Ig Nobel intended as criticism. Among the benefits of an Ig Nobel Award, as he notes in an essay on what the awards are and are not: Your breakthrough might go unnoticed. Say you have done something that you - and some other people - believe to be very, very good and maybe even very, very important. But most people don't recognize its importance. Worse, most people don't even recognize its existence. It's different from what they expect or what they have ever run across. What you have, you believe, is a breakthrough. The classic sequence of events for any breakthrough is: (1) Most people don't recognize its existence. (2) When they do recognize it, their immediate reaction is to laugh or scoff at it. (3) Some of those people become curious about this thing that they are laughing at, and then think about it, and so come to appreciate its true worth. The Ig provides much-needed publicity. So there you have a nice little benefit of the Ig Nobel Prizes. If you've done something people chuckle at and you win an Ig, then more people will hear about it. And maybe some of those people will also become curious, and will think about what you've accomplished, and fall in love with it. http://www.ignobel.com/ig/miscellaneous/what-is-this-2000.html http://tinyurl.com/39f66o The Ig Nobel Awards are not what either Vaj or Hugheshugo claim they are. They would both benefit from reading this essay by Abrams, which is well thought out and much more faithful to the spirit of scientific research than either of them are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snipThe you's in the rap were rhetorical, or directed to Jim (Sandi Ego), whom I was conversing with, not you. snip I see you understand Spanish too- lol. By adopting that name, was your intention to identify with San Diego? That particular saint is mainly known for being a catechist, mean- ing a repeater of dogma. :-) Oh, he was also a married celibate. Whatever floats yer boat...I like Sandi Ego better; it seems to capture the essence of Jim.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would you tell Howard? Howard Settle On Apr 1, 2008, at 11:14 PM, dhamiltony2k5 wrote: The numbers. I got introduced to someone who had lunch with Howard Settle last week. Howard is wondering, why are there so few Fairfield meditators in the domes? What would you tell Howard about this? vaj writes: I'd ask him if he was familiar with the concept of support of nature. I'd also explain that this is actually different from support of millionaires. Doug writing: I think his support of all of this is exceptional amongst the millionaires. Is extremely utopian in vision. Practically, there definitely are a number of meditators in town who have benefited from Settle's support for being in the dome regularly. Quite a lot of folks have always lived thread-bare to be in Fairfield for the large group meditations. Folks who do live and work, like poor church mice, getting by on what crumbs they need to live. Simple lives to simply live here. Howard has actually supported that generously. Howard's income has been a blessing to keep things going for a core of some people. That kind of support gives a base line of disciplined folks who still live in the middle there. It has been extremely high-minded support to try to get a job done by Howard Settle Recently a number of people I run in to of this category are not renewing their `scholarships'. 600 a month or $700 a month is just not enough while the required attendance time is too much time to live with. If Howard is going to continue with income support for the grand experiment, take a look at the census bureau reports on income level for just povery. Or, think of the lower Social Security payments for retired working folks that are now about $1,200 per month. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html For instance, poverty at 10,787 divided by 12 is 906.50 per month. 12% of the US population lives under the poverty levels. Probably a higher percentage of meditators live there to be here in FF. Probably higher percentages of the meditating community live in the lower fifth of income than is usual to be here. There is a lifestyle of high-thinking and plain living that goes on here that is utopian special in people. Is partly what makes the place such a unique to live. Certainly, A million a month, if 50% would not get siphoned off to Indian (?) pockets, could do a lot more direct help here in the community. For various friends who have made use of the Settle support I see that it has been extremely important to people here. I can only admire and say thanks to Howard Settle and his wife for thinking this way. That people hear that a `million a month' is being paid to our `professional' meditators and yet only some few hundred are getting 6 or $700 a month only confirms a cynicism of bad feeling towards the TMmovement. Those rough numbers do not multiply out close to a million bucks a month. Where is the rest of it going? Again, it would help the community a lot now to have some transparency in how the money goes. The numbers are about generally accepted perceived bad behaviors of the TMmovement. Of course these are not the only problems in the community with the numbers. There is a constellation of things that relate to it. There is a dogmatism in the middle that makes it essentially difficult too to get the numbers needed. Jai Guru Dev, -Doug in FF
[FairfieldLife] Q. for Richard!
Benoît Mandelbrot seems to be of Lithuanian Jewish ancestry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_Mandelbrot So, is it true that some features of certain rural dialects of Lithuanian are closer to the language of, say, Rgveda, than any other modern Indo-European language? http://www.sverigeturism.se/smorgasbord/smorgasbord/image/first/scandinavia.gif
[FairfieldLife] Sharia and the TMO
The following is an introduction to an article on Sharia law on frontpagemag.com: How Islamic law dictates every single aspect of human life -- from having sex to using the bathroom. We're not quite there yet, but wouldn't it be fair to say that the TMO and its various programs and declarations (don't use cellphones or microwave ovens) pretty much aspires to dictate, more and more, many aspects of a TMer's life? TM is not a religion or a philosophy doesn't really ring true anymore...
[FairfieldLife] Clapton is G-d!
But do I have to know anything about him to enjoy the best of Cream (Strange Brew, Sunshine of Your Love, Tales of Brave Ulysses, White Room, Toad, and stuff)?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.
Curtis, I figured you'd be riled up. Sigh. This Zeus concept of yours is proof that you don't hear me when I write about throwing out spirituality with religion's bathwater. Religions all have this dark side that's all about controlling the masses, gaining power, getting rich, aggrandizing religion, etc. I find myself as offended by the actions of religions as much as I am imagining you to be offended. I'm on record here with my Advaita stuff, and yet you continue to think of me as a person with a religion to jam down your throat. Let me spell it out to you: no religion on earth that I know of is sinless or has a technique that I'm a gushy about, but some religions do have some good techniques for training one's awareness to settle down into subtleties, and that's a good thing to practice. Spirituality is about getting jiggy with subtlety. Period. Honestly, I think you've got a blind spot on this issue, cuz you have great heartedness and yet somehow will not consider your heartedness to be, well, God's voice within. And I'm on record about God being an illusion too, but this subtle aspect of one's own brain as it whispers to one is something very precious -- and I think you do agree with that concept. Yeah, I've been over the top on blasting Turq's open espousal of sexual adventuring without regard to the tender feeling level of those he targets with his sexual objectifications, but that's what writers do -- they exaggerate for effect. Mountains and molehills and all that, and I don't like being shrill all that much, honest, but sometimes it's all I can think of to do. So sue me. But as long as Turq is going to say that if he goes into a bar regularly and is merely looking for opportunities to hit that, then expect more exaggerations from me about him. He recently posted about moving up the age-ladder to 40 year olds from 23 year olds. Not sure of Turq's age, but to me a 40 year old is a babe in the woods with dozens of wide-eyed beliefs that could be leveraged easily. Compare what it would take to get Judy or Angela or Sal, oh my, to have a one-night-stand with what it would take to get a 40 year old woman who's sitting in a puddle of tears about her marriage and that's why she's at the bar unattended and vulnerable. Another drink is all it would take for one person, but for the other three, hoo-boy, you're not going to be pulling them off the bar stools with a shoeshine and a smile. Exception: if they're horney as hell, all bets are off. Anyone got a 40 year old sister they'd set up a blind date for with Turq? He's got the chops to work her like play doh. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the War Monger or the Young Woman Predator or the Atheists who tossout spirituality with religion's bathwater, would just stop regularly glorifying in their malignancies, I wouldn't be posting my vitriol. This shows such a lack of awareness of the people you are referring to Edg. Really lowbrow lack of insight. I think you can do better. BTW I'll see you at the religious rite for Zeus tonight right? It is the holiest day of the Zeus year and anyone who fails to attend will be disrespecting God in his truest form. You aren't going to tell me that you view Zeus as a myth are you now Edg and expose your atheistic heart concerning the only real god? Spirituality. That word and $40 dollars will get ya blown in Atlantic City. Include the word God and another $40 and she'll take you all the way around the world. Those are such powerful words. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: Angela, Thanks for the wisdom. I felt it. I suppose we should all talk about what is allowed when it comes to poetic flourishes. When I wrote up the concept of Bush being tortured, please understand that I fully knew that I was, well, being Bushy myself if I really meant the words, and further, that I knew I didn't have the omniscience to know how Bush should be punished -- or rewarded -- for his actions, and also that I well understand how words can fly at ground level under folks' radars and suddenly there they are with yucky stuff in their minds that are then subject to an unwanted cascade of untoward emotions, imagery, and concepts. I'm a writer -- writers know that Robert Frost said that one was only allowed the use of the word love three times when one takes up the job of writer, and so, I say, Well, I got to be creative in how I express a concept that's been bandied in 30 posts already. It costs me a lot of time to come up with something that's all mine, and, sorry, but it's fun for me to see if I can actually come up with yet another way to express disgust for war, predation and racism. If I'm kidding myself when I think I'm being merely ordinarily enraged just as any decent person would be, then tell me so -- if anyone here
[FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 6:10 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: And that sense of entitlement extends to being regarded as someone who knows what she's talking about, especially when she clearly doesn't. Hillary gets indignant and more than a little crazy when someone challenges her claims. And unfortunately, advocates like Judy, who usually can advocate fairly and even reasonably, go bonkers when that happens because, I imagine, they know the challenges have merit. It's a devotion-related phenomenon. When someone has invested a lot in a political candidate (or a spiritual teacher), they often become what is called professional apologists for that person. They think they're expressing devotion, but in reality by consistently justifying the unjustifi- able they're being *enablers* of the unjustifiable actions, and the people who perform them. Translation: Neither Sal nor Barry wants to believe that Hillary's Tuzla story was anything but a deliberate lie--regardless of whether the notion that she lied makes a lick of sense. Their minds are so tightly closed they're literally incapable of entertaining any other possibility. So what do they do? They shoot the messenger. (Shall I go dig up examples of Barry's innumerable complaints about TMers shooting the messenger?) They shoot the messenger because there's no way they can reasonably shoot the messenger's arguments, which, somewhere deep in their minds, they know have merit. Neither of them will ever actually address the points I made. On the other hand, if one has spent, say, 30 or more years of one's life AS a professional apologist, say in the context of the TM movement, there might be a great career waiting for them in politics. :-) Imagine what someone who still believes that bouncing on one's butt is flying could do for a Hillary or a McCain. Barry would like to mislead people to think this is what I believe. But, of course, it isn't, and he knows it. (Oh, and as he also knows, there's no devotion involved where my support of Hillary is concerned. I'm supporting her by default because I don't think Obama is up to the job.) And the best thing about spiritual professional apologists, the thing that would make them so perfect for politics, is that they are so *ephemeral*. They mainly *react* to the latest perceived insult, and they can't remember the fact that they've done the same thing several times a week for the last few decades. They're in the moment, and *can't remember* any other moments. This makes them perfect for deny- ing that their candidate has done anything wrong, because in all honestly they can't remember back that far. :-) Barry appears to be suggesting this is what I do. But, of course, I don't, and he knows it. And he's accusing *Hillary* of lying?? The mind reels. Once more I've had the opportunity to use my last post of the week to expose Barry as a chronic liar and a hypocrite. He never quite seems to get how this works. See you Saturday...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
TomT: Have Fun! Barry: Always. You, too, I trust... TomT: It seems that is our purpose or so it seems. Barry: This could be interpreted as a throwaway comment on your part, but I don't see it as one, because I thoroughly agree. I think that fun is one of the most misunderstood principles in the universe, and the one that can show us the most about whether we're as on the path as we think we are. TomT: This takes us back to a conversation we had a few years ago about appreciation. Fun is the gross version of appreciation. I some times use them interchangeably even though they are not. It appears to me now, that appreciation is our finest purpose and that ultimately leads to intimacy with it all. For me it seemed to be ever increasing amounts and degrees of appreciation and then the intimacy kicked in like the Saturn Booster Rocket. Things have not been the same since. It is now a love affair with it all and it is all me. Tom
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla
On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:26 AM, authfriend wrote: The only explanation that makes any sense is that she simply misremembered. She *did* remember that it was a stressful, dangerous situation, and her mind filled in the details to justify that memory. We all do that kind of thing; we'd be abnormal if we didn't. But we all aren't running for president, Judy. And if the person who is can't get it together any better than that, after it being pointed out over and over, that pretty much disqualifies her right there. It's either delusion, extreme stubbornness, or she's lying. Your choice. Given her (entirely undeserved, IMHO) reputation for lying--which the right wing, with the eager assistance of the media, has been feeding us for decades--the *last* thing Hillary would be likely to do is to deliberately tell a story that would be immediately shown to be false. But that *is* what she did, Judy. And the reason, as has been pointed out many times in various places, is because, like a pig in poop, she absolutely *thrives* on chaos situations, probably the only way she could have survived her marriage with any shred of dignity intact. Reports are now being embellished (to borrow the term du jour) to suggest that Bosnia was not really a danger zone. Her visiting American troops on a peacekeeping mission in a hostile environment is now being treated as if it were a trip to the beach. Oh, please. Nobody's suggesting that except the idiot who's writing this article. Oh, really? From the Dallas Morning News: Networks aired stock footage this week of Clinton's 1996 trip to a by-then-pacified Bosnia, showing the smiling first lady and her daughter arriving at the Tuzla airbase with the insouciance of starlets deplaning at Palm Beach for the weekend. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stor ies/DN-hillary_27edi.ART.State.Edition1.15c4684.html http://tinyurl.com/34assm Want to do a little rethink on your claim, Sal? snip Unfortunately, articles like this one and others you've been posting, Judy, are so over the top it might explain why nobody takes them seriously. Well, that's a pretty empty claim, Sal. Which other articles are you referring to, and on what basis do you suggest they're over the top? And on what basis do you say nobody takes them seriously? Put up or shut up. For that matter, I don't believe I've seen you complaining that the Hillary-hating crap Robert has been posting is over the top. Double standards much? I don't get Robert's posts. I figured out long ago they weren't worth my time. If you can't tell the difference between what he's been posting and what I've been posting in terms of credibility, it calls your objectivity, not to mention your discernment, into serious question. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: I Am a Strange Loop
Douglas Hofstadter's clear about so much and yet, yep, there goes another baby with the bathwater. Unless one embraces the concepts of void, absolute, transcendence, then Douglas Hofstadter has all the answers except one. Like Newton's physics remaining true but not as true as Einstein's physics, Douglas Hofstadter's POV is correct but just doesn't even begin to examine the nuances of higher states of consciousness (levels of subtlety.) To put it bluntly, Douglas Hofstadter can have a thought and not understand that it is observed by an entity that is not-of-this-world, impossibly immeasurable, not there when you look, but always there as the I that the ego (Douglas Hofstadter's I) pretends to be. Self as a feedback loop is a neat explanation of all-things-ego, but cannot begin to explain mysticism's Self. I feel sorry for Douglas Hofstadter, cuz he's such a smarty pants he's outsmarted himself with the delusion that his axioms are unchallengeable. I find him embarrassingly smug and uncomfortably full of himself. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tertonzeno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In Hofstadter's POV, a person's existence existence is an endless loop. A defining event - some years ago - was the unfortunate death of his young daughter. Hofstadter seems to have difficulty grappling with her departure. He states that the entity that made up his Daughter's persona is a collection of experiences that he can currently tune into. Therefore, from his materialist POV, she's still present somehow. There's no room at all for a Transcendent Reality in his worldview. But of course, one can grok the Transcendent without believing in an afterlife state; and visa versa. Here's a synopsis.: [note: by consciousness Hofstadter admits that people are consciousness, but there's no room for Being (per MMY's definition) outside of the body/mind and especially the endless loop of thoughts. StoryCode says: click here to see more stories like this one. Synopsis:This is Douglas R Hofstadter's long-awaited return to the themes of Godel, Escher, Bach - an original and controversial view of the nature of consciousness and identity. Why do we say I? Can thought arise out of matter? By thought we mean not mere calculation, the manipulation of algorithms and patterns according to fixed rules, but something deeper: experience, self-awareness, consciousness. I Am a Strange Loop argues that the key to understanding the level on which consciousness operates is the feedback loop. After introducing the reader to simple feedback systems like a flush toilet, the ever-popular thermostat and his own experiments with a video camera pointed at its own monitor, he Hofstadter turns to the idea of strange loops - feedback loops, which exist on two levels of meaning, a theory, which Kurt Godel employed in the mathematical statements constructed for his famous Incompleteness Theorem. Like Godel's logical statements, the brain also exists on at least two levels: a deterministic level of atoms and neurons, and a higher level of large mental structures we call symbols. One of these symbols, perhaps the central one which relates to all others in our minds, is the strange loop we call I. By the time we reach adulthood, Hofstadter writes, I is an endless hall of mirrors, encompassing everything that has ever happened to us, vast numbers of counterfactual replays of important episodes in our lives, invented memories and expectations. But is it real? And if so, what does it consist of? Douglas Hofstadter's first book-length essay on a scientific subject since Godel, Escher, Bach, I Am a Strange Loop is a journey to the cutting edge of ideas about consciousness - a bold and provocative argument that is informed by the author's unique verbal whimsy and eye for the telling example. Compulsively readable and endlessly thought-provoking, this is the book Hofstadter's many readers have been waiting for.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.
Snip My moms slowly working her way towards Alzheimers. Right now her memory is about 5 minutes long. She still has her emotions and manages to be happy, though that probably the anti-depressants talking. Its been toughest on my father who has devoted his life to her care now. Sorry to hear that. Most of the patients I saw seemed childishly happy but a few were not. The happy ones seemed like they would be much easier to be around. A local herb grower near DC wrote two books about his own descent into Alzheimers: http://tinyurl.com/2yfgn6 He is locally famous among gardeners because his greenhouse has dozens of variates from different countries of cooking herbs. Each year I would notice the changes and how his son runs the greenhouses. I have learned one important lesson from it. That Ram Das slogan Be Here Now ain't whats its cracked up to be. Take away our memories and our ability to plan for the future and we become blithering idiots. At best the lesson we take from living in the moment is to appreciate our marbles. This represents a profound insight into one of most bogus qualities of the descriptions of enlightenment. That line on sand, water and air nonsense seems completely crazy to me now. My life's meaning is in the details and the relative qualities of my life. Glorifying an empty mind (even if you call it fullness) just doesn't interest me anymore. Although I can enjoy short periods of meditation as a break, the thought of sitting in that state for hours as I once did seems like such a waste of time for me. Snip Andrew Sachs just wrote a book about this very thing, Musicophilia. He has an interesting theory about how a melody requires a person to hear where it comes from and how its going to resolve. It allows patients with memory problems to take part in an emotional story as it unfolds. Thanks for the book, I'll check it out. This facility had a full time music therapist so they must feel it is important. One interesting thing was that they cleared out the room by singing a song about going home and marching them all out. It worked really well with just a tinge of Orwellian nightmare for me to watch it! I think its very cool your playing at these facilities. A buddy and I get together weekly to play jazz standards and we always talk about playing the nursing homes but it never seems to develop. By the time we get the guts to play in front of old folks we will have to update our repertoire. It is one of the niche markets that I go after to make full time music possible. One day I'll play at a blues club, the next an elementary school or collage and then a nursing home. Seeing so many types of people relate to the Delta blues from their own experience is a real tribute to the artists who created this style of music. I hope you do find some time to play out sometime. There are so many neglected audiences for real music out there. Kids often are subjected to such musical crap in the name of kid's music. But they respond really well to uncut real music, same with nursing home residents. I never dumb down my show for any audience. We are all connected through our emotions expressed in music. Snip Tried yr trick and was literally blown away. Subsequently I've been searching for a USB device that would complete the job. I just ordered a connection interface for my vacuum cleaner, the Shakira model. If this works out I'm gunna save a bundle on my usual drive thru full service at the local highway truck stop. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snipThe you's in the rap were rhetorical, or directed to Jim (Sandi Ego), whom I was conversing with, not you. snip I see you understand Spanish too- lol. By adopting that name, was your intention to identify with San Diego? That particular saint is mainly known for being a catechist, mean- superficially-- I was born there. ing a repeater of dogma. :-) Oh, he was also a married celibate. Whatever floats yer boat...I like Sandi Ego better; it seems to capture the essence of Jim. as usual you are full of, uh, assumptions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Once more I've had the opportunity to use my last post of the week to expose Barry as a chronic liar and a hypocrite. He never quite seems to get how this works. And once more Judy never seems to notice that I'm the one who got her to *make* that last post, and thus be out of our hair. My thanks this week go out to Vaj and Sal, who contributed to the effort. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Oil Spill
Judy, Thanks for this. GAWD I hate it -- do you think that Obama deals with the devil or is he a devil wannabe? I'm fingers-crossed that he's just doing what he's got to do until he's got true power. But my hope has never been all that strong for his being able to fight the good fights. Hillary is already a devil in terms of having a skill set that allows her to sashay into any smoked filled room and cutting a killer deal for herself. She's a genuine princess of darkness, and in Kali Yuga, that may be a most excellent asset. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From FactCheck.org: Obama's Oil Spill March 31, 2008 Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick. Summary In a new ad, Obama says, I don't take money from oil companies. Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn't distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race. We find the statement misleading: Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses. Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful. Read more: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html http://tinyurl.com/35s7f5 New politics, my Aunt Cornelia.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:08 AM, authfriend wrote: Vaj, I'm close to my limit for the week. I'll get to your deceitful bafflegab about the TM research on Saturday. In the meantime, I'll deal with *this* piece of deceit from you: Don't bother unless you have some independent research on TM you can share. I, like Ruth and others, really don't have time for wasted posts responding to a constant barrage of mischaracterizations which demand responses, strawmen/Judy's golem arguments and red herrings. Such pervasive dishonesty and consistent use of logical fallacy is something truly worth ignoring. We already know you're horribly and frantically desperate to try to prove that biased, TMO-sponsored research is just the cats meow and that world class scientists who get published in university textbooks just don't know what they're talking about. But sadly for you, I really don't look to aging and disgruntled text editors for scientific advice. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:57 AM, authfriend wrote: So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for? It's for research that's considered laughable Oops, no, you didn't get that quite right, Vaj. From the Ig Nobel Web site: The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative -- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology. http://www.ignobel.com/ig/ You've gotten this wrong before, and I've corrected you. Your repetition of your error means we can chalk up to your account one more deliberate attempt to mislead. (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) Actually I had it right before and and now. My response is from the igNobel people as well. I always found your desperate attempts to try to prove otherwise, shall I say, entertaining. Nice try, but no cigar. and that cannot, or should not, be reproduced. Lacking reproducibility of course is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience. True dat. But should not be reproduced ain't quite the same thing, is it, now? Well actually the quote says cannot or should not. So, in any event, the research you are referring to is pseudoscience. Does anyone else find it hilarious this Judy-thrashing to try to make the igNobel prizes look, uh, noble?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Again, does this behavior sound familiar? YES- your behavior and responses to Judy are numbingly and endlessly familiar...face it bub- you are addicted.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What was the name of the alleged book? Can't remember...but I do remember that the author was NOT happy about the TMers getting those results, in particular because they weren't meditating for spiritual reasons but, rather, for relief of stress and relaxation. The issue of wow, these neophytes got the same results as these long- time Buddhist practitioners simply didn't arise in his mind. On Apr 2, 2008, at 10:15 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: I remember reading in a book on meditation several years back that studies had been done on Buddhist monks who had meditated for decades. They then did the same studies on TMers who had been meditating for just a few months...and they got the same results!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla
On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:26 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 6:10 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: And that sense of entitlement extends to being regarded as someone who knows what she's talking about, especially when she clearly doesn't. Hillary gets indignant and more than a little crazy when someone challenges her claims. And unfortunately, advocates like Judy, who usually can advocate fairly and even reasonably, go bonkers when that happens because, I imagine, they know the challenges have merit. It's a devotion-related phenomenon. When someone has invested a lot in a political candidate (or a spiritual teacher), they often become what is called professional apologists for that person. They think they're expressing devotion, but in reality by consistently justifying the unjustifi- able they're being *enablers* of the unjustifiable actions, and the people who perform them. Translation: Neither Sal nor Barry wants to believe that Hillary's Tuzla story was anything but a deliberate lie--regardless of whether the notion that she lied makes a lick of sense. Their minds are so tightly closed they're literally incapable of entertaining any other possibility. Actually that's a Judy Translation. So what do they do? They shoot the messenger. (Shall I go dig up examples of Barry's innumerable complaints about TMers shooting the messenger?) Not unless you want to look like someone who has real hard time keeping it in the present and on topic and not someone really desperate... Oh never mind, go ahead!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Oil Spill
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] I'm fingers-crossed that he's just doing what he's got to do until he's got true power. But my hope has never been all that strong for his being able to fight the good fights. [snip] Am I reading this correctly? It seems, then, Duveyoung, that you prefer that he lie to the voters, win election with a mandate he doesn't intend to honor, and then run the country in a different manner than he told us he would. And as for the oil companies: what is your beef with them? Are they not doing a good job in providing you with the gasoline you need to power your SUV? Except for a two-week period a few years ago when an oil line between Tucson and Phoenix broke, I have never had to wait to fill up my gas tank with their product whenever I have pulled up to a gas station. It's always available and conveniently available anywhere I travel. They deserve the billions of dollars that they earn for providing such an excellent product at such a great price. And, by the way, the oil companies themselves, relative to their size and operations, don't consume that much oil. It is you and me and everyone else on this forum that guzzles all the gas.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, endlessrainintoapapercup endlessrainintoapapercup@ wrote: TurqB., you're a bit of a wild man, but that's all part of your charm. I enjoyed our conversation yesterday, but remain puzzled by the apparent lack of any congruence and understanding between us regarding the subject of reality/Reality. Reality is your crutch, dude, not mine. Don't expect me to get all passionate about it. :-) I think you ARE pretty passionate about it, Turq. That was it. Reality implies a perceiver. Without one there is no possibility of such a concept, or distinguishing reality from non-reality. I was not separating the perceiver from what is perceived. The perceiver is part of reality. And when there is a perceiver, there is a point of view. And where there is a point of view, there are other points of view on the same thing or things being perceived. On the level of individual perception, everything that is perceived is part of reality, including the perceiver and the process of perception--and this would include the existence of all other apparent individuals and their own POVs and experience of reality. . There is no shared understanding at all. In the universe. It's all points of view, each unique, each trying to find some agreement with other points of view, endlessly. IMO, of course. Well, it's true that I was operating from an assumption of a certain commonality among enlightenment traditions despite different POVs. But you can't say there is no shared understanding at all. We live in a collective reality which is based on shared understanding, and all communication is based on it. Not a WORD of the rap below had anything to do with what YOU believe. The you's in the rap were rhetorical, or directed to Jim (Sandi Ego), whom I was conversing with, not you. The fact that you see the post as being directed to YOUR point of view when it wasn't tends to prove my point about points of view IMO, and rein- forces what Tom said. We color our perceptions by perceiving them; we project our selves into the things we perceive. You seem to have done so, and that's one kind of...uh...reality, I guess. I wasn't referring exclusively to this post-- rather to several of your posts on this thread. But you say I'm projecting, and that you weren't making any statements intended to reflect my beliefs or my experience. OK. I continue to be interested in your point of view, and the questions that have arisen for me in regard to it. If you can suffer my 'obsession with reality', I'd like to keep talking to you about it a little further...? Now, though, I have to go to work. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@ wrote: Barry writes snipped: I'm completely *comfortable* with the notion of there being a Saganesque billions and billions of realities. That poses no problem for me whatsoever. TomT: For me it appears to be a Baskin and Robbins store with trillions of flavors and ultimately the only thing you can know is the flavor of you the perceiver. It has your flavor as it is filtered through the DNA you are made of. You impart the flavor by the act of perceiving. Have fun. TOm so the Saganesque and Baskin and Robbins store containers are what each of you conceptually use as your metaphors for reality with a capital R. What I think we are saying (I hope Tom will forgive me for speaking for him) is that we don't feel any need to delude ourselves into thinking that 1) there is such a thing as Reality with a capital R, or 2) that we know what it is. reality (or realities) with a lowercase r is just fine for us. The point I've been trying to make is that reality is merely a *concept*. It can't stand on its own; it does not and cannot have an existence independent of a perceiver. It needs a perceiver to *perceive* reality, or to distinguish it from (if such a thing existed) non-reality. It's a codependent relationship. :-) And the moment you bring a perceiver into the equation, you have Point Of View. That POV, in the perceiver, has to color the nature of the perceived. Some claim that they can attain a state of consciousness or POV that is color- less, and that as a result what they perceive is accurate -- Reality. I don't buy it. (As an aside, you may feel that your SOC is colorless, but it took less than two days for most people here to figure out who you were when you began posting under another ID. How colorless is that?) I
[FairfieldLife] How TM'ers are set adrift morally and ethically.
Since TM is being taught in the context of Science, for many, (if not all) TM has become Science *in lieu* of Religion! What a great loss, MMY teaches to pull the arrow back on the bow, but he doesn't teach *where to aim* the arrow! That is where Religion comes in, the direction given by Religion saves the aspirant years and years of trial and error (finding out all of this stuff he could have been told up front) by learning it the hard way. But that was not MMY's world ministry, his objective was to turn the tide of cultural degeneration and steer society back to the tried and true methods of Vedic culture. He compromised, and devised 'Yoga-lite for modernity' as the most rapid way to achieve this end!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Oil Spill
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From FactCheck.org: Obama's Oil Spill March 31, 2008 Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick. Summary In a new ad, Obama says, I don't take money from oil companies. Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn't distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race. We find the statement misleading: Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses. Here's the full sentence: Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla
On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:38 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Once more I've had the opportunity to use my last post of the week to expose Barry as a chronic liar and a hypocrite. He never quite seems to get how this works. And once more Judy never seems to notice that I'm the one who got her to *make* that last post, and thus be out of our hair. My thanks this week go out to Vaj and Sal, who contributed to the effort. :-) Possible topics for next week: TM: Is it really effortless? Hillary: Slut or Saint? discuss
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse
On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:56 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What was the name of the alleged book? Can't remember...but I do remember that the author was NOT happy about the TMers getting those results, in particular because they weren't meditating for spiritual reasons but, rather, for relief of stress and relaxation. The issue of wow, these neophytes got the same results as these long- time Buddhist practitioners simply didn't arise in his mind. He should rest assured that the research was most likely of a questionable nature. I've seen similar things with early TM research which tried to compare itself to other forms of meditation and were based on the erroneous assumption that the parameters which were beneficial for TMers should be the same for others. Another way they did this was to deliberately and consciously inflate baseline measurement of metabolism. The result is TM actually looks hypometabolic (a drop in metabolic rate, an indicator of deep rest), like you see in real yogis. However independent researchers found they could not duplicate it and it turned out TM was actually not hypometabolic at all. Nowadays we know this is simply not true. There are other forms of meditation which are quite remarkable in comparison to relaxation response style meditation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Would You Sign This?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would you trust your Spiritual life, to a TM-TB'er now? If you had the time to read and think about this, would you sign this? o the A of E Agreement 4. I understand that the practice of the programs does not require the acceptance of any belief or lifestyle. 6. I understand that the organizations teaching the programs and Advanced Courses of the AoE are non-profit organizations dedicated to benefiting the individual, society and the world and that all of their resources and energy are used to fulfill these valuable purposes. These organizations shall be entitled to enforce this provision of the Agreement by injunctive relief as well as be entitled to any other legal or equitable remedy. 11. or those teachings received on any prior courses. I agree that I will not in the future modify or change in any way the teachings that I have received in prior courses or will receive on this course unless instructed to do so by an authorized teacher of the organization. 17. I also agree that the organizations offering this course may intervene at any time in any proceeding involving a teacher, or an organization in order to enforce the provisions of this agreement for the benefit of itself, the teacher or other organization. The organization conducting this Course shall have the right, without my consent, to transfer its rights and obligations contained in this Agreement to any other person or organization. Jai Guru Dev,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse
Shemps referring to Richard Davidson's research. Its been trumpeted all over the media. Since then there have been other researchers out there looking into meditation. Scientists have been using Mindfulness Meditation as a focus. A number of psychologists have been incorporating MM into their therapy for the last 20 years based on the work of shrinks like Jack Kornfield who coined the phrase Buddhist Psychology. Meanwhile TM public relations missed the boat focusing on pouring oil on rich people. Now if you ask mainstream researchers if they have looked into alternative forms of meditation they don't really care because they don't know. s. On Apr 2, 2008, at 8:56 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What was the name of the alleged book? Can't remember...but I do remember that the author was NOT happy about the TMers getting those results, in particular because they weren't meditating for spiritual reasons but, rather, for relief of stress and relaxation. The issue of wow, these neophytes got the same results as these long- time Buddhist practitioners simply didn't arise in his mind. On Apr 2, 2008, at 10:15 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: I remember reading in a book on meditation several years back that studies had been done on Buddhist monks who had meditated for decades. They then did the same studies on TMers who had been meditating for just a few months...and they got the same results!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse
On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:04 PM, Stuart Bass wrote: Shemps referring to Richard Davidson's research. Its been trumpeted all over the media. Since then there have been other researchers out there looking into meditation. Scientists have been using Mindfulness Meditation as a focus. A number of psychologists have been incorporating MM into their therapy for the last 20 years based on the work of shrinks like Jack Kornfield who coined the phrase Buddhist Psychology. Meanwhile TM public relations missed the boat focusing on pouring oil on rich people. Now if you ask mainstream researchers if they have looked into alternative forms of meditation they don't really care because they don't know. Actually Richard Davidson started out researching TM. Rather than finding what TM researchers found, he found their research was really not up to par, exaggerated and misleading. It was only later that he began to study Buddhist forms of meditation. Early Mindfulness research had some of the same problems that TM research has (no controls, etc.) although they've continued to improve their methodologies and study design over time. The newer stuff is quite well designed and controlled, thus we're now seeing meditation research published in major, prestigious journals.
[FairfieldLife] De-Regulation Wins - New Deal Loses in Invincible America
BIG MONEY TYCOON$ NOW IN CHARGE IN INVINCIBLE AMERICA
No more extensive examiner audits or regulatory directives
for commercial banks or anyone else. Fed supervision will be like
SEC supervision regulatory light practices of the type that
allowed the investment banks to balloon their balance sheets,
ignore fundamental risks, reap obscene profits, and then raid the
public treasury when things went wrong.
The war against the New Deal has just won an Astounding Victory
Numerian
The Agonist, April 1, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/ypu62v
Is there anything the Republican Party loathes more than FDR and the
New Deal? How many times have people like Newt Gingrich and Grover
Norquist vowed to dismantle the regulations, entitlement programs, and
safety nets created by the New Deal? Time and again we've seen
assaults on all aspects of FDR's legacy, including a Social Security
reform effort in 2005 that might have succeeded if George Bush
hadn't been hobbled by the Iraq War.
Last month the Republicans had a great victory in their effort to undo
the New Deal, by eliminating completely any distinction between
commercial banks and investment banks, while at the same time giving
investment banks unfettered access to the public treasury with none of
the responsibilities or burdens placed on commercial banks. All of
this was accomplished in the same way as 9/11 allowed the
administration to claim unheralded executive powers by using an
emergency to justify a power grab perpetrated with no reference to
you the taxpayer, or your representatives in Congress.
To understand the magnitude of what the Republicans have done, we must
look back at the 1930's reforms enacted in response to the Depression.
The stock market crash and subsequent collapse of hundreds of banks in
the U.S. resulted in a series of legislative and regulatory reforms.
Investment banks were restricted to bringing bond and stock issues to
the capital markets. They were not allowed to have checking or savings
accounts for individuals, and they were regulated by the Securities
and Exchange Commission. This new regulatory agency has concentrated
throughout its existence on protecting the rights of investors, and
has not exercised a heavy hand over the investment banks unless they
are found to defraud or violate investor's interests.
Commercial banks were put under the strict supervision of the Federal
Reserve and the Comptroller of the Currency. Regulation in this case
involved extensive and intrusive inspection of banks to ensure their
safety and soundness.
These two regulators were joined by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp., which took over failing banks and paid out depositors up to
$100,000.
The FDIC insurance for depositors helped prevent bank runs, and the
close supervision of the regulators ensured that banks were not
exposed to undue credit, market or other risks. The Fed had the
authority to lend money to banks in the event they got into trouble,
and this lender of last resort power has also been a significant
comfort to the public when any question arises as to a bank's
survivability.
The investment banks have never had this lender of last resort
protection, which involves access to the Fed's discount window for
loans at the cheapest rate in the market.
If investments banks have gotten into trouble, they have had to turn
to commercial banks for lines of credit, without which the investment
bank could fail. This is what happened to Drexel Burnham and other
over-extended investment banks they failed because commercial banks
no longer supported them with credit, and because they could not turn
directly to the Fed. This second class citizenship has always rankled
the investment banks.
On the other hand, the investment banks never had to face up to
rigorous Federal Reserve examinations, with examiners poring over
every loan and transaction, demanding improvements, and even requiring
management changes if necessary (such is the price of maintaining
lender of last resort access).
Commercial banks have been restricted by Fed regulation to maintaining
a 10:1 ratio of assets to capital. Investments banks have no such
restrictions. They have routinely carried leverage ratios of 30:1,
meaning they can generate vastly more profits than commercial banks,
and pay out much higher bonuses.
Investment banks have tried mightily to invade commercial banking
business, dating back 30 years ago when Merrill Lynch first introduced
the money market account, which acted just like a checking account but
with no FDIC insurance.
To assuage public fears about default risk, investment banks set up
their own insurance fund that mimics FDIC insurance. This however,
still did not give them access to the discount window or lender of
last resort privileges.
All that changed last month. The most significant thing that happened
during the Bear Stearns crisis was not the collapse and rescue of Bear
Stearns by the Fed it
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis, Stu, Anyone, It bugs me that I'm unable to make music and I'd like to learn. What would be your recommendations re best instrument to learn? Marek ** Snip My moms slowly working her way towards Alzheimers. Right now her memory is about 5 minutes long. She still has her emotions and manages to be happy, though that probably the anti-depressants talking. Its been toughest on my father who has devoted his life to her care now. Sorry to hear that. Most of the patients I saw seemed childishly happy but a few were not. The happy ones seemed like they would be much easier to be around. A local herb grower near DC wrote two books about his own descent into Alzheimers: http://tinyurl.com/2yfgn6 He is locally famous among gardeners because his greenhouse has dozens of variates from different countries of cooking herbs. Each year I would notice the changes and how his son runs the greenhouses. I have learned one important lesson from it. That Ram Das slogan Be Here Now ain't whats its cracked up to be. Take away our memories and our ability to plan for the future and we become blithering idiots. At best the lesson we take from living in the moment is to appreciate our marbles. This represents a profound insight into one of most bogus qualities of the descriptions of enlightenment. That line on sand, water and air nonsense seems completely crazy to me now. My life's meaning is in the details and the relative qualities of my life. Glorifying an empty mind (even if you call it fullness) just doesn't interest me anymore. Although I can enjoy short periods of meditation as a break, the thought of sitting in that state for hours as I once did seems like such a waste of time for me. Snip Andrew Sachs just wrote a book about this very thing, Musicophilia. He has an interesting theory about how a melody requires a person to hear where it comes from and how its going to resolve. It allows patients with memory problems to take part in an emotional story as it unfolds. Thanks for the book, I'll check it out. This facility had a full time music therapist so they must feel it is important. One interesting thing was that they cleared out the room by singing a song about going home and marching them all out. It worked really well with just a tinge of Orwellian nightmare for me to watch it! I think its very cool your playing at these facilities. A buddy and I get together weekly to play jazz standards and we always talk about playing the nursing homes but it never seems to develop. By the time we get the guts to play in front of old folks we will have to update our repertoire. It is one of the niche markets that I go after to make full time music possible. One day I'll play at a blues club, the next an elementary school or collage and then a nursing home. Seeing so many types of people relate to the Delta blues from their own experience is a real tribute to the artists who created this style of music. I hope you do find some time to play out sometime. There are so many neglected audiences for real music out there. Kids often are subjected to such musical crap in the name of kid's music. But they respond really well to uncut real music, same with nursing home residents. I never dumb down my show for any audience. We are all connected through our emotions expressed in music. Snip Tried yr trick and was literally blown away. Subsequently I've been searching for a USB device that would complete the job. I just ordered a connection interface for my vacuum cleaner, the Shakira model. If this works out I'm gunna save a bundle on my usual drive thru full service at the local highway truck stop. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reality...what a concept
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TomT: Have Fun! Barry: Always. You, too, I trust... TomT: It seems that is our purpose or so it seems. Barry: This could be interpreted as a throwaway comment on your part, but I don't see it as one, because I thoroughly agree. I think that fun is one of the most misunderstood principles in the universe, and the one that can show us the most about whether we're as on the path as we think we are. This takes us back to a conversation we had a few years ago about appreciation. Fun is the gross version of appreciation. I remember the chat about appreciation, but I don't agree about fun being in any way gross. I think that people who have odd preconceptions about what fun is may think that, but I don't. To me fun is what being in tune with the Tao *feels* like. It is the perception of the infinite flowing through you. I some times use them interchangeably even though they are not. I wouldn't consider them interchangeable. One can appreciate without having fun, and vice- versa. It appears to me now, that appreciation is our finest purpose and that ultimately leads to intimacy with it all. For me it seemed to be ever increasing amounts and degrees of appreciation and then the intimacy kicked in like the Saturn Booster Rocket. Things have not been the same since. It is now a love affair with it all and it is all me. Tom I can never argue with a person's personal experience. I like the notion of fun better than the notion of appreciation partly because fun traditionally gets such a badrap in spirit- ual circles. People talk about serious seekers, serious students, taking the study seriously. I don't think serious is quite as admirable a quality it has been made out to be. I tend to agree with the words of that wonderful Christian philosopher, G. K. Chesterton, who said, Seriousness is not a virtue. One can appreciate something and still be all serious. But if you're really having fun, it's tough to pretend to be all serious. And to me, fun is an indicator that one is doing something right, spiritually, whereas serious- ness has absolutely NOTHING to do with spirit- uality. Fun to me is a certain liveliness that happens when you are in the groove, in tune with things. The things *themselves* don't matter. You could be shoveling shit and still be having fun. Whereas you could be getting laid and not having any at all, and be all serious about it. Fun to me implies being able to *be* in the moment and appreciate it flowing through you. Whereas you could sit back and convince your- self intellectually that you were appreciating the moment, while remaining distant from it. I honestly think that the spiritual path was designed to be FUN. If it isn't, that path may not lead where you think it does.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Straight Shooting from Tuzla
On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Vaj wrote: Possible topics for next week: TM: Is it really effortless? Hillary: Slut or Saint? I'm probably missing something really obvious here, Vaj, but what exactly has she ever done to qualify her for either title? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:04 PM, Stuart Bass wrote: Shemps referring to Richard Davidson's research. Its been trumpeted all over the media. Since then there have been other researchers out there looking into meditation. Scientists have been using Mindfulness Meditation as a focus. A number of psychologists have been incorporating MM into their therapy for the last 20 years based on the work of shrinks like Jack Kornfield who coined the phrase Buddhist Psychology. Meanwhile TM public relations missed the boat focusing on pouring oil on rich people. Now if you ask mainstream researchers if they have looked into alternative forms of meditation they don't really care because they don't know. Actually Richard Davidson started out researching TM. Rather than finding what TM researchers found, he found their research was really not up to par, exaggerated and misleading. It was only later that he began to study Buddhist forms of meditation. Early Mindfulness research had some of the same problems that TM research has (no controls, etc.) although they've continued to improve their methodologies and study design over time. The newer stuff is quite well designed and controlled, thus we're now seeing meditation research published in major, prestigious journals. Actually, Davidson published 3 studies on meditation in the late 70's and took a break from publishing on the topic until 2003. ANd while it is certainly true that studies from that time were less than perfect, how is it that none of the more recent research on TM gets a pass from you, despite being done by non-TMing researchers, while Davidson's studies are perfect, even though he is Buddhist: Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: De-Regulation Wins - New Deal Loses in Invincible America
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BIG MONEY TYCOON$ NOW IN CHARGE IN INVINCIBLE AMERICA No more extensive examiner audits or regulatory directives for commercial banks or anyone else. Fed supervision will be like SEC supervision regulatory light practices of the type that allowed the investment banks to balloon their balance sheets, ignore fundamental risks, reap obscene profits, and then raid the public treasury when things went wrong. Terrific TMorg metaphor. Thanks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/press/Newsweek_lotus_synapse.html The Lotus and the Synapse Tuesday, March 25, 2008 3:42 PM [...] But there is one clue that he's right: he's been finding that the more hours of meditation a monk has had, the greater the brain changes. Call it a dose-response effect, with meditation being the dose and brain changes the response. That's a strong hint that the dose causes the response, and is not just a coincidence. And a hint, too, that the Dalai Lama was right and the brain surgeon wrong. Actually, his latest finding is a bit different than the over-simplification above: 1: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jul 3;104(27):11483-8. Epub 2007 Jun 27. Links Neural correlates of attentional expertise in long-term meditation practitioners. Brefczynski-Lewis JA, Lutz A, Schaefer HS, Levinson DB, Davidson RJ. W.M. Keck Laboratory for Functional Brain Imaging and Behavior, Medical College of Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53226, USA. Meditation refers to a family of mental training practices that are designed to familiarize the practitioner with specific types of mental processes. One of the most basic forms of meditation is concentration meditation, in which sustained attention is focused on an object such as a small visual stimulus or the breath. In age-matched participants, using functional MRI, we found that activation in a network of brain regions typically involved in sustained attention showed an inverted u-shaped curve in which expert meditators (EMs) with an average of 19,000 h of practice had more activation than novices, but EMs with an average of 44,000 h had less activation. In response to distracter sounds used to probe the meditation, EMs vs. novices had less brain activation in regions related to discursive thoughts and emotions and more activation in regions related to response inhibition and attention. Correlation with hours of practice suggests possible plasticity in these mechanisms.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) Do you ever wonder why people don't like you? The Ig Nobel Awards are not what either Vaj or Hugheshugo claim they are. My claim was a quote from their website; The Ig Nobel Ceremony, now in its fourth year, honors people whose achievements cannot or should not be reproduced. Beginning with this year's ceremony on October 6, the Ig Nobels will be produced jointly by The MIT Museum and The Annals of Improbable Research. Apology to the usual address please. They would both benefit from reading this essay by Abrams, which is well thought out and much more faithful to the spirit of scientific research than either of them are. Oh sure Judy I'm not faithful to the spirit of science because I don't agree with you about the ME. Let me correct you on that, I love science, I always have, I get New Scientist magazine every week, my bookshelves groan under the weight of books on quantum physics, astronomy, paleontology. I wish there was more time to learn it all. When my family got a video recorder my first choice to tape was Horizon I love reading about new ideas, I have friends who are physicists who keep me up to date, I'm on the edge of my seat about the big switch-on at CERN this summer. Biased? no I don't think so. Regarding J Hagelins Ig nobel victory, I found this on the Igs follow- up page; 1994-07-03 Ig Nobel Peace Prize: Follow-up Investigation Robert L. Park of the American Physical Society (APS) has done a follow-up investigation of the work which earned John Hagelin this year's Ig Nobel Peace Prize. Park's report appeared in his weekly APS newsletter, WHAT'S NEW. It reads in part: The [1994 Ig Nobel] Peace Prize went to physicist John Hagelin for his experiment to reduce crime in Washington, DC by the coherent meditation of 4,000 TM [Transcendental Meditation] experts. By coincidence, Hagelin was holding a press conference [on the day of the Ig Nobel Ceremony] to announce his final results. It was a data analysis clinic; violent crime, he proudly declared, decreased 18%! Relative to what? To the predictions of time-series analysis involving variables such as temperature and the economy. So although the weekly murder count hit the highest level ever recorded, it was less than predicted. Here is a more detailed version. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_24/ai_67691836 After reading all I can find on the subject I have to conclude that the laws of physics are safe, if you ever find anything to the contrary, other than your own prejudice of course, let us know.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stuart Bass [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shemps referring to Richard Davidson's research. Its been trumpeted all over the media. Since then there have been other researchers out there looking into meditation. Scientists have been using Mindfulness Meditation as a focus. A number of psychologists have been incorporating MM into their therapy for the last 20 years based on the work of shrinks like Jack Kornfield who coined the phrase Buddhist Psychology. Meanwhile TM public relations missed the boat focusing on pouring oil on rich people. Now if you ask mainstream researchers if they have looked into alternative forms of meditation they don't really care because they don't know. Sigh, MMY's goal was to spiritually regenerate all of Mankind. By his beliefs, he could have taught 100,000,000+ people TM in order to have 1% of the world's population practicing TM regularly OR he could gather together groups of 8-10,000 TM-SIdhas and have THEM practice together regularly. He chose the latter path. You don't think the Maharishi Effect works so therefore you do think he made the correct choice. I don't know that the ME works, but if it does, he certainly made the correct choice since his organization is indeed getting groups of 8-10,000 together. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Newsweek: The Lotus and the Synapse
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:56 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: What was the name of the alleged book? Can't remember...but I do remember that the author was NOT happy about the TMers getting those results, in particular because they weren't meditating for spiritual reasons but, rather, for relief of stress and relaxation. The issue of wow, these neophytes got the same results as these long- time Buddhist practitioners simply didn't arise in his mind. He should rest assured that the research was most likely of a questionable nature. I've seen similar things with early TM research which tried to compare itself to other forms of meditation and were based on the erroneous assumption that the parameters which were beneficial for TMers should be the same for others. Another way they did this was to deliberately and consciously inflate baseline measurement of metabolism. The result is TM actually looks hypometabolic (a drop in metabolic rate, an indicator of deep rest), like you see in real yogis. However independent researchers found they could not duplicate it and it turned out TM was actually not hypometabolic at all. Actually, I've yet to see proof that they deliberately mislead people about the hypo- metabolic thing. In fact, it was MIU research by Brian Kesterson, where he studied the metabolic differences between people showing regular episodes of transcendental consciousness, including breath suspension, with meditators who were NOT showing such signs, that convinced the TM researchers that MMY was wrong: metabolic rate and samadhi are not correlated. Nowadays we know this is simply not true. There are other forms of meditation which are quite remarkable in comparison to relaxation response style meditation. Of course, TM isn't relaxation-response style meditation. For you to suggest that it IS, shows you don't practice TM and never have and even if you went on numerous courses (even if you became a TM teacher), you obviously never got it. And... we still haven't heard of any research published in a peer-reviewed scientific circle where meditators show spontaneous breath suspension ala the kind found during transcendental consciousness during TM practice. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.
Stu, There's tons we agree on. Maybe even everything. Thank God! ;-) Let me make another attempt -- If the below is not resonant with you, then I would say it indicates merely an incongruence in our spiritual educations -- not a cognitive dissonance between precise axioms. (I'm going to ramble, be a poet, as usual, but hopefully I'll get my points across.) First let me say that the soul is not the ultimate to me, and that the ego is another notch less substantial than soul and is a merely a ray or partial expression of the soul's spectrum of light. To me the soul is all the processes of body/mindand nothing more. It is not eternal. TM says this too if you examine what Unity must be -- the death of ego, the death of individuality, the death of, erp, soul (as a worshiper,) and Unity is as if God suddenly is taking over the body/mind and the history of that body/mind is obviated. Which sounds creepy, eh? (Ocean to river: Who cares about your tiny stream!) To Advaita, soul is still relative, but its pure form is also given the elevated status of amness -- that's if the ego is quiescent. The ego can can't help itself from identifying with personality, but it's really stretching things for it to try to identify with amness -- that buzz of being, that ground state of existence, the gunas balanced. It takes a couple decades in a Zen ashram to train the ego to even be able to clearly see its basic buzz. If done perfectly, then ego has learned to surrender to the spontaneous manifestations of amness, and one is a saint (unenlightened but perfectly life supporting) who is capable of always living at the ritam level. Or so the theory goes. But when that saint dies, he/she dies. Any heavens imagined, any karmic debts thought owed, any anys of anything, must exist solely within that saint's body/mind, and they too will die. It took me years of studying Advaita before it finally, intellectually only, popped for me that ego is not my identity and that even soul, for all its perfection, is not a primal, cosmic identity; it's merely another symbol, but one which is as close as existence can get to a manifestation of the absolute. I don't think personality survives death. This includes ego. This includes soul. Personality, ego, soul -- these are THINGS. This includes amness's symbolic presence as a process in a nervous system. At death, a light goes out; personal amness processes are turned off. But I do think that that from which, well let's not be shy, EVERYTHING has emerged is eternal, and that, if one wishes to do so, one can train the ego to stop being a pest long enough for this that to stand out clearly. This that is not merely universe and includes non-universe too -- see Godel for details. During training, at first, amness's buzz will beguile because its qualities are seemingly divine and more than merely a powerful symbol of silence, but, if another notch lower state of excitation is achieved, identification is allowed a chance to abandon the body/mind/amness and glom onto pure silence, void, absolute and find that identity is finally real when it resides in silence beyond conceptions. Struggling here with words. If I could write about this easily, I'd be a guru speaking from the heart, but, nope, only running with my intellect here, so I have to build up my abstractions from axioms, and I only had two cups of coffee, so, whew!...hard work. You wrote, The very usage of soul is skewed. The very idea that anyone HAS a soul is obscene. What kind of possession is a soul? I say, that the soul possesses ego not the other way around. And like that, equally, soul is within the absolute -- which of course has no inside or outside. Sigh. Absolute is the source of consciousness, consciousness is the source of ego, ego is the source of personality, and if the body/mind trains itself well, a person can, until death, meld all these identities into one spiritual wad, but after death, only the absolute will remain. I don't believe in re-incarnation, but I believe in crystallization of identity. Ego is a temporary delusion -- a merely local precipitation out of soul/consciousness, but typically if along comes another body/mind that is similar to a previous, known, personality, say, what Abraham Lincoln's was historically reported to be, it's no wonder that the ego will jump on the chance of espousing that a transferance from history's Abe has occurred. But in fact, when Captain Kirk is beamed up, his body/mind on the planet below is destroyed and another exact copy is created by Scotty's machinery aboard the Enterprise. There's no transference, but identification with a locality will instantly crystallize in the new Kirk. The new Kirk will insist that he is the old Kirk, but DON'T MISS THAT Scotty machine's abilities -- yes I'm revealing a Star Trek Secret of Secrets -- presumably enabled Scotty to leave the old Kirk-body on the planet undissolved, and so, I say,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Beautiful, sweet, innocent -- but a creepy zombie nonetheless.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stu: I think its very cool your playing at these facilities. A buddy and I get together weekly to play jazz standards and we always talk about playing the nursing homes but it never seems to develop. By the time we get the guts to play in front of old folks we will have to update our repertoire. It is one of the niche markets that I go after to make full time music possible. One day I'll play at a blues club, the next an elementary school or collage and then a nursing home. Seeing so many types of people relate to the Delta blues from their own experience is a real tribute to the artists who created this style of music. And to your love of it, which cannot help but color the performance. I hope you do find some time to play out sometime. There are so many neglected audiences for real music out there. Kids often are subjected to such musical crap in the name of kid's music. But they respond really well to uncut real music, same with nursing home residents. I never dumb down my show for any audience. A very powerful statement, and the whole reason I'm replying. I just *love* this. That's my personal definition of art. To dumb down something one writes or paints or cuts on a movieola or sings for an audience doesn't show enough respect for them, IMO. If there is magic in the art, they can rise to the magic if it's really there. I feel the same way about spiritual teachers. I have worked with teachers who clearly regarded their students as children, and I have worked with a couple who regarded their students not just as adults, but as multiincarnational beings who had been around the fuckin' block a few times. All the difference in the world. Maybe it's *intention* again...I dunno. Maybe when the artist feels he has to dumb down the art, he isn't *expect- ing enough* from the audience. Maybe if he expected more, he'd get it, and the students would get more *from* it because they'd had to shift their state of attention to keep up. Did you ever see Bucky Fuller or hear him talk? No dumbing down there, Nosirree. He made up his own vocabulary, and you had to get it to get what he was talking about. And, possibly as a result, you came away from the talk in a slightly different state of attention. You had had to shift your state of attention just to *follow* what he said. I sat in on some of Marshall McLuhan's lectures for a short while; he was exactly the same. He wrote down to no one -- you were expected to come up to his level. Last night Mark Knopfler played in a castle in Barcelona. I didn't make it because I heard about it too late to get tickets, but I've seen other concerts on this tour, and I'm willing to bet that most of the people attending were expecting a loud rock concert a la Dire Straits. What they got was an amplified (but *quietly* amplified) evening of folk music from his latest album, Kill To Get Crimson. There are a few rockers on that album, but even they are *quiet* rockers, like Punish The Monkey. Mark could play down to his audiences by doing all the hits. And he does throw one or two into each performance, just cuz in the biz you gotta. But he reserves the rest of the set for What He Feels Like Playing. And he gets away with it. Hell, I've paid 200 Euros a seat (scalped) to see Mark Knopfler, and I thought I got a bargain. I took five guests, and they came away from the evening transformed for life. My theory for why he gets away with it and why the audiences react this way is just what you said, Curtis. He refuses to dumb down his music. He plays it as he hears it, in all its purity of vision. And possibly *because* he never dumbs the music down, his audiences come up to the level of the music. The kids who before the concert knew only Money For Nothing leave the concert humming Madame Geneva's, a song that could have been sung, or written, in Shakespeare's England. They've had their musical horizons expanded, because a great artist refused to lower *his* horizon. He showed them what he sees and hears in this music, and trusted them to be *able* to see and hear it themselves. And they did.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's Oil Spill
Yep, Shemp, if Obama turns out to be what African Americans deeply need, then he's lying big time now, and yeah, if he lying now, I'm all for it. BushCo murders 3rd worlders, what's so bad about a few lies in order to get the murdering to stop? The fundies and the Repugs told every lie possible in order to get Bush into the oval office. Payback's a bitch, eh? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: [snip] I'm fingers-crossed that he's just doing what he's got to do until he's got true power. But my hope has never been all that strong for his being able to fight the good fights. [snip] Am I reading this correctly? It seems, then, Duveyoung, that you prefer that he lie to the voters, win election with a mandate he doesn't intend to honor, and then run the country in a different manner than he told us he would. And as for the oil companies: what is your beef with them? Are they not doing a good job in providing you with the gasoline you need to power your SUV? Except for a two-week period a few years ago when an oil line between Tucson and Phoenix broke, I have never had to wait to fill up my gas tank with their product whenever I have pulled up to a gas station. It's always available and conveniently available anywhere I travel. They deserve the billions of dollars that they earn for providing such an excellent product at such a great price. And, by the way, the oil companies themselves, relative to their size and operations, don't consume that much oil. It is you and me and everyone else on this forum that guzzles all the gas.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) Do you ever wonder why people don't like you? The Ig Nobel Awards are not what either Vaj or Hugheshugo claim they are. My claim was a quote from their website; The Ig Nobel Ceremony, now in its fourth year, honors people whose achievements cannot or should not be reproduced. Beginning with this year's ceremony on October 6, the Ig Nobels will be produced jointly by The MIT Museum and The Annals of Improbable Research. Apology to the usual address please. I can find all sorts of quotes on all sorts of websites. However, the website CURRENTLY says: http://www.improb.com/ig/ The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative -- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and technology. They would both benefit from reading this essay by Abrams, which is well thought out and much more faithful to the spirit of scientific research than either of them are. Oh sure Judy I'm not faithful to the spirit of science because I don't agree with you about the ME. Let me correct you on that, I love science, I always have, I get New Scientist magazine every week, my bookshelves groan under the weight of books on quantum physics, astronomy, paleontology. I wish there was more time to learn it all. When my family got a video recorder my first choice to tape was Horizon I love reading about new ideas, I have friends who are physicists who keep me up to date, I'm on the edge of my seat about the big switch-on at CERN this summer. Biased? no I don't think so. Regarding J Hagelins Ig nobel victory, I found this on the Igs follow- up page; 1994-07-03 Ig Nobel Peace Prize: Follow-up Investigation Robert L. Park of the American Physical Society (APS) has done a follow-up investigation of the work which earned John Hagelin this year's Ig Nobel Peace Prize. Park's report appeared in his weekly APS newsletter, WHAT'S NEW. It reads in part: The [1994 Ig Nobel] Peace Prize went to physicist John Hagelin for his experiment to reduce crime in Washington, DC by the coherent meditation of 4,000 TM [Transcendental Meditation] experts. By coincidence, Hagelin was holding a press conference [on the day of the Ig Nobel Ceremony] to announce his final results. It was a data analysis clinic; violent crime, he proudly declared, decreased 18%! Relative to what? To the predictions of time-series analysis involving variables such as temperature and the economy. So although the weekly murder count hit the highest level ever recorded, it was less than predicted. Here is a more detailed version. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_24/ai_67691836 After reading all I can find on the subject I have to conclude that the laws of physics are safe, if you ever find anything to the contrary, other than your own prejudice of course, let us know. Did you ever read what Hagelin and company said in response to Park's remarks? Science is all about discussion to discover the truth. When you stop looking after finding something you agree with, you're no longer part of the scientific debate. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fairfield on the BBC!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: [...] Er, do you think, regardless of whether or not his theories are valid (I'm not claiming that his current theories are, BTW) that what he presents to layman would EVER be worthy of publication in a scientific journal? John's science-oriented stuff is so esoteric that only a relative handful of physicists ever read it directly. Cutting edge superstring theory published in collaboration with the top names in that field, isn't normal reading, even for the average PhD in Physics. Lawson Oh how convenient, he's just so ar ahead. That probably explains why, when I stopped at the local, very large and well stocked bookshop and checked the indexes of every physics book in there, I couldn't find his name anywhere. Surely someone who has finished Einsteins work would get a footnote or two at the very least. Well, as I said above, I'm not claiming his current theories are valid. However, John's early work, which got him the most fame, was done on Flipped SU(5) AFTER he had his discussions about Vedic Cosmology with MMY. Perhaps the deafening silence of the rest of the scientific world actually speaks very loudly indeed. I think Penrose at least might have given the guy a mention. Him being the only other advocate of any sort of quantum theory of consciousness I'm aware of, though definitely not the UF variety, not yet anyway and as he's a genuine working scientist he won't be making unsubstantiated claims about the ultimate nature of reality in a hurry. Again, did you read John's math-laden papers on the subject? They're philosophical in nature, rather than scientific, but the insights he gained from his philisophical discussions with MMY led to the initial modifications of FLipped SU(5) which were the basis of his fame and at least partly the basis of the fame of Nanapolous and Ellis as well. Lwson
