[FairfieldLife] The Just the facts, Ma'am Approach To Meditation
For those who didn't grow up American (or are young :-)), Joe Friday was a police detective on a TV series called Dragnet. His approach was brusque and no-nonsense, and the quintessence of this approach was his signature phrase used when interviewing a witness to learn about a crime: Just the facts, Ma'am. For some reason I was thinking about Joe on my morning walk along the beach with the dogs, and got to wondering what the Just the facts, Ma'am answer might be about MEDITATION, the thing that we all have in common here. What CAN we say about meditation that most of us can agree on as facts? No bullshit, no dogma, no assumptions, no theories, no assertions of better or best. Just the facts, Ma'am. Here is my start at such a list. They're not facts in the sense that I claim that they're cosmically true or truth. They're just me trying to make sense out of 40+ years on the spiritual path, and trying to write down a few of the things that are as close to fact about medi- tation as I'm ever likely to get. I am also NOT speaking of *only* TM, but of meditative practice as a wider phenomenon, in ANY of its many forms. Other posters are invited to add their facts to my list, and to discuss it as they wish. I doubt I'm going to feel like defending it. Those who feel compelled to turn things into an argument can do so, if that's the only thing they see in this post to get off on. Me, I'm more interested in what the people without an axe to grind and without a crusade to fight have to say. 1. Meditation has been around a long time. 2. It exists in many forms, and has been associated with many different forms of religion and spiritual practice, but need not be associated with any of them. It can be practiced *as a practice*, with no associated belief system whatsoever. 3. Proponents of meditation have said that it has had subjective benefits for them -- increased clarity of mind after the practice, a feeling of restfulness or relaxation during the practice, and generally *enough* benefits for them in their personal lives that they practice it regularly. 4. Science has made a *start* at verifying some of the sub- jective claims made by proponents of meditation, but the extent of this verification varies from one form of meditation to another, and from one study of the same method to another. These scientific studies -- ALL of them, IMO -- have also been tainted by the associated belief systems *about* medi- tation that the people they are testing bring with them, and by the belief systems that the researchers themselves bring with them. 5. Many systems of meditation make claims that their tech- nique is the best or better or more effective than other forms of meditation. 6. So far, try as they might, neither subjective testimony by practitioners nor science has ever conclusively proved any of these claims of betterness or bestness or most effectiveness. 7. The *mechanics* of these different forms of meditation vary greatly. Some may use mantras (the thinking or chanting of a word or words). Some practice meditation with eyes closed, some with eyes open or even during other activities. Some may use yantras or some other visual aids as a focus for their meditative practice. Some pay attention to the breath, or to just what is taking place at the moment -- mentally and in the environment. Some have no element of focus for their meditative practice at all. Some forms of meditation have a goal, and others have no goal at all, except to meditate. 8. Again, so far science has proved none of these techniques or approaches to meditation definitively better than another. 9. Some proponents claim that meditation has benefits that extend beyond the benefits to the person practicing the medi- tation itself. That is, they claim that the meditation some- how affects the environment around the meditator in positive ways. These claims include reduction of environmental stress, lower crime rates, a more peaceful and settled environment, and even world peace. 10. Again, none of these claimed benefits have been conclu- sively proved by science. 11. One can come up with numerous examples of people who practice meditation who DO seem to exemplify positive traits in their daily lives. They are seen by most observers to be more flexible, more compassionate and caring about others around them, more capable of effective action in stressful situations, and generally happy with their lives and pleasant to be around. 12. One can come up with just as many examples of people who practice meditation who do NOT seem to exemplify these positive traits in their daily lives. We have seen meditators convicted of crimes such as fraud and rape and robbery and murder, we have seen numerous examples of depression and mental illness and even suicide among long-term meditators, and we all know people who have meditated for decades who do NOT seem to be happy with their lives or pleasant to be around.
[FairfieldLife] Re the American mindset, there's Obama, and then there's...
...the training of the minds of its young: HALO 3 KILLCOUNT EXCEEDS WORLD POPULATION According to developer Bungie Studios, the amount of kills in the latest installment in the Halo series is more than the total population of the planet. An observant poster called Omega on the official Halo forums, quoting official game kill figures, noted, As of early Saturday (June 21) or late Sunday the number of kills in Halo 3's campaign exceeded the population of the planet (or at least its projected population). The total Halo 3 campaign kill count as of press time is 6,751,629,478, and the estimated total world population is 6,705,066,871. The total friendlies killed in action is probably less to brag about, but is also quite high, currently standing at 1,177,960,021. Halo 3 was launched to huge fanfare on September 25, 2007 in the US (September 28 in Europe). It was the best-selling video game of 2007 in America, and the last time anyone counted, it had sold some 8.1 million copies. My own added statistic is that if each copy was operated only by one person, each of those persons has killed (and enjoyed killing) 833 people since September. Welcome to Sat Yuga. :-)
[FairfieldLife] The Life Before Her Eyes
This is one of those movies that is frustrating because you want to *talk* to people about it, but you really can't until they've seen it. It stars Uma Thurman and is directed by Vadim Perelman, whose previous film was the excellent House Of Sand And Fog. It also stars Evan Rachel Wood, who was so good in King Of California. They had me at Uma Thurman. :-) She plays a woman who is married to a handsome college professor and has a beautiful young daughter. But as the 15th anniversary of a Columbine-like school shooting that she was present at approaches, memories of that day and the days leading up to it start to encroach on her perfect life, and it starts to unravel, as does her grasp on reality. The story is told by jumping back and forth between her life in the present and memories of her in high school. It's masterful storytelling IMO, and beautiful visually as well. It's also much more than what I describe above, but if you choose to see it you'll thank me for not saying more.
[FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: Lawson wrote: A tornado-level whirlwind that forms for just a second could easily tear a simple circle in a field and give rise to the original sightings. NO video footage or photographs anywhere document an alleged creation of crop art (alleged man-made patterns) in progress from ground level AND SIMULTANEOUSLY from the air, to confirm that the alleged 'finished product' is indeed what the people 'below' are alleging to have stomped out in the crop. http://cropcircleconnector.com/ilyes/ilyes9.html Well, your average good ole boy doesn't have access to a helicopter... And even if you could prove that SOME circles were manmade, you could never prove taht all are, so its moot anyway. Luckily, proof that some are man made isn't too far away. http://www.circlemakers.org/case_history.html Given that we know there are many people who make them why does anyone assume that *any* crop cricles are made by aliens/fairies/earth magic/whatever? L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Jul 25, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote: This is only a very partial list of what he's been able to accomplish. There is so much more, that it would really be too much to list. You can check it out on Wikipedia. And, I should have added, a highly successful FIRST marriage... no horrible stories about him blowing off a wife or any other relative. Sal And maybe you should have added John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer. Or maybe the baby John Edwards had with his mistress. Or maybe John Edwards telling everyone that they are the only one he has confided some personal details about his son's death. Oh yea, family values. The dems really personify them. Edwards is the Dem nominee? Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: curtisdeltablues wrote: someone wrote: Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your rejecting a lot of yogic science. I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share your faith. Apparently you think anything that has the word yoga associated with it is faith based. I would say that one cannot *deny* the element of faith-basedness in anything that has the word yoga associated with it. The faith so permeates the environment of anything that has the word yoga associated with it that I don't think there can *exist* any such thing as yogic science. Claims of personal experience are, IMO, *always* influenced by the teachings and the tradition of the environment one learned it in. I have seen no evidence that people who have spent long periods of time in yogic environments are *capable* of distinguishing their faith from their personal experience. One influences the other. That influence can be on the level of moodmaking, as we have all seen (and many of us identify with from our TM days), or it can be on the level of influence, coloring the ways in which we *inter- pret* our personal experiences. This influence is present from the moment of one's first introductory lecture, or before, if one has read a bit or has been exposed to other spiritual environments. Would you have recognized transcendence as a personal experience if it had not been described to you in your intro lecture? You can say that you would have, but at this point there is no way to be sure. The description of the phenomenon preceded the experience of the phenomenon, and thus influenced it. snip I think that is a bit of an ignorant association but let's use sound physics instead. That is unless you see physics as faith based. :D :D :D Again, invoking sciency sounding terms doesn't make the claims more scientific. Exactly. This is an invocation of the If I use another vocabulary to describe it, it won't be faith shuck and jive routine that we are so familiar with from TM. :-) snip You also pick and choose what you have faith in. Just putting the words yogic and science together does not make it so. No more than creation science makes fundamentalist Christianity any less fundamentalist, or Christian. It's shuck and jive. snip You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in your attempt to debase TM. What are you talking about, an attempt to debase TM? I just don't buy into all the beliefs, I practice TM and think it is a nice relaxation technique. So what is the baby, all the beliefs that surround the practice? Dismissing the various branches of yoga as anyone would notice following this tract. And what is wrong with that? I dismiss them -- ALL of them. I don't believe that ANY of them are in any way scientific, or anything other than faith-based philosophy. But I still practice many things that came from those faith-based philosophies. What I DON'T do, is claim that the reason I practice these things is based on anything OTHER than faith, even if it's just the faith that the form of meditation I practiced yesterday and was pleasant will be pleasant today. There is faith in THAT, much less anything else we tend to claim as the benefits or goals of meditation. Like Curtis, I don't believe much in magical mantras, or in magical ways of transmitting them. While I have *experienced* the latter, personally I found the medi- tations that resulted from that initiation to be no more profound or useful than those meditations I learned in a big room together with hundreds of other people, and no initiation ceremony. Sometimes even without a mantra. Yogic science for me boils down to the word faith, and more than anything else, faith in authority. I'm not real big on authority these days, whether the authority invoked is Maharishi or Buddha or Krishna or Guru Dev or Patanjali or Padmasambhava. I don't hold ANY of them to be complete authorities -- they were probably correct about some of the things they believed and taught, and they were probably incorrect about some of the things they believed and taught. I believe from what they have said only what resonates with my own intuition and heart and sense of ethics, and I toss on the rubbish heap anything from what they have said that doesn't. And at least one of these guys would agree with my stance. His words on the subject grace the Home Page of this discussion group: Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. -- Buddha, from the Dhammapada
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: curtisdeltablues wrote: someone wrote: Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your rejecting a lot of yogic science. I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share your faith. Apparently you think anything that has the word yoga associated with it is faith based. I would say that one cannot *deny* the element of faith-basedness in anything that has the word yoga associated with it. The faith so permeates the environment of anything that has the word yoga associated with it that I don't think there can *exist* any such thing as yogic science. According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]: heart-putting = faith).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !
--- On Fri, 7/25/08, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows ! To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 10:06 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nabs, I won't make smarmy comments, but I have a really hard time believing crop circles have any sort of extra terrestrial origin. From what I've read, all evidence to the contrary is ignored and there's seems to be an apriori assumption that its aliens. Bill Witherspoon's Shri Yantra in Oregan in 1990 is a classic case of this. Bill and several other people all worked together to make the yantra. A very much earth-bound event, but after it was discovered, for his life, he couldn't convince the ufo people that he had done it. They came up with facts to disprove him. Incredible! But no one proved that Bill is not an alien, did they? You know, I never thought about that. Bill definitely has an alien air about him! Quite dour too. --- On Fri, 7/25/08, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows ! To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 1:26 PM http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2008/southfield/southfield2008.html To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !
new wrote: But no one proved that Bill is not an alien, did they? Has anyone proved that we are all not aliens?
[FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !
NO video footage or photographs anywhere document an alleged creation of crop art (alleged man-made patterns) in progress from ground level AND SIMULTANEOUSLY from the air, to confirm that the alleged 'finished product' is indeed what the people 'below' are alleging to have stomped out in the crop. http://cropcircleconnector.com/ilyes/ilyes9.html Lawson wrote: Well, your average good ole boy doesn't have access to a helicopter... But the area where the Oregon Shri Yantra appeared was in the flight path of helicopters, and yet the Shri Yantra seems to have been constructed overnight. Is it possible for a couple of good ole boys to carve thirteen miles of grooves in the desert in the middle of a single night with such remarkable precision? Was Bill arrested for defacing public land? And even if you could prove that SOME circles were manmade, you could never prove taht all are, so its moot anyway. But, there's no proof that any of the crop circles were man-made, since the actions on the ground were not substantiated with aerial photography from above. Oregon Sri Yantra: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mr2G1
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments
And maybe you should have added John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer. Or maybe the baby John Edwards had with his mistress. Or maybe John Edwards telling everyone that they are the only one he has confided some personal details about his son's death. Oh yea, family values. The dems really personify them. Edwards is the Dem nominee? No Lawson, he's not. But when Sal decided to come down on McCain for dumping his first wife, and touted Obama's successful marriage, and then sacastically referred to the Republicans as the party of family values, I thought I'd hi-light the recent revelations of John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer. An affair he's had for four years, and may even have produced a baby. Hey, guess what. Edwards is a lawyer. If the allegations are untrue, maybe he knows someone that can refute them and go after the Enquirer. That is, since according to Sal, the accusations are so baseless. Lawson, let's call it like it is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !
NO video footage or photographs anywhere document an alleged creation of crop art (alleged man-made patterns) in progress from ground level AND SIMULTANEOUSLY from the air, to confirm that the alleged 'finished product' is indeed what the people 'below' are alleging to have stomped out in the crop. http://cropcircleconnector.com/ilyes/ilyes9.html Well, your average good ole boy doesn't have access to a helicopter... Hugo wrote: And even if you could prove that SOME circles were manmade, you could never prove taht all are, so its moot anyway. Luckily, proof that some are man made isn't too far away. http://www.circlemakers.org/case_history.html Given that we know there are many people who make them why does anyone assume that *any* crop cricles are made by aliens/fairies/earth magic/whatever? Maybe so, for modern land markings, but what about ancient land markings? 'Chariots of the Gods' by Erich von Daniken Bantam, 1972 http://tinyurl.com/579k3u
[FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NO video footage or photographs anywhere document an alleged creation of crop art (alleged man-made patterns) in progress from ground level AND SIMULTANEOUSLY from the air, to confirm that the alleged 'finished product' is indeed what the people 'below' are alleging to have stomped out in the crop. http://cropcircleconnector.com/ilyes/ilyes9.html Lawson wrote: Well, your average good ole boy doesn't have access to a helicopter... But the area where the Oregon Shri Yantra appeared was in the flight path of helicopters, and yet the Shri Yantra seems to have been constructed overnight. Is it possible for a couple of good ole boys to carve thirteen miles of grooves in the desert in the middle of a single night with such remarkable precision? Was Bill arrested for defacing public land? And even if you could prove that SOME circles were manmade, you could never prove taht all are, so its moot anyway. But, there's no proof that any of the crop circles were man-made, since the actions on the ground were not substantiated with aerial photography from above. Oregon Sri Yantra: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mr2G1 Some circles are manmade, but they are easy to detect. First of all they are quite crude and very simple designs. If you look closely at a real circle you will see that the straws are carefully bent to the ground, the straws are not damaged. Manmade ones destroys the straws. Also many of the real ones have been done within a timeframe of as little as 20 minutes, as many pilots will confirm. I'd like to see Dr.Peter and his friends do a complicated design in less than halfanhour in broad daylight AND without being detected ! :-)
[FairfieldLife] 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!
Dennis Kucinich began inquiring again into impeachment for this criminal President Bush. Hopefully, some of the rest of Congress will have the 'balls' to follow this through. President Bush needs to be impeached, and held for murder charges. He has led this country into the abyss. I pray that either before or soon after Obama is elected that the precedent that Bush and his morons have created is smashed. He is absolutely the most irresponsible leader since the days of Rome and Caligula. Actually I believe he is a reincarnation of Caligula.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows ! But the area where the Oregon Shri Yantra appeared was in the flight path of helicopters, and yet the Shri Yantra seems to have been constructed overnight. It wasn't. it took them quite a few days, working in the hot sun. I just took a while before the National Guard pilot noticed it. I know the guys involved and see them regularly to this day: Bill Witherspoon, Bob Hoerlein, Mark Petrick, I think Michael Cain, a few others. I've seen photos of them working on the project. I believe in aliens and tend to believe they are involved in many of the crop circles, but they weren't involved in the Oregon yantra.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments
And maybe you should have added John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer. Or maybe the baby John Edwards had with his mistress. Or maybe John Edwards telling everyone that they are the only one he has confided some personal details about his son's death. Oh yea, family values. The dems really personify them. Edwards is the Dem nominee? No Lawson, he's not. But when Sal decided to come down on McCain for dumping his first wife, and touted Obama's successful marriage, and then sacastically referred to the Republicans as the party of family values, I thought I'd hi-light the recent revelations of John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer. An affair he's had for four years, and may even have produced a baby. Hey, guess what. Edwards is a lawyer. If the allegations are untrue, maybe he knows someone that can refute them and go after the Enquirer. That is, since according to Sal, the accusations are so baseless. Lawson, let's call it like it is. Just as a question, could like it is include the possibility that none of this is any of our damned business? I'm pretty sure that if I were put under the scrutiny of running for public office, the press would have a field day with my indiscretions. The incident in the hot tub with the cheerleaders and the eels alone would probably bump me off the ticket. The French had the right attitude about these things as far as I'm concerned. Former president Chirac was a sonofabitch in his political dealings and basically maintained two families concurrently, and the French didn't seem to have any problem with this. The *predominantly Roman Catholic* French didn't seem to have any problem with this. When he died, his wife and family marched in the procession side by side with his mistress and family. I'm uncomfortable with gettin' morally medieval on politicians' asses as if their morals or lack thereof might make them incapable of doing a good job as a national leader. Winston Churchill was a drunk. FDR had a mistress for 20 years. JFK probably nailed more bimbos in the White House than Carter had Little Liver Pills. Gandhi slept snuggled up between two young girls. Nobel Peace Prize winners have turbulent and sometimes abusive relationships with their spouses. Hell, Alfred Nobel himself was one of the masters of war, an arms manufacturer. Everybody has a closet, and as far as I can tell, everybody's got shit in that closet that they would prefer that the narrow-minded and moral members of society not see, so that they don't obsess on it. THAT they obsess on it does not mean that the politician in question has to obsess on it, or spend even a moment defending himself or herself against their accusations. The smart ones, in my opinion, should just let the narrow- minded obsess and do their own thing, and see how things work out. The Zen parable revolving around Is that so? springs to mind. I've mentioned a film here a few times, and never gotten a bite on it. I think it's a very good film. It deals with moral and ethical issues, and with the role of women in politics or public life, and with how they are held to different standards than the men sometimes. And it's a good movie to boot. What is not to like about that? The film is called The Contender, and is about a woman who is nominated to fill the vacant VP spot for a sitting presidency. Shortly following her nomination by the presi- dent (Jeff Bridges, who has never been finer as the Columbo- like stringpuller of the Washingtonian puppets), revelations appear of an orgy back in college. What's a politician to do? What's a WOMAN to do? What's a HUMAN BEING to do when accused of something they don't feel merits a response? Joan Allen gives what should have been an Oscar-worthy performance answering these questions. Highly recommended for those who have to wade through the muck of the U.S. presidential election media and need to be reminded what having real ethics entails.
RE: [FairfieldLife] 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.G. Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 8:35 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon! Dennis Kucinich began inquiring again into impeachment for this criminal President Bush. Hopefully, some of the rest of Congress will have the 'balls' to follow this through. President Bush needs to be impeached, and held for murder charges. He has led this country into the abyss. I pray that either before or soon after Obama is elected that the precedent that Bush and his morons have created is smashed. He is absolutely the most irresponsible leader since the days of Rome and Caligula. Actually I believe he is a reincarnation of Caligula. When Obama was in FF, I asked him about impeaching Bush and Cheney. He said he felt it would be too disruptive - that Congress wouldn't get anything else accomplished - but he said that if elected, one of his first moves would be to have his attorney general review everything Bush and Cheney had done to erode the Constitution, and that he would reverse those decisions so as to repair the damage.
[FairfieldLife] 'Obama moves Mountains'
Barack Obama is destined to become the next President. He is a very evolved soul, and carries the energy of Abraham Lincoln. Wherever he goes, he inspires and uplifts and brings people together. He is an inspiration to all the people of the world. Osama bin Laden should fear Obama, because unlike the demon Bush, he will pursue the evil one, and it shall be done. Mountains moves with the power of a leader of such greatness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.G. Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 8:35 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon! Dennis Kucinich began inquiring again into impeachment for this criminal President Bush. Hopefully, some of the rest of Congress will have the 'balls' to follow this through. President Bush needs to be impeached, and held for murder charges. He has led this country into the abyss. I pray that either before or soon after Obama is elected that the precedent that Bush and his morons have created is smashed. He is absolutely the most irresponsible leader since the days of Rome and Caligula. Actually I believe he is a reincarnation of Caligula. When Obama was in FF, I asked him about impeaching Bush and Cheney. He said he felt it would be too disruptive - that Congress wouldn't get anything else accomplished - but he said that if elected, one of his first moves would be to have his attorney general review everything Bush and Cheney had done to erode the Constitution, and that he would reverse those decisions so as to repair the damage. There was a Hearing yesterday in Congress... The idea is that Bush has set such an example that to not take action against him would set a horrible precedent. The only way to prosecute him, would be to start impeachment hearings, Because he will just ignore anything else the congress could do. When I was in Seattle, attending the caucus, I did see that part of Obama's platform would be to prosecute Bush and the rest of the criminals. The thing is, while he is still president, we are still in danger of him doing something crazy, before Obama gets sworn in. Especially if he knows that he will be prosecuted, and might take any crazy action to protect his demon ass.
[FairfieldLife] Bob Mataloni
Bob Mataloni, an old-time meditater friend of the old-days, passed away this week. FW: paste Dear friends, Our most beloved friend Bob past away this morning at 4:15 this morning (25th) in his sleep. They called me to tell me that he was in peace. So Friday july 25 will be an auspicious day of rememberance of our loving friend bob. I was happy he listened to amma a few days before. Here is a poem which helped me when my mom died. Do not stand at my grave and weep, I am not there, I do not sleep, I am in a thousand winds that blow, I am the softly falling snow, I am the gentle showers of rain, I am the fields of ripening grain, I am in the morning hush, I am in the graceful rush Of beautiful birds in circling flight, I am the starshine of the night I am in the flowers that bloom, I am in a quiet room, I am in the birds that sing I am in each lovely thing Do not stand at my grave and cry, I am not there, I do not die I love you all for caring so much about bob and he loves all of you . whenever your outside just look up into the sky and say hey, bob whats up? He was one of the funniest guys I knew who truly was a most giving and loving person. feel free to stay in touch with me, as all of you have become my dear friends thru the years of bob having cancer. I feel like I know you all deeply. There is a whole in my heart a wound that is hurting and I am already missing him. The tears flow, but their tears of love. But again, his wish came true, and he is finally at peace. I will just miss him so much. Hopefully heaven is one big party and maybe he can run some DJ parties there for the dearly departed. end paste
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments
On Jul 26, 2008, at 2:26 AM, sparaig wrote: And maybe you should have added John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer. Or maybe the baby John Edwards had with his mistress. Or maybe John Edwards telling everyone that they are the only one he has confided some personal details about his son's death. Oh yea, family values. The dems really personify them. Edwards is the Dem nominee? No, But he's a Dem, good-looking, sick wife, so as such ripe for any idiotic rumor that one can toss at him. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And maybe you should have added John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer. Or maybe the baby John Edwards had with his mistress. Or maybe John Edwards telling everyone that they are the only one he has confided some personal details about his son's death. Oh yea, family values. The dems really personify them. Edwards is the Dem nominee? No Lawson, he's not. But when Sal decided to come down on McCain for dumping his first wife, and touted Obama's successful marriage, and then sacastically referred to the Republicans as the party of family values, I thought I'd hi-light the recent revelations of John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer. An affair he's had for four years, and may even have produced a baby. What sort of hateful idiot takes an old, completely unsubstantiated National Enquirer article, which doesn't even provide a name of one piece of evidence, and calls it revent revelations and talks about it as fact? Hey, guess what. Edwards is a lawyer. If the allegations are untrue, maybe he knows someone that can refute them and go after the Enquirer. That is, since according to Sal, the accusations are so baseless. Lawson, let's call it like it is. Sorry your understanding of law is about as deep as your preferred source of reading material. You actually think everything rags like the enquirer publish has been proven true or else they can be sued successfully??
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!
babajii wrote: Dennis Kucinich began inquiring again into impeachment for this criminal President Bush. Have there been any court charges filed against the president? I think not. Hopefully, some of the rest of Congress will have the 'balls' to follow this through. The U.S. Congress voted to fund the war, right? President Bush needs to be impeached, and held for murder charges. In a democracy, usually murder charges come BEFORE the impeachment trial, Sir. He has led this country into the abyss. But, apparently we are winning the war in Iraq - the surge worked. What's up with that? I pray that either before or soon after Obama is elected that the precedent that Bush and his morons have created is smashed. Is Obama against the war? I think not - he recently proposed sending MORE U.S. troops to the Middle East. He is absolutely the most irresponsible leader since the days of Rome and Caligula. 'Caligula', the third Roman Emperor, was assasinated in a conspiracy involving members of the Roman Senate. Actually I believe he is a reincarnation of Caligula. Almost the entire U.S. Congress voted to authorize the president to use force against the Iraq regime. Over 50% of voting Americans re-elected Bush for a second term AFTER the Iraq invasion. The U.S. Congress has voted to fund the war for the past five years or more. The war in Iraq is under a United Nations mandate. But you and Dennis want to impeach the duly elected president of the Untied States in the middle of a war because you two believe that the president is the 'reincarnation' of Caligula? Put down the pipe, Mr. Babaji!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Guardian on Karadzic
Well, you have in Mahabharat the rakshasa Shakuni, that is an incarnation of demon Dwarpa, as main causer of war. It was not Duryodhan the rakshasa, he was rather negatively influenced. In Ramayana there is Keykeyi sending Rama to forest, but she was again not the main evil but her rakshasa maid. Who is responsible in Serbia, Bosnia? I think serbian academy of sciences, what i know maybe serbian ortodox church? Maybe serbian folkmusic lobby? There sit some rakshasas that would never meditate The Western world is always trying to cover the secret forces by accusing one single person. Bush is also only vehicle, there are Banks and money structures
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Guardian on Karadzic
Well, you have in Mahabharat the rakshasa Shakuni, that is an incarnation of demon Dwarpa, as main causer of war. It was not Duryodhan the rakshasa, he was rather negatively influenced. In Ramayana there is Keykeyi sending Rama to forest, but she was again not the main evil but her rakshasa maid. Who is responsible in Serbia, Bosnia? I think serbian academy of sciences, what i know maybe serbian ortodox church? Maybe serbian folkmusic lobby? There sit some rakshasas that would never meditate The Western world is always trying to cover the secret forces by accusing one single person. Bush is also only vehicle, there are Banks and money structures
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Guardian on Karadzic
Well, you have in Mahabharat the rakshasa Shakuni, that is an incarnation of demon Dwarpa, as main causer of war. It was not Duryodhan the rakshasa, he was rather negatively influenced. In Ramayana there is Keykeyi sending Rama to forest, but she was again not the main evil but her rakshasa maid. Who is responsible in Serbia, Bosnia? I think serbian academy of sciences, what i know maybe serbian ortodox church? Maybe serbian folkmusic lobby? There sit some rakshasas that would never meditate The Western world is always trying to cover the secret forces by accusing one single person. Bush is also only vehicle, there are Banks and money structures
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !
--- On Sat, 7/26/08, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows ! To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, July 26, 2008, 9:37 AM From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows ! But the area where the Oregon Shri Yantra appeared was in the flight path of helicopters, and yet the Shri Yantra seems to have been constructed overnight. If you know anything about the psychology of perception, this is very easily explained, especially with a shape that is quite foreign to the pilot's' culture, which a sri yantra certainly is. The bottom line is that Bill W. and his friends made the sri yantra, so that is the foundation upon which everything else must be explained.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments
On Jul 26, 2008, at 9:44 AM, boo_lives wrote: What sort of hateful idiot takes an old, completely unsubstantiated National Enquirer article, which doesn't even provide a name of one piece of evidence, and calls it revent revelations and talks about it as fact? Someone who's desperate? Hey, guess what. Edwards is a lawyer. If the allegations are untrue, maybe he knows someone that can refute them and go after the Enquirer. That is, since according to Sal, the accusations are so baseless. Lawson, let's call it like it is. Sorry your understanding of law is about as deep as your preferred source of reading material. You actually think everything rags like the enquirer publish has been proven true or else they can be sued successfully?? Thanks, boo, that's what I was thinking. Obviously the Enq knows they can't be sued or else they wouldn't print trash as if it were fact. I was kind of wondering why I hadn't seen the revelations before lurk posted them, then I saw where they came from. Really scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't we, lurk? If this is how you and others support the Repugs, heaven help them. You and your party deserve each other. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 26, 2008, at 8:12 AM, cardemaister wrote: According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]: heart-putting = faith). The key words here being preceded by, as in before or prior to. No gnostic based spirituality ultimately rests on faith, instead it rests on gnosis: direct knowing, jnana. However adherents of faith and deception-based orgs like the TMO are often conditioned to believe gnosis or samadhi occurs at the gaps in thought, but that is rarely the case. Bait and switch is common in such McMeditation orgs. Just because you were burnt by such a group does not mean direct-knowing is not possible, nor does it mean these are items of faith. It merely means you've been duped. Yoga science or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think. Those who haven't experienced samadhi will have to take this on faith but if they follow a workable procedure (a technique or method) they too can abandon the crutch of faith. In terms of yoga teachers, those who can lead to jnana are the real teachers. Those who don't, are very likely fakes, esp. if they are asking for money.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The U.S. Congress voted to fund the war, right? Almost the entire U.S. Congress voted to authorize the president to use force against the Iraq regime. Over 50% of voting Americans re-elected Bush for a second term AFTER the Iraq invasion. The U.S. Congress has voted to fund the war for the past five years or more. Richard, the point is that this support was won by Bush based on lies and deliberate misrepresentation of CIA intelligence briefings. Highlights of the testimony presented yesterday are provided in YouTube links here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/do-not-name-names-do-not-accuse-do-not-say- impeach-do-not-applaud.html One of the speakers (don't remember which) describes how the Bush Administration deleted all evidence from a CIA briefing which expressed doubt over whether Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. This has caused the deaths of by some estimates as much as one million Iraqis since the US invaded.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Just the facts, Ma'am Approach To Meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Meditation has been around a long time. 2. It exists in many forms, and has been associated with many different forms of religion and spiritual practice, but need not be associated with any of them. It can be practiced *as a practice*, with no associated belief system whatsoever. 3. Proponents of meditation have said that it has had subjective benefits for them -- increased clarity of mind after the practice, a feeling of restfulness or relaxation during the practice, and generally *enough* benefits for them in their personal lives that they practice it regularly. 4. Science has made a *start* at verifying some of the sub- jective claims made by proponents of meditation, but the extent of this verification varies from one form of meditation to another, and from one study of the same method to another. These scientific studies -- ALL of them, IMO -- have also been tainted by the associated belief systems *about* medi- tation that the people they are testing bring with them, and by the belief systems that the researchers themselves bring with them. 5. Many systems of meditation make claims that their tech- nique is the best or better or more effective than other forms of meditation. 6. So far, try as they might, neither subjective testimony by practitioners nor science has ever conclusively proved any of these claims of betterness or bestness or most effectiveness. 7. The *mechanics* of these different forms of meditation vary greatly. Some may use mantras (the thinking or chanting of a word or words). Some practice meditation with eyes closed, some with eyes open or even during other activities. Some may use yantras or some other visual aids as a focus for their meditative practice. Some pay attention to the breath, or to just what is taking place at the moment -- mentally and in the environment. Some have no element of focus for their meditative practice at all. Some forms of meditation have a goal, and others have no goal at all, except to meditate. 8. Again, so far science has proved none of these techniques or approaches to meditation definitively better than another. 9. Some proponents claim that meditation has benefits that extend beyond the benefits to the person practicing the medi- tation itself. That is, they claim that the meditation some- how affects the environment around the meditator in positive ways. These claims include reduction of environmental stress, lower crime rates, a more peaceful and settled environment, and even world peace. 10. Again, none of these claimed benefits have been conclu- sively proved by science. 11. One can come up with numerous examples of people who practice meditation who DO seem to exemplify positive traits in their daily lives. They are seen by most observers to be more flexible, more compassionate and caring about others around them, more capable of effective action in stressful situations, and generally happy with their lives and pleasant to be around. 12. One can come up with just as many examples of people who practice meditation who do NOT seem to exemplify these positive traits in their daily lives. We have seen meditators convicted of crimes such as fraud and rape and robbery and murder, we have seen numerous examples of depression and mental illness and even suicide among long-term meditators, and we all know people who have meditated for decades who do NOT seem to be happy with their lives or pleasant to be around. 13. We can find BOTH the positive traits AND the negative traits in those who do not practice and have never practiced any form of meditation. 14. Despite the claims of proponents, no form of meditation has ever universally produced the positive traits in ALL of its practitioners. 15. Despite the claims of *opponents* to meditation and medi- tative practice, no form of meditation has ever been shown to universally produce the negative traits in ALL of its prac- titioners. 16. Since the positive traits appear in people who have never practiced meditation, no conclusive link has ever been proved between meditation and these positive traits. Same with the negative traits. 17. For some, meditation practice is pleasant and even blissful. They look forward to each session because experience has shown them that it is enjoyable in itself, and that it produces benefits in their lives. 18. For some, meditation practice is not as pleasant. It may be perceived to be difficult or even unpleasant. Some who experience this may stop the practice of meditation as a result. Others experience this and continue to meditate regularly any- way, because the benefits they perceive in their lives outweigh for them the less-than-pleasant experience of meditation itself. 19. As a general statement, there is no evidence that meditation in
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
Yoga science or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to invoke the name science at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for spiritual practices. I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as blues science. It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are wrong. I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with claims of science. Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no science of being, but there is an art of living. And expressing the art of living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we feel something we personally value. On Jul 26, 2008, at 8:12 AM, cardemaister wrote: According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]: heart-putting = faith). The key words here being preceded by, as in before or prior to. No gnostic based spirituality ultimately rests on faith, instead it rests on gnosis: direct knowing, jnana. However adherents of faith and deception-based orgs like the TMO are often conditioned to believe gnosis or samadhi occurs at the gaps in thought, but that is rarely the case. Bait and switch is common in such McMeditation orgs. Just because you were burnt by such a group does not mean direct-knowing is not possible, nor does it mean these are items of faith. It merely means you've been duped. Yoga science or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think. Those who haven't experienced samadhi will have to take this on faith but if they follow a workable procedure (a technique or method) they too can abandon the crutch of faith. In terms of yoga teachers, those who can lead to jnana are the real teachers. Those who don't, are very likely fakes, esp. if they are asking for money.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Just the facts, Ma'am Approach To Meditation
This post kicked some serious ass. It pulls together many fragmented insights I have struggle with while posting here and thinking about meditation, and by practicing meditation again. It is like a deprogramming manual for pro and anti TM factions. It had a useful effect on both parts of my perspective. Very helpful Turq, thanks! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For those who didn't grow up American (or are young :-)), Joe Friday was a police detective on a TV series called Dragnet. His approach was brusque and no-nonsense, and the quintessence of this approach was his signature phrase used when interviewing a witness to learn about a crime: Just the facts, Ma'am. For some reason I was thinking about Joe on my morning walk along the beach with the dogs, and got to wondering what the Just the facts, Ma'am answer might be about MEDITATION, the thing that we all have in common here. What CAN we say about meditation that most of us can agree on as facts? No bullshit, no dogma, no assumptions, no theories, no assertions of better or best. Just the facts, Ma'am. Here is my start at such a list. They're not facts in the sense that I claim that they're cosmically true or truth. They're just me trying to make sense out of 40+ years on the spiritual path, and trying to write down a few of the things that are as close to fact about medi- tation as I'm ever likely to get. I am also NOT speaking of *only* TM, but of meditative practice as a wider phenomenon, in ANY of its many forms. Other posters are invited to add their facts to my list, and to discuss it as they wish. I doubt I'm going to feel like defending it. Those who feel compelled to turn things into an argument can do so, if that's the only thing they see in this post to get off on. Me, I'm more interested in what the people without an axe to grind and without a crusade to fight have to say. 1. Meditation has been around a long time. 2. It exists in many forms, and has been associated with many different forms of religion and spiritual practice, but need not be associated with any of them. It can be practiced *as a practice*, with no associated belief system whatsoever. 3. Proponents of meditation have said that it has had subjective benefits for them -- increased clarity of mind after the practice, a feeling of restfulness or relaxation during the practice, and generally *enough* benefits for them in their personal lives that they practice it regularly. 4. Science has made a *start* at verifying some of the sub- jective claims made by proponents of meditation, but the extent of this verification varies from one form of meditation to another, and from one study of the same method to another. These scientific studies -- ALL of them, IMO -- have also been tainted by the associated belief systems *about* medi- tation that the people they are testing bring with them, and by the belief systems that the researchers themselves bring with them. 5. Many systems of meditation make claims that their tech- nique is the best or better or more effective than other forms of meditation. 6. So far, try as they might, neither subjective testimony by practitioners nor science has ever conclusively proved any of these claims of betterness or bestness or most effectiveness. 7. The *mechanics* of these different forms of meditation vary greatly. Some may use mantras (the thinking or chanting of a word or words). Some practice meditation with eyes closed, some with eyes open or even during other activities. Some may use yantras or some other visual aids as a focus for their meditative practice. Some pay attention to the breath, or to just what is taking place at the moment -- mentally and in the environment. Some have no element of focus for their meditative practice at all. Some forms of meditation have a goal, and others have no goal at all, except to meditate. 8. Again, so far science has proved none of these techniques or approaches to meditation definitively better than another. 9. Some proponents claim that meditation has benefits that extend beyond the benefits to the person practicing the medi- tation itself. That is, they claim that the meditation some- how affects the environment around the meditator in positive ways. These claims include reduction of environmental stress, lower crime rates, a more peaceful and settled environment, and even world peace. 10. Again, none of these claimed benefits have been conclu- sively proved by science. 11. One can come up with numerous examples of people who practice meditation who DO seem to exemplify positive traits in their daily lives. They are seen by most observers to be more flexible, more compassionate and caring about others around them, more capable of effective action in stressful situations, and generally happy with their
[FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Sat, 7/26/08, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows ! To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, July 26, 2008, 9:37 AM From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows ! But the area where the Oregon Shri Yantra appeared was in the flight path of helicopters, and yet the Shri Yantra seems to have been constructed overnight. If you know anything about the psychology of perception, this is very easily explained, especially with a shape that is quite foreign to the pilot's' culture, which a sri yantra certainly is. The bottom line is that Bill W. and his friends made the sri yantra, so that is the foundation upon which everything else must be explained. Well, if the aliens are smart enough to travel many many light years in short enough time to still be alive, and/or have conquored aging, then doesn't it stand to reason that they may have disinformation methods that would blind and dazzle mere earth animals? Think man, think! And if Bill had done it, wouldn't it be obvious from the big earth shoe foot prints he would have left? And if mere earth teachers can make their students hallucinate, couldn't much more highly evolved aliens do at least this? And have we proved that the pilots were not aliens also? And if anyone are aliens, its gotta be GWB and DC. I mean, just LOOK a them. And listen to them! If they let the 911 jets safely pass into protected air space, don't you think they could give brother aliens a free pass? The truth is out there!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yoga science or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to invoke the name science at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for spiritual practices. The mantra is like a Jackson Pollack painting -- devoid of meaning. it allows you to drop, like dropping a can of paint, to hit the floor of consciousness, where its like white light -- where all of the colors are mixed together to form white. on that journey, the mantra sort of beoomes like monet. then like seurat, but along the way things can seem very Dali like. Ultimately, you get to the most primitive state -- a totally blank canvas. Its from this white canvas state that all art, all creativity emerges. I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as blues science. It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are wrong. I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with claims of science. Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no science of being, but there is an art of living. And expressing the art of living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we feel something we personally value. On Jul 26, 2008, at 8:12 AM, cardemaister wrote: According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]: heart-putting = faith). The key words here being preceded by, as in before or prior to. No gnostic based spirituality ultimately rests on faith, instead it rests on gnosis: direct knowing, jnana. However adherents of faith and deception-based orgs like the TMO are often conditioned to believe gnosis or samadhi occurs at the gaps in thought, but that is rarely the case. Bait and switch is common in such McMeditation orgs. Just because you were burnt by such a group does not mean direct-knowing is not possible, nor does it mean these are items of faith. It merely means you've been duped. Yoga science or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think. Those who haven't experienced samadhi will have to take this on faith but if they follow a workable procedure (a technique or method) they too can abandon the crutch of faith. In terms of yoga teachers, those who can lead to jnana are the real teachers. Those who don't, are very likely fakes, esp. if they are asking for money.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yoga science or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to invoke the name science at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for spiritual practices. I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as blues science. It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are wrong. I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. Which you do by trial and error, testing this with one audience, testing that with another. And voila, after enough such experiments, you are able to verify an emerging theory as to what various groups dig, and THEN based on this theory, you are able to fairly accurately predict what style, banter, and sets will get various types of audiences rocking. And if you get lucky, the journal of Blues Science will publish your paper -- and you can get a cushy job teaching at Georgetown U -- while still playing. Only now you can focus and hone your research as to what sets, songs and styles get your female students all worked up. A new theory, a new set of predictions -- LOTS more field work ... I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with claims of science. Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no science of being, but there is an art of living. And expressing the art of living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we feel something we personally value. On Jul 26, 2008, at 8:12 AM, cardemaister wrote: According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]: heart-putting = faith). The key words here being preceded by, as in before or prior to. No gnostic based spirituality ultimately rests on faith, instead it rests on gnosis: direct knowing, jnana. However adherents of faith and deception-based orgs like the TMO are often conditioned to believe gnosis or samadhi occurs at the gaps in thought, but that is rarely the case. Bait and switch is common in such McMeditation orgs. Just because you were burnt by such a group does not mean direct-knowing is not possible, nor does it mean these are items of faith. It merely means you've been duped. Yoga science or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think. Those who haven't experienced samadhi will have to take this on faith but if they follow a workable procedure (a technique or method) they too can abandon the crutch of faith. In terms of yoga teachers, those who can lead to jnana are the real teachers. Those who don't, are very likely fakes, esp. if they are asking for money.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Brian Horsfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the speakers (don't remember which) describes how the Bush Administration deleted all evidence from a CIA briefing which expressed doubt over whether Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. This was Vincent Bugliosi, former assistant DA for Los Angeles who presents the most damning piece of legal evidence that Bush lied to take us into war here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1742899254259081797 The video is 7 minutes long the key point comes at 1'45 into the video, and describes documentary evidence that Bush deleted key facts from a CIA report he recieved just 6 days before in Feb 2002. This speech to my mind is the most credible evidence that impeachment proceedings need to begin immediately.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
Which you do by trial and error, testing this with one audience, testing that with another. And voila, after enough such experiments, you are able to verify an emerging theory as to what various groups dig, and THEN based on this theory, you are able to fairly accurately predict what style, banter, and sets will get various types of audiences rocking. And if you get lucky, the journal of Blues Science will publish your paper -- and you can get a cushy job teaching at Georgetown U -- while still playing. Only now you can focus and hone your research as to what sets, songs and styles get your female students all worked up. A new theory, a new set of predictions -- LOTS more field work ... No, this is how Boy Band managers work. My job is to play the music that rocks my world and find the people who agree. If you try to play for the audience reaction as your center you become a lounge act. Hey its really great to be heeerrre! That doesn't give an artist the right to be a total dick and ignore the audience reaction, but when they want me to play some classic rock cuz they don't understand my musical focus, they get Son House's Death Letter Blues and I am either able to convert them on the spot, or not! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Yoga science or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to invoke the name science at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for spiritual practices. I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as blues science. It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are wrong. I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. Which you do by trial and error, testing this with one audience, testing that with another. And voila, after enough such experiments, you are able to verify an emerging theory as to what various groups dig, and THEN based on this theory, you are able to fairly accurately predict what style, banter, and sets will get various types of audiences rocking. And if you get lucky, the journal of Blues Science will publish your paper -- and you can get a cushy job teaching at Georgetown U -- while still playing. Only now you can focus and hone your research as to what sets, songs and styles get your female students all worked up. A new theory, a new set of predictions -- LOTS more field work ... I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with claims of science. Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no science of being, but there is an art of living. And expressing the art of living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we feel something we personally value. On Jul 26, 2008, at 8:12 AM, cardemaister wrote: According to YS I 20, (asaMprajñaata) samaadhi is based on, or preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]: heart-putting = faith). The key words here being preceded by, as in before or prior to. No gnostic based spirituality ultimately rests on faith, instead it rests on gnosis: direct knowing, jnana. However adherents of faith and deception-based orgs like the TMO are often conditioned to believe gnosis or samadhi occurs at the gaps in thought, but that is rarely the case. Bait and switch is common in such McMeditation orgs. Just because you were burnt by such a group does not mean direct-knowing is not possible, nor does it mean these are items of faith. It merely means
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yoga science or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to invoke the name science at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for spiritual practices. I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as blues science. It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are wrong. I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with claims of science. Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no science of being, but there is an art of living. And expressing the art of living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we feel something we personally value. Baby. If meditation causes changes in physiology, behavior, or possibly social structures, then thats a legitimate, even fascinating realm for science to explore. Bathwater. Using scientific analogies and slight of hand to prove and market stuff to the gullible and uneducated. (Or as Steve Martin was taught in The Jerk This is Shit. This is Shinola (know the difference and the world is yours.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 26, 2008, at 9:44 AM, boo_lives wrote: What sort of hateful idiot takes an old, completely unsubstantiated National Enquirer article, which doesn't even provide a name of one piece of evidence, and calls it revent revelations and talks about it as fact? Someone who's desperate? Actually, Boo appears not to be aware of the current story. Hey, guess what. Edwards is a lawyer. If the allegations are untrue, maybe he knows someone that can refute them and go after the Enquirer. That is, since according to Sal, the accusations are so baseless. Lawson, let's call it like it is. Sorry your understanding of law is about as deep as your preferred source of reading material. You actually think everything rags like the enquirer publish has been proven true or else they can be sued successfully?? Thanks, boo, that's what I was thinking. Obviously the Enq knows they can't be sued or else they wouldn't print trash as if it were fact. Actually the Enquirer has been successfully sued a number of times for printing false information (by Carol Burnett, for instance). The Enquirer is a very mixed bag. It's a big mistake to dismiss an Enquirer story out of hand, because it has done some solid reporting. Unfortunately, it looks as though the current Edwards story may be true (just like a similar story the Enquirer broke about Jesse Jackson some years ago). And Barry, the reason it's of interest is not because we need to know what Edwards does in his private life, but because if the story is true, it's going to affect his *public* life. He's a possible vice-presidential candidate, and even if that doesn't work out, there's been speculation that Obama would appoint him to his cabinet, possibly as attorney general. If the Enquirer story turns out to be true, those possibilities are very likely down the tubes. I was kind of wondering why I hadn't seen the revelations before lurk posted them, then I saw where they came from. Really scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't we, lurk? Not, as it happens. It's already hit the MSM (the LA Times, for one), but the MSM is being appropriately cautious until it can confirm the story. It's being taken seriously, in other words. If this is how you and others support the Repugs, heaven help them. You and your party deserve each other. Lurk is quite right to point out that it isn't *only* Republicans who have some problems with family values. That's the case even if the Edwards story is false.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
Baby. If meditation causes changes in physiology, behavior, or possibly social structures, then thats a legitimate, even fascinating realm for science to explore. Bathwater. Using scientific analogies and slight of hand to prove and market stuff to the gullible and uneducated. (Or as Steve Martin was taught in The Jerk This is Shit. This is Shinola (know the difference and the world is yours.) Nice naildown New. And then it can join the soft sciences with the appropriate epistemological humility. There will be some hard science qualities like the brain wave and chemical changes, but the connections to behavior will always have to remain in the realm of working theory. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Yoga science or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to invoke the name science at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for spiritual practices. I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as blues science. It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are wrong. I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with claims of science. Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no science of being, but there is an art of living. And expressing the art of living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we feel something we personally value. Baby. If meditation causes changes in physiology, behavior, or possibly social structures, then thats a legitimate, even fascinating realm for science to explore. Bathwater. Using scientific analogies and slight of hand to prove and market stuff to the gullible and uneducated. (Or as Steve Martin was taught in The Jerk This is Shit. This is Shinola (know the difference and the world is yours.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 26, 2008, at 11:41 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Yoga science or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to invoke the name science at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for spiritual practices. One may be simple translation. The word often used in the spiritual sciences for the western word science is vidya. However vidya has a deeper meaning that the western term science, as it is less encumbered by the taboo of subjectivity which stultifies western science. The taboo of subjectivity in the west has a lot to do with the way the scientific fundamentalism came about but it is also a shared element with religious fundamentalism, as both have placed a taboo on subjectivity. Both believe they are heading towards an absolute truth, one based on science's grokking of Nature, the other through the absolute word of god. The actual basis for what we call science is in fact based on Greek and Hebrew religious and philosophical beliefs which all assert that a god or gods created the universe we inhabit before he/she/they created humans--this a basis for scientific realism which in turn was a basis for scientific materialism. This is actually a rather lengthy and detailed topic, as one has to explain what the taboo of subjectivity is and how it came about, along with our current paradigms. I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as blues science. It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are wrong. I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with claims of science. Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no science of being, but there is an art of living. And expressing the art of living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we feel something we personally value.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which you do by trial and error, testing this with one audience, testing that with another. And voila, after enough such experiments, you are able to verify an emerging theory as to what various groups dig, and THEN based on this theory, you are able to fairly accurately predict what style, banter, and sets will get various types of audiences rocking. And if you get lucky, the journal of Blues Science will publish your paper -- and you can get a cushy job teaching at Georgetown U -- while still playing. Only now you can focus and hone your research as to what sets, songs and styles get your female students all worked up. A new theory, a new set of predictions -- LOTS more field work ... No, this is how Boy Band managers work. My job is to play the music that rocks my world and find the people who agree. If you try to play for the audience reaction as your center you become a lounge act. Hey its really great to be heeerrre! That doesn't give an artist the right to be a total dick and ignore the audience reaction, but when they want me to play some classic rock cuz they don't understand my musical focus, they get Son House's Death Letter Blues and I am either able to convert them on the spot, or not! Well, laudibly you are a musical purist. However, I am glad that you have found a theory -- with extraordinary predictive power, via experimentation, the causal factor to make womens's clothes levitate -- with the music of Getz and Gilberto.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Baby. If meditation causes changes in physiology, behavior, or possibly social structures, then thats a legitimate, even fascinating realm for science to explore. Bathwater. Using scientific analogies and slight of hand to prove and market stuff to the gullible and uneducated. (Or as Steve Martin was taught in The Jerk This is Shit. This is Shinola (know the difference and the world is yours.) Nice naildown New. And then it can join the soft sciences with the appropriate epistemological humility. There will be some hard science qualities like the brain wave and chemical changes, but the connections to behavior will always have to remain in the realm of working theory. Well, at least it will remain on the same level of predictive power and unraveling of causal factors as any of the behavioral and social sciences. But I heard tell them there white coat boys have made some pr'gress in the last 100 years or so with white mice, mazes and all. But last I heard much about that was at my 'nivrsity -- and those pocket protector type prof'sors seemed like a bunch of eggheads, so you are prob'ly right, their so called res'rch may not 'mount to much of nuthin'. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Yoga science or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to invoke the name science at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for spiritual practices. I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as blues science. It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are wrong. I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with claims of science. Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no science of being, but there is an art of living. And expressing the art of living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we feel something we personally value. Baby. If meditation causes changes in physiology, behavior, or possibly social structures, then thats a legitimate, even fascinating realm for science to explore. Bathwater. Using scientific analogies and slight of hand to prove and market stuff to the gullible and uneducated. (Or as Steve Martin was taught in The Jerk This is Shit. This is Shinola (know the difference and the world is yours.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
curtisdeltablues wrote: Yoga science or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification. It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to invoke the name science at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method, wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for spiritual practices. Because people aren't satisfied to take it on faith. They want to know how it works. They want a concrete idea of how it works. It's human nature. When you start dissecting it then it becomes a science. I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as blues science. It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are wrong. I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. Ah, but there is music theory which is an analysis of how music works including yours. Really good music producers will look for that element when producing musical groups. The Beatles had little knowledge of music theory but George Martin with a classically trained background was able to take their musical sketches and strengthen them and turn them into hits. Much of what he did was the application of the musical sciences and psychology. I'm helped other songwriters who have really bad arcs in their songs (started out strong and went downhill from there) fix their songs so they had better arcs and people wanted to listen to them and responded with applause (rather than walk away bored). And you don't apply these rules mechanically but rather test them if you notice that there is a weak spot in the music and then see if applying them helps. In composition you have devices such as retrogrades, retrograde inversions, etc. I turned a bunch of my musician friends to Gordon Delamont's Modern Melodic Techniques as it was a very readable and usable tutorial on how to improve one's compositions. Probably anyone here who has tried to write a song has been stuck on what to do with the next phrase of their song. They might have an idea but it just sounds lame to them. Sometimes if you reverse the order of the notes in your first phrase so it is a mirror image of it you come up with an interesting sounding second phrase. Or you can flip the intervals of the notes of your original phrase which can produce an interesting second phrase. These are all techniques that many musicians including the great masters have used down through the centuries. And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with your gut feeling or your musical faith either. :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And maybe you should have added John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer. Or maybe the baby John Edwards had with his mistress. Or maybe John Edwards telling everyone that they are the only one he has confided some personal details about his son's death. Oh yea, family values. The dems really personify them. Edwards is the Dem nominee? No Lawson, he's not. But when Sal decided to come down on McCain for dumping his first wife, and touted Obama's successful marriage, and then sacastically referred to the Republicans as the party of family values, I thought I'd hi-light the recent revelations of John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer. An affair he's had for four years, and may even have produced a baby. Hey, guess what. Edwards is a lawyer. If the allegations are untrue, maybe he knows someone that can refute them and go after the Enquirer. That is, since according to Sal, the accusations are so baseless. Lawson, let's call it like it is. Just as a question, could like it is include the possibility that none of this is any of our damned business? Here's what makes it our business. This is America. For some godforsaken reason, many Americans believe that marital fidelity is a prerequisite for elected office. Now, I don't happen to agree with it and, indeed, in Canada where I'm from people really don't give a rat's ass who a politician is fucking. For example, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had a kid out of wedlock (he was retired by this time) with his 30-something girlfriend and the almost universal reaction was: good for him! People admired him MORE as a result, not less. Be that as it may, the U.S. is not Canada and however misplaced the fidelity notion may be, it's the reality. And politicians know that before they enter the game. So, no, it shouldn't be any of our business but the will of the people no matter how misplaced has made it our business. And, as such, a politician opens himself up to the possibility of compromise via blackmail if he has indiscretions. An example is, of course, J. Edgar Hoover, who is reputed to have beeen homosexual. But Hoover also famously said that there was no organized crime in America when there was MAJOR organized crime in America. It has been suggested that he was compromised and that photos existed in some Mafiosa's safe deposit box that were held over his head. Unfair rules? Yes. But they are a reality of political life in America and if John Edwards willingly enters the arena he should be expected to play by the rules. I'm pretty sure that if I were put under the scrutiny of running for public office, the press would have a field day with my indiscretions. The incident in the hot tub with the cheerleaders and the eels alone would probably bump me off the ticket. The French had the right attitude about these things as far as I'm concerned. Former president Chirac was a sonofabitch in his political dealings and basically maintained two families concurrently, and the French didn't seem to have any problem with this. The *predominantly Roman Catholic* French didn't seem to have any problem with this. When he died, his wife and family marched in the procession side by side with his mistress and family. I'm uncomfortable with gettin' morally medieval on politicians' asses as if their morals or lack thereof might make them incapable of doing a good job as a national leader. Winston Churchill was a drunk. FDR had a mistress for 20 years. JFK probably nailed more bimbos in the White House than Carter had Little Liver Pills. Gandhi slept snuggled up between two young girls. Nobel Peace Prize winners have turbulent and sometimes abusive relationships with their spouses. Hell, Alfred Nobel himself was one of the masters of war, an arms manufacturer. Everybody has a closet, and as far as I can tell, everybody's got shit in that closet that they would prefer that the narrow-minded and moral members of society not see, so that they don't obsess on it. THAT they obsess on it does not mean that the politician in question has to obsess on it, or spend even a moment defending himself or herself against their accusations. The smart ones, in my opinion, should just let the narrow- minded obsess and do their own thing, and see how things work out. The Zen parable revolving around Is that so? springs to mind. I've mentioned a film here a few times, and never gotten a bite on it. I think it's a very good film. It deals with moral and ethical issues, and with the role of women in politics or public life, and with how they are held to different standards than the men sometimes. And it's a good movie to boot. What is not to like about that? The film is called The Contender, and is
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
snip Because people aren't satisfied to take it on faith. They want to know how it works. They want a concrete idea of how it works. It's human nature. When you start dissecting it then it becomes a science. Not necessarily. Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific method. I think the phrase scientific method is more useful than the word alone because that includes its virtues and limits. I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as blues science. It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are wrong. I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine. Ah, but there is music theory which is an analysis of how music works including yours. Really good music producers will look for that element when producing musical groups. The Beatles had little knowledge of music theory but George Martin with a classically trained background was able to take their musical sketches and strengthen them and turn them into hits. Much of what he did was the application of the musical sciences and psychology. I don't think these reach the levels necessary to be called products of the scientific method. We could argue all day long about what exactly George Martin contributed, but music theory is part of the knowledge in the arts, not the sciences. Science can study waves and physics can describe how a guitar string vibrates and why the notes get higher as the string shortens when we fret it, but how it feels to be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not science or universal knowledge. It is personal opinion and taste. I'm helped other songwriters who have really bad arcs in their songs (started out strong and went downhill from there) fix their songs so they had better arcs and people wanted to listen to them and responded with applause (rather than walk away bored). And you don't apply these rules mechanically but rather test them if you notice that there is a weak spot in the music and then see if applying them helps. I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want that do we? In composition you have devices such as retrogrades, retrograde inversions, etc. I turned a bunch of my musician friends to Gordon Delamont's Modern Melodic Techniques as it was a very readable and usable tutorial on how to improve one's compositions. Probably anyone here who has tried to write a song has been stuck on what to do with the next phrase of their song. They might have an idea but it just sounds lame to them. Sometimes if you reverse the order of the notes in your first phrase so it is a mirror image of it you come up with an interesting sounding second phrase. Or you can flip the intervals of the notes of your original phrase which can produce an interesting second phrase. These are all techniques that many musicians including the great masters have used down through the centuries. This sounds really interesting. Being an artist doesn't mean a commitment to being a dumbass! I try to learn from everything. Rational processes are part of the arts. And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with your gut feeling or your musical faith either. :) I do my best to combine them. Your example of songwriting is excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach. So many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve your ability to convey what you mean better. But writing isn't a science either, even though there are many known rules for having better communication.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One may be simple translation. The word often used in the spiritual sciences for the western word science is vidya. However vidya has a deeper meaning that the western term science, as it is less encumbered by the taboo of subjectivity which stultifies western science. The taboo of subjectivity I Know! All that scientific, white-coat, pocket protector eggheads get so riled up about cognitive biases and self-serving results. Whew. When will they get a clue! in the west has a lot to do with the way the scientific fundamentalism You nailed it brother. What a bunch of literalists with massive blinders on. I mean when they read their scientific journals, they actually interpret each word in a precise and literal sense. No creativity. No seeing the big picture of the Known View. No understanding, a priori, of how things really are. I only pray to Jesus that I will never fall into that abyss of ignorance. came about but it is also a shared element with religious fundamentalism, as both have placed a taboo on subjectivity. I Know! If they delve into subjectivity its only that intersubjective validation crap -- where a whole lot of people need to agree that they seez the same thing. I mean, GD it, I see what i see, and its the damn Truth! no matter if anyone else seez it. Both believe they are heading towards an absolute truth, Yes, if anything, you have hit the nail on the head. Their premier tenent of modern science is the discovery and defense of Absolute Truth, Once Absolute Truth is found, there's no looking back. No counter theories, no debate, no critiques Specially if its MY absolute truth. one based on science's grokking of Nature, the other through the absolute word of god. I know! I hate that damn Journal of Scientific Groks. Scientists are so confused that they all think Scientific Groking reveals Truth (the ONE Truth) The actual basis for what we call science is in fact based on Greek and Hebrew religious and philosophical beliefs which all assert that a god or gods created the universe we inhabit before he/she/they created humans--this a basis for scientific realism which in turn was a basis for scientific materialism. YOU are so right on today! First you are right, if jews and goat-slamming greeks came up with it, its really suspect. And I took some undergraduate science, and hung out with some science grad students, and they told me the secret -- science is really all based on a core belief that gods created the universe. Its like in the first chapter of ALL science texts. This is actually a rather lengthy and detailed topic, I know -- and I am too lame to understand it, so I am so glad you are giving me the distilled version. And plus, being your subjective truth, that makes it even more golden. as one has to explain what the taboo of subjectivity is and how it came about, along with our current paradigms. I Know! can't them knucklehead scientists see that they are locked into a paradigm.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: snip No, I'm not claiming that at all. All I'm claiming is that different mantras have different effects and it is due to the resonance of the sound which also works at the mental level. That is not dogma as it can be observed at the audible level. They are different in what parts of the body are involved. A thought is not a sound vibration of air molecules hitting the ear drum. It may be an electrical or chemical event in the brain, but it is not the same thing as an external sound vibration. There may not be as much difference as you think. Unless we set up specialized instruments to measure the sound, the only way we know there's an external sound vibration is by the electrical/chemical event it produces in the brain when it hits the eardrum. It would be interesting to do a study to see whether thinking the mantra activates the hearing area of the brain. There have been studies (not related to meditation) showing that when we imagine a sound or sight, maybe touch/smell/taste as well, the same areas of the brain light up under MRI as when we actually hear or see etc. something external. And even when we set up instruments to measure sound vibrations, the measurements by themselves tell us nothing about whether the sound is pleasant or unpleasant, consonant or dissonant, major or minor. Those qualities are the province of the brain, not the measuring instruments. Speaking of a fingernail on a blackboard, for many people just *mentioning* it is enough to make them wince, because the words evoke the memory of what it sounds like. That's why the analogy is so effective in the TM intro lecture. People hear the sound in their mind's ear the same way they hear the mantra. You sure wouldn't want to use the fingernail sound as if it were a mantra.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but how it feels to be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not science or universal knowledge. It is personal opinion and taste. I know! Science and rock n' roll are like oil and water and will never mix. Scripture says so. Just because science has figured out that LSD alters the action of the neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine, triggering extensive changes in brain andsensory functioning, for example, enabling some to feel and see music and such has no bearing on what is really happening. The FACT is, whats really happening, is that theres a magical leprechaun inside everyones head, and when you take LSD the leprechaun gets high as shit and starts jumping around and kicking his legs about. Sometimes he accidently kicks the back of your eyes which causes cascading colors and visions. Also, sometimes he accidently kicks the insides of your ears which causes auditory hallucinations. And he LOVES Sargent Pepper so he really kicks out the jams when you play it. I'm helped other songwriters who have really bad arcs in their songs (started out strong and went downhill from there) fix their songs so they had better arcs and people wanted to listen to them and responded with applause (rather than walk away bored). And you don't apply these rules mechanically but rather test them if you notice that there is a weak spot in the music and then see if applying them helps. I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want that do we? In composition you have devices such as retrogrades, retrograde inversions, etc. I turned a bunch of my musician friends to Gordon Delamont's Modern Melodic Techniques as it was a very readable and usable tutorial on how to improve one's compositions. Probably anyone here who has tried to write a song has been stuck on what to do with the next phrase of their song. They might have an idea but it just sounds lame to them. Sometimes if you reverse the order of the notes in your first phrase so it is a mirror image of it you come up with an interesting sounding second phrase. Or you can flip the intervals of the notes of your original phrase which can produce an interesting second phrase. These are all techniques that many musicians including the great masters have used down through the centuries. This sounds really interesting. Being an artist doesn't mean a commitment to being a dumbass! I try to learn from everything. Rational processes are part of the arts. And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with your gut feeling or your musical faith either. :) I do my best to combine them. Your example of songwriting is excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach. So many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve your ability to convey what you mean better. But writing isn't a science either, even though there are many known rules for having better communication.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: but how it feels to be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not science or universal knowledge. It is personal opinion and taste. I know! Science and rock n' roll are like oil and water and will never mix. Scripture says so. Just because science has figured out that LSD alters the action of the neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine, triggering extensive changes in brain andsensory functioning, for example, enabling some to feel and see music and such has no bearing on what is really happening. The FACT is, whats really happening, is that theres a magical leprechaun inside everyones head, and when you take LSD the leprechaun gets high as shit and starts jumping around and kicking his legs about. Sometimes he accidently kicks the back of your eyes which causes cascading colors and visions. Also, sometimes he accidently kicks the insides of your ears which causes auditory hallucinations. And he LOVES Sargent Pepper so he really kicks out the jams when you play it. Science can predict the brain effect side but not the artistic preference part. Some people like to trip and listen to death metal. I'm helped other songwriters who have really bad arcs in their songs (started out strong and went downhill from there) fix their songs so they had better arcs and people wanted to listen to them and responded with applause (rather than walk away bored). And you don't apply these rules mechanically but rather test them if you notice that there is a weak spot in the music and then see if applying them helps. I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want that do we? In composition you have devices such as retrogrades, retrograde inversions, etc. I turned a bunch of my musician friends to Gordon Delamont's Modern Melodic Techniques as it was a very readable and usable tutorial on how to improve one's compositions. Probably anyone here who has tried to write a song has been stuck on what to do with the next phrase of their song. They might have an idea but it just sounds lame to them. Sometimes if you reverse the order of the notes in your first phrase so it is a mirror image of it you come up with an interesting sounding second phrase. Or you can flip the intervals of the notes of your original phrase which can produce an interesting second phrase. These are all techniques that many musicians including the great masters have used down through the centuries. This sounds really interesting. Being an artist doesn't mean a commitment to being a dumbass! I try to learn from everything. Rational processes are part of the arts. And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with your gut feeling or your musical faith either. :) I do my best to combine them. Your example of songwriting is excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach. So many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve your ability to convey what you mean better. But writing isn't a science either, even though there are many known rules for having better communication.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.G. Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 8:35 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon! Dennis Kucinich began inquiring again into impeachment for this criminal President Bush. Hopefully, some of the rest of Congress will have the 'balls' to follow this through. President Bush needs to be impeached, and held for murder charges. He has led this country into the abyss. I pray that either before or soon after Obama is elected that the precedent that Bush and his morons have created is smashed. He is absolutely the most irresponsible leader since the days of Rome and Caligula. Actually I believe he is a reincarnation of Caligula. When Obama was in FF, I asked him about impeaching Bush and Cheney. He said he felt it would be too disruptive - that Congress wouldn't get anything else accomplished - but he said that if elected, one of his first moves would be to have his attorney general review everything Bush and Cheney had done to erode the Constitution, and that he would reverse those decisions so as to repair the damage. Charles Manson prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi testifies before Congress on evidence of Bush's war crimes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAFozFn4kU
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And maybe you should have added John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer. Or maybe the baby John Edwards had with his mistress. Or maybe John Edwards telling everyone that they are the only one he has confided some personal details about his son's death. Oh yea, family values. The dems really personify them. Edwards is the Dem nominee? No Lawson, he's not. But when Sal decided to come down on McCain for dumping his first wife, and touted Obama's successful marriage, and then sacastically referred to the Republicans as the party of family values, I thought I'd hi-light the recent revelations of John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer. An affair he's had for four years, and may even have produced a baby. Hey, guess what. Edwards is a lawyer. If the allegations are untrue, maybe he knows someone that can refute them and go after the Enquirer. That is, since according to Sal, the accusations are so baseless. Lawson, let's call it like it is. Just as a question, could like it is include the possibility that none of this is any of our damned business? I am in 100% agreement. It makes no difference to me what the pecadillos of a politician may be. In fact probably the men we admire most all had something going on, on the side. Who knows, that may go for the women as well. But when someone starts dishing the dirt and pointing fingers about how their cadidate and party is a better example of moral rectitue, well I'm going to have some input. About the only thing I find offensive here is the hypocrisy os someone trying stake out the high moral ground in their politics. Right. I mean, I may have born at night, but I wasn't born last night. I'm pretty sure that if I were put under the scrutiny of running for public office, the press would have a field day with my indiscretions. The incident in the hot tub with the cheerleaders and the eels alone would probably bump me off the ticket. The French had the right attitude about these things as far as I'm concerned. Former president Chirac was a sonofabitch in his political dealings and basically maintained two families concurrently, and the French didn't seem to have any problem with this. The *predominantly Roman Catholic* French didn't seem to have any problem with this. When he died, his wife and family marched in the procession side by side with his mistress and family. I'm uncomfortable with gettin' morally medieval on politicians' asses as if their morals or lack thereof might make them incapable of doing a good job as a national leader. Winston Churchill was a drunk. FDR had a mistress for 20 years. JFK probably nailed more bimbos in the White House than Carter had Little Liver Pills. Gandhi slept snuggled up between two young girls. Nobel Peace Prize winners have turbulent and sometimes abusive relationships with their spouses. Hell, Alfred Nobel himself was one of the masters of war, an arms manufacturer. Everybody has a closet, and as far as I can tell, everybody's got shit in that closet that they would prefer that the narrow-minded and moral members of society not see, so that they don't obsess on it. THAT they obsess on it does not mean that the politician in question has to obsess on it, or spend even a moment defending himself or herself against their accusations. The smart ones, in my opinion, should just let the narrow- minded obsess and do their own thing, and see how things work out. The Zen parable revolving around Is that so? springs to mind. I've mentioned a film here a few times, and never gotten a bite on it. I think it's a very good film. It deals with moral and ethical issues, and with the role of women in politics or public life, and with how they are held to different standards than the men sometimes. And it's a good movie to boot. What is not to like about that? The film is called The Contender, and is about a woman who is nominated to fill the vacant VP spot for a sitting presidency. Shortly following her nomination by the presi- dent (Jeff Bridges, who has never been finer as the Columbo- like stringpuller of the Washingtonian puppets), revelations appear of an orgy back in college. What's a politician to do? What's a WOMAN to do? What's a HUMAN BEING to do when accused of something they don't feel merits a response? Joan Allen gives what should have been an Oscar-worthy performance answering these questions. Highly recommended for those who have to wade through the muck of the U.S. presidential election media and need to be reminded what having real ethics entails.
[FairfieldLife] Iowa's worst lead polluter in FF
Public News Service-IA July 10, 2008 Lead Threat Still Exists Years After it was Banned in Paint and Gasoline Des Moines, IA - Researchers have long known the health dangers associated with exposure to lead. It was banned 30 years ago as an additive in paint, and more recently removed from gasoline and other materials. However, there are thousands of facilities around the country, including some in Iowa, that still emit lead into the air. According the Natural Resource Defense Council, the Dexter Company in Fairfield emits the most lead in the state, over 10 pounds a year. NRDC lead expert Avi Kar says the element is linked to heart, lung and kidney problems in adults, but does the most damage to children. Lead can cause brain development problems in children, resulting in a lower IQ. It can also lead to an inability to concentrate and aggressive behavior. The EPA is currently reviewing lead exposure rules as required by the Clean Air Act, and they're proposing tougher standards for the first time in 30 years. But Kar says the proposal doesn't achieve what scientists have recommended. The science has progressed quite a bit and we've discovered that lead is dangerous at far lower levels than previously thought. The last time EPA looked at the issue was 15 years ago, and they failed to make any changes to the rules then. Kar says the health consequences of exposure to lead are significant. The average child exposed at the proposed standard of 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter could lose two-to-three IQ points. EPA defends the new standard, saying it cuts the allowable emission of lead by as much as 93%. The agency is accepting public comments through August 4th. An interactive map of lead emitters is available at the NRDC's website, www.nrdc.org. Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/5629-1
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.G. Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 8:35 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon! Dennis Kucinich began inquiring again into impeachment for this criminal President Bush. Hopefully, some of the rest of Congress will have the 'balls' to follow this through. President Bush needs to be impeached, and held for murder charges. He has led this country into the abyss. I pray that either before or soon after Obama is elected that the precedent that Bush and his morons have created is smashed. He is absolutely the most irresponsible leader since the days of Rome and Caligula. Actually I believe he is a reincarnation of Caligula. When Obama was in FF, I asked him about impeaching Bush and Cheney. He said he felt it would be too disruptive - that Congress wouldn't get anything else accomplished - but he said that if elected, one of his first moves would be to have his attorney general review everything Bush and Cheney had done to erode the Constitution, and that he would reverse those decisions so as to repair the damage. Oh yea. Vote to renew the Patriot act. He's off to a fine start. Glad to see he doesn't make empty promise. Campaign financing. Glad to see he doesn't make empty promise. Discount the effect of the surge in Iraq, but propose it for Afganistan. This is one stand up guy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Obama moves Mountains'
Bob, there is nothing he couldn't do that you wouldn't applaud. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barack Obama is destined to become the next President. He is a very evolved soul, and carries the energy of Abraham Lincoln. Wherever he goes, he inspires and uplifts and brings people together. He is an inspiration to all the people of the world. Osama bin Laden should fear Obama, because unlike the demon Bush, he will pursue the evil one, and it shall be done. Mountains moves with the power of a leader of such greatness.
[FairfieldLife] New file uploaded to FairfieldLife
Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the FairfieldLife group. File: /Paths, Teachers and Cults/Guru 1.pdf Uploaded by : rick_archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description : Former MMY disciple Dattatreya Siva Baba, the YouTube Guru, predicts a new age of enlightenment starting on this month's full moon. You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/files/Paths%2C%20Teachers%20and%20Cults/Guru%201.pdf To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles Regards, rick_archer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments
No, But he's a Dem, good-looking, sick wife, so as such ripe for any idiotic rumor that one can toss at him. Sal He's a trial lawyer Sal. Not one to put up with BS. So can we expect a defamation suit? Wouldn't we expect this. Or is it a case of I will not digfify that with a response type of thing. I'm ready to eat crow if the facts warrant it. Are you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments
boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry your understanding of law is about as deep as your preferred source of reading material. You actually think everything rags like the enquirer publish has been proven true or else they can be sued successfully?? The article I read had details, video, interviews. Start refuting. This was not some hearsay article. This account was specific dude. Dates, exact times, eye witness reports. Sorry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments
Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was kind of wondering why I hadn't seen the revelations before lurk posted them, then I saw where they came from. Really scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't we, lurk? If this is how you and others support the Repugs, heaven help them. You and your party deserve each other. Again. I'm ready to eat crow if the facts warrant it. Are you?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
curtisdeltablues wrote: Not necessarily. Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific method. I think the phrase scientific method is more useful than the word alone because that includes its virtues and limits. I think that yoga and the various yogic techniques are very fit for scientific inquiry. And MMY certainly wasn't the first one to think so, it's been going on for centuries. But whatever rocks your boat. :D Ah, but there is music theory which is an analysis of how music works including yours. Really good music producers will look for that element when producing musical groups. The Beatles had little knowledge of music theory but George Martin with a classically trained background was able to take their musical sketches and strengthen them and turn them into hits. Much of what he did was the application of the musical sciences and psychology. I don't think these reach the levels necessary to be called products of the scientific method. We could argue all day long about what exactly George Martin contributed, but music theory is part of the knowledge in the arts, not the sciences. Science can study waves and physics can describe how a guitar string vibrates and why the notes get higher as the string shortens when we fret it, but how it feels to be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not science or universal knowledge. It is personal opinion and taste. You don't have to argue about what George Martin contributed, he wrote a book about it called All You Need Is Ears. :D Most professors of music would tell you that theory is a science and the application of it is an art. That's what I was pointing out. I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want that do we? I'm sure musicologists and students have already dissected Brittany Spears productions as well as others for why they worked both psychologically and on a (sort of) musical level. And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with your gut feeling or your musical faith either. :) I do my best to combine them. Your example of songwriting is excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach. So many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve your ability to convey what you mean better. But writing isn't a science either, even though there are many known rules for having better communication. As I already pointed out.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments
On Jul 26, 2008, at 1:29 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: No, But he's a Dem, good-looking, sick wife, so as such ripe for any idiotic rumor that one can toss at him. Sal He's a trial lawyer Sal. Not one to put up with BS. So can we expect a defamation suit? Wouldn't we expect this. Or is it a case of I will not digfify that with a response type of thing. I'm ready to eat crow if the facts warrant it. Are you? Sure, lurk, if a DNA test proves otherwise, I'll admit I was wrong about Edwards. But you're studiously missing the whole point--the Repugs position themselves as the Party of Family Values, over and over...you know, Down with abortion! Down with sex education! Down with any social legislation that could help families live better lives! And all that stuff. So they ask to be judged on that basis, which I agree most of the time doesn't matter much, even in spite of the fact that Republicans seem to have a particularly mean way of doing it. Even the Reagans were shocked at McCain's callous behavior. And you know as well as I do that *if* it had been Obama, or Hillary, or any other serious Dem contender, the Repugs would have been all over them like flies. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Ottumwa Courier: Pond scum to power? State considering proposal from MUM to create algae bioreactor
Published July 15, 2008 12:14 am - Pond scum to power? State considering proposal from MUM to create algae bioreactor By MATT MILNER Courier staff writer FAIRFIELD - You know that greenish tinge the swimming pool gets when you run out of chlorine? The same one that showed up when the filter on the fish tank broke? What if you could use that to run your car? Some researchers believe that's possible. And the state is considering a proposal from Maharishi University of Management to create an algae bioreactor. It's a fancy name for a concept that is really quite simple, and it has several potential advantages. Algae use photosynthesis to live. That's the same basic process as other plants like trees and grass. The key is chlorophyll, a green pigment that drives the reaction. Photosynthesis uses light to produce energy for the plant and also strips carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Oxygen is a byproduct. An algae farm uses photosynthesis to scrub the atmosphere. Algae grows fast, so projects based on it can expand rapidly. And there are some industrial applications already being tested. Some power plants are using algae farms to strip out emissions, since the hot, carbon dioxide-laden gases are a banquet for the tiny plants. Other scientists are looking at using algae as a food supply in areas that crops won't easily grow. But none of this, including your cloudy fish tank, is producing oil. What's missing? MUM Professor Lonnie Gamble has the answer. It's not about what the algae produce; it's about what the algae is. It turns out that the bodies of algae are about 50 percent oil. We can make fuel from them, he said. It's possible to refine the oil into biofuel that can then power vehicles. The MUM project is partnering with Valcent, a Texas-based company, to examine the potential for beginning a university bioreactor to produce and refine the algae. The current efforts are laboratory scale. The university wants to expand that to a quarter-acre greenhouse for the algae as a test site. Researchers believe industrial scale production will require sites of at least 100 acres. Assistant Professor Jimmy Sinton directs the bioreactor project. He said the key for future use of algae is that the plant is not difficult to grow, nor is it difficult to understand. The Iowa Power Fund will give money to the project, though it's not yet clear how much. The original request was $2 million, but negotiations have not set the final amount. The question is whether the process is in itself fuel efficient. There's no net benefit if it takes more power to produce the algae biofuel than you get in return. The good news is that it doesn't take much to grow the algae. Some algae farms use gas vented from smokestacks as food for the algae. Sinton is not planning to use that process for his algae. Geothermal heat and passive sunlight are enough, particularly on the small scale currently being planned. Algae farmers don't need much space, either. Rooftop farms are possible, and urban production is viable in the long term. Both Gamble and Sinton say the process is close to carbon neutral. That means it produces as much carbon as a fuel as it removes while it grows. It's a trade-off. But expanded use of the algae can make it carbon negative. Sinton pointed to algae as a building material as an example of how producers can sequester carbon and keep it out of the atmosphere on a long-term basis. Money is a driving factor for the research. The process works. But the money-saving advances haven't come in yet. Sinton's current estimates are that setup will cost $300,000 per acre. That number will fall as researchers learn how best to use materials. That's a lot, but the payoffs are big as well. Sinton put production at 30,000 gallons per acre per year at the trial stage. Full-scale production could produce as much as 600,000 gallons per acre per year. As with everything, research should find ways to lower the production costs and raise profits. We're focused particularly on how to produce cost-effective biodiesel, Sinton said. The answers are all there. Nobody's put them all together. Matt Milner can be reached at (641) 683-5359 or via e-mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ottumwacourier.com/local/local_story_197001425.html http://www.ottumwacourier.com/local/local_story_197001425.html http://www.ottumwacourier.com/local/local_story_197001425.html?start:int=15 http://www.ottumwacourier.com/local/local_story_197001425.html?start:int=15 image 34.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments
Lurk: I'm ready to eat crow if the facts warrant it. Are you? Sure, lurk, if a DNA test proves otherwise, I'll admit I was wrong about Edwards. Okay. Doesn't really address the affair part. But you're studiously missing the whole point--the Repugs position themselves as the Party of Family Values, over and over...you know, Down with abortion! Down with sex education! Down with any social legislation that could help families live better lives! And all that stuff. So they ask to be judged on that basis, which I agree most of the time doesn't matter much, even in spite of the fact that Republicans seem to have a particularly mean way of doing it. Even the Reagans were shocked at McCain's callous behavior. You're right, they do trumpet these positions. At least McCain, (and I am uncomitted as to who I am likely to vote for), has a more pragmatic approach to most of the above. And you know as well as I do that *if* it had been Obama, or Hillary, or any other serious Dem contender, the Repugs would have been all over them like flies. My take on the whole thing is that the incident is so typical. I'm not even judging the guy if he did, or if he didn't. Just that politician as a whole tend to get ensnared in the same prediciments.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
Most professors of music would tell you that theory is a science and the application of it is an art. That's what I was pointing out. I'm not sure this is true. I tried to do a search on this and can't find anything to support more than a loose connection. No one can get any type of music degree that is a BS, it is always a BA not matter how technical your focus. That doesn't mean that science can't study aspects of music but I don't hang out with music professors so you may be right. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: curtisdeltablues wrote: Not necessarily. Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific method. I think the phrase scientific method is more useful than the word alone because that includes its virtues and limits. I think that yoga and the various yogic techniques are very fit for scientific inquiry. And MMY certainly wasn't the first one to think so, it's been going on for centuries. But whatever rocks your boat. :D Ah, but there is music theory which is an analysis of how music works including yours. Really good music producers will look for that element when producing musical groups. The Beatles had little knowledge of music theory but George Martin with a classically trained background was able to take their musical sketches and strengthen them and turn them into hits. Much of what he did was the application of the musical sciences and psychology. I don't think these reach the levels necessary to be called products of the scientific method. We could argue all day long about what exactly George Martin contributed, but music theory is part of the knowledge in the arts, not the sciences. Science can study waves and physics can describe how a guitar string vibrates and why the notes get higher as the string shortens when we fret it, but how it feels to be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not science or universal knowledge. It is personal opinion and taste. You don't have to argue about what George Martin contributed, he wrote a book about it called All You Need Is Ears. :D Most professors of music would tell you that theory is a science and the application of it is an art. That's what I was pointing out. I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want that do we? I'm sure musicologists and students have already dissected Brittany Spears productions as well as others for why they worked both psychologically and on a (sort of) musical level. And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with your gut feeling or your musical faith either. :) I do my best to combine them. Your example of songwriting is excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach. So many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve your ability to convey what you mean better. But writing isn't a science either, even though there are many known rules for having better communication. As I already pointed out.
[FairfieldLife] Like a Rolling Stone?
http://tinyurl.com/5bjafe http://nbjackson.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/19106339.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: but how it feels to be tripping on acid and listen to the Sargent Pepper album is not science or universal knowledge. It is personal opinion and taste. I know! Science and rock n' roll are like oil and water and will never mix. Scripture says so. Just because science has figured out that LSD alters the action of the neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine, triggering extensive changes in brain andsensory functioning, for example, enabling some to feel and see music and such has no bearing on what is really happening. The FACT is, whats really happening, is that theres a magical leprechaun inside everyones head, and when you take LSD the leprechaun gets high as shit and starts jumping around and kicking his legs about. Sometimes he accidently kicks the back of your eyes which causes cascading colors and visions. Also, sometimes he accidently kicks the insides of your ears which causes auditory hallucinations. And he LOVES Sargent Pepper so he really kicks out the jams when you play it. Ok, ok, ok! On the other hand, Here are some examples of folks who are normal but have been seriously short-changed in the grey matter department. I'm not sure these examples live happily with the reductionist idea It's the brain, stupid!, do they? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926645.700-how-we-can-learn-from-children-with-half-a-brain.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301-man-with-tiny-brain-shocks-doctors.html (I once saw a documentary on the Kennedy assassination. It was alleged that at the autopsy the Great Man was found to be very poorly endowed with grey stuff. I have no idea whether that's true or not! But the idea that we explain subjective experience by brain correlations seems fishy to me) I'm helped other songwriters who have really bad arcs in their songs (started out strong and went downhill from there) fix their songs so they had better arcs and people wanted to listen to them and responded with applause (rather than walk away bored). And you don't apply these rules mechanically but rather test them if you notice that there is a weak spot in the music and then see if applying them helps. I agree with this artistic process but it isn't a part of science just because you are incorporating feedback or we would have to claim a Brittany Spears branch of science and I don't think any of us want that do we? In composition you have devices such as retrogrades, retrograde inversions, etc. I turned a bunch of my musician friends to Gordon Delamont's Modern Melodic Techniques as it was a very readable and usable tutorial on how to improve one's compositions. Probably anyone here who has tried to write a song has been stuck on what to do with the next phrase of their song. They might have an idea but it just sounds lame to them. Sometimes if you reverse the order of the notes in your first phrase so it is a mirror image of it you come up with an interesting sounding second phrase. Or you can flip the intervals of the notes of your original phrase which can produce an interesting second phrase. These are all techniques that many musicians including the great masters have used down through the centuries. This sounds really interesting. Being an artist doesn't mean a commitment to being a dumbass! I try to learn from everything. Rational processes are part of the arts. And that's not to say that there's nothing wrong with going with your gut feeling or your musical faith either. :) I do my best to combine them. Your example of songwriting is excellent because I am assisted by writing rules and especially the process of re-writing brings into play a more analytical approach. So many things that feel great in your gut do not translate to other people in your songs, so I think that intellectual process can improve your ability to convey what you mean better. But writing isn't a science either, even though there are many known rules for having better communication.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: curtisdeltablues wrote: someone wrote: Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your rejecting a lot of yogic science. I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share your faith. Apparently you think anything that has the word yoga associated with it is faith based. I would say that one cannot *deny* the element of faith-basedness in anything that has the word yoga associated with it. The faith so permeates the environment of anything that has the word yoga associated with it that I don't think there can *exist* any such thing as yogic science. According to YS I 20, (asaMpraj�aata) samaadhi is based on, or preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]: heart-putting = faith). Intersting though. THe word faith in the Christan Bible translates two words: a Hebrew word coming from right-handed that implies strength [in God] and a Greek word that implies intuitive knowledge. Neither means simply belief without proof which is how the word faith appears to be translated in modern societies. I would say that the Sanskrit word sounds reasonably close to the Hebrew and Greek words, and not at all like the English word for belief without proof, even though everyone appears to use it that way (including you, above). Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And maybe you should have added John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer. Or maybe the baby John Edwards had with his mistress. Or maybe John Edwards telling everyone that they are the only one he has confided some personal details about his son's death. Oh yea, family values. The dems really personify them. Edwards is the Dem nominee? No Lawson, he's not. But when Sal decided to come down on McCain for dumping his first wife, and touted Obama's successful marriage, and then sacastically referred to the Republicans as the party of family values, I thought I'd hi-light the recent revelations of John Edwards having an affair while his wife battles cancer. An affair he's had for four years, and may even have produced a baby. Hey, guess what. Edwards is a lawyer. If the allegations are untrue, maybe he knows someone that can refute them and go after the Enquirer. That is, since according to Sal, the accusations are so baseless. Lawson, let's call it like it is. Are the Dems beating their chests and saying we're the party of 'famiiy values/? If not, then you're just trying to drag more people into the mix to make the Republicans look less guilty of hypocrisy. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most professors of music would tell you that theory is a science and the application of it is an art. That's what I was pointing out. I'm not sure this is true. I tried to do a search on this and can't find anything to support more than a loose connection. No one can get any type of music degree that is a BS, it is always a BA not matter how technical your focus. That doesn't mean that science can't study aspects of music but I don't hang out with music professors so you may be right. He is right. Much of music theory is mathematical, for one thing (ever heard of Pythagoras?). Then there's acoustics, a scientific discipline one of whose branches is musical acoustics. And of course there's psychology, which has at least some hard-science aspects. You can go at music either way, from the artistic side or the scientific side, and there's a big area of overlap in the middle. Try searching for physics of music.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
Richard M wrote: (I once saw a documentary on the Kennedy assassination. It was alleged that at the autopsy the Great Man was found to be very poorly endowed with grey stuff. I have no idea whether that's true or not! But the idea that we explain subjective experience by brain correlations seems fishy to me) This may be a bit too woo-woo for some folks here but I've often thought that maybe the brain is really only a transmitter receiver processor for a larger cosmic brain. Never made sense to me that you could store all those impression in such a tiny amount of matter. And then there's the little thing about if you get sick and part of the brain seems to shut down how the mind just seems to go on functioning regardless.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard M wrote: (I once saw a documentary on the Kennedy assassination. It was alleged that at the autopsy the Great Man was found to be very poorly endowed with grey stuff. I have no idea whether that's true or not! But the idea that we explain subjective experience by brain correlations seems fishy to me) This may be a bit too woo-woo for some folks here but I've often thought that maybe the brain is really only a transmitter receiver processor for a larger cosmic brain. Never made sense to me that you could store all those impression in such a tiny amount of matter. And then there's the little thing about if you get sick and part of the brain seems to shut down how the mind just seems to go on functioning regardless. John Hagelin's current theory is that the brain is the ordinary matter interface of some larger entity composed of dark matter. /shrug Lawson
[FairfieldLife] FW: Barry's fiction
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 4:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Barry's fiction --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As always I enjoy all of your posts on FFL, and often find them entertaining and to the point. Just to put to rest Barry's fiction that I left FFL because of him, I decided to go simply because there was nothing more for me to say. FFL in my opinion has become mostly a bunch of people saying the same old tired things against the TMO and Maharishi and the TM technique. Not at all what it used to be - very little knowledge there now. You may share this if you want to. All the Best and please stay in touch, Jim You may also share this if you want: I left because of Barry, yes, and I communicated this to Judy. I am not sure if Judy had me in mind, but it is certainly true. If anybody thinks that this is an overeaction, or is interested, you can look at the last post Barry wrote to one of my posts, and then compare it to the original post. To cut it short, Barry draws a number of conclusions out of my posts about my alleged opinions, which are in no way written there, and which I had made clear to him before, that they are not mine. I came to the decission that I would have to go into another round of what I actually think, and what I said, in opposition of what he declares me of having said. If anyone is interested - which I doubt, you can look. So I was simply tired of this game. My reaction my be right or wrong, you may call me thinskinned, I am simply being honest to you. Why should I leave only for one person? Well, for one thing I knew him online for a longer time than many others here. Second, I feel he has a certain degree of support in the group, and he tries to dominate it, by his literary eloquence. This seems to count more here than logical argument. There is a certain casualness in the group which I find alienating. Maybe the group is simply too big. There is a certain amount of negativity and sarcasm penetrating the group - I can live without it. Now let me say that I have also had fruitful discussions here, and there are certainly people here that I respect and like a lot. I also had nice exchanges with Barry in the past, I even had an email exchange with him not too long ago, which was very nice and on a friendly basis. I used to think that if we would meet in person, we could have a nice and very interesting talk. But our last exchanges made me feel otherwise - I may be right, I may be wrong, but I have no interest anymore. I just feel a wall of negativity descending on me in almost all of his posts. About Judy I can say that she has a remarkable intellectual power, and that she was always interpreting me right. Maybe I expressed myself unclearly or too abstract, she could always say what I had meant. That doesn't mean I agree with everything she says - after all I am following a very different way since more than 20 years - but its a capacity of understanding and intuition which is remarkable - yes right not just intellectual scrutinity, but also intuition. I largely agree with what Jim wrote. Jim was one of the few perls on this forum. I have been off and on again, so people may not notice I unsubscribed. I must also admit that I had unscubscribed one time before. I only inscribed myself again after MMY's death and funeral. I wanted to give some information to some people here. Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1514 - Release Date: 6/23/2008 7:17 AM
[FairfieldLife] Haiku
There was a haiku contest sponsored by Grist magazine, on the theme of Global Warming. As you may know, one of the most common images in traditional haiku is the frog. Anyway, here is the winner: A frog in water Doesn't feel it boil in time. Dude, we are that frog.
[FairfieldLife] Incense is good
CONTACT: Cody Mooneyhan Managing Editor Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology Tel: 1-301-634-7104 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Incense is psychoactive: Scientists identify the biology behind the ceremony New study in The FASEB Journal shows how and why molecules released from burning incense in religious ceremonies alleviate anxiety and depression Bethesda, MD-Religious leaders have contended for millennia that burning incense is good for the soul. Now, biologists have learned that it is good for our brains too. In a new study appearing online in The FASEB Journal (http://www.fasebj.org), an international team of scientists, including researchers from the United States and Israel, describe how burning frankincense (resin from the Boswellia plant) activates poorly understood ion channels in the brain to alleviate anxiety or depression. This suggests that an entirely new class of depression and anxiety drugs might be right under our noses. In spite of information stemming from ancient texts, constituents of Bosweilla had not been investigated for psychoactivity, said Raphael Mechoulam, one of the research study's co-authors. We found that incensole acetate, a Boswellia resin constituent, when tested in mice lowers anxiety and causes antidepressive-like behavior. Apparently, most present day worshipers assume that incense burning has only a symbolic meaning. To determine incense's psychoactive effects, the researchers administered incensole acetate to mice. They found that the compound significantly affected areas in brain areas known to be involved in emotions as well as in nerve circuits that are affected by current anxiety and depression drugs. Specifically, incensole acetate activated a protein called TRPV3, which is present in mammalian brains and also known to play a role in the perception of warmth of the skin. When mice bred without this protein were exposed to incensole acetate, the compound had no effect on their brains. Perhaps Marx wasn't too wrong when he called religion the opium of the people: morphine comes from poppies, cannabinoids from marijuana, and LSD from mushrooms; each of these has been used in one or another religious ceremony. said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. Studies of how those psychoactive drugs work have helped us understand modern neurobiology. The discovery of how incensole acetate, purified from frankincense, works on specific targets in the brain should also help us understand diseases of the nervous system. This study also provides a biological explanation for millennia-old spiritual practices that have persisted across time, distance, culture, language, and religion-burning incense really does make you feel warm and tingly all over! According to the National Institutes of Health, major depressive disorder is the leading cause of disability in the United States for people ages 15-44, affecting approximately 14.8 million American adults. A less severe form of depression, dysthymic disorder, affects approximately 3.3 million American adults. Anxiety disorders affect 40 million American adults, and frequently co-occur with depressive disorders. The FASEB Journal (http://www.fasebj.org) is published by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) and is consistently ranked among the top three biology journals worldwide by the Institute for Scientific Information. FASEB comprises 21 nonprofit societies with more than 80,000 members, making it the largest coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States. FASEB advances biological science through collaborative advocacy for research policies that promote scientific progress and education and lead to improvements in human health. Article details: Incensole acetate, an incense component, elicits psychoactivity by activating TRPV3 channels in the brain. Arieh Moussaieff, Neta Rimmerman, Tatiana Bregman, Alex Straiker, Christian C. Felder, Shai Shoham, Yoel Kashman, Susan M. Huang, Hyosang Lee, Esther Shohami, Ken Mackie, Michael J. Caterina, J. Michael Walker, Ester Fride, and Raphael Mechoulam. Published online before print May 20, 2008 as doi: 10.1096/fj.07-101865. http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/fj.07-101865v1
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [inversely quoting you]] I think the phrase scientific method is more useful than the word alone because that includes its virtues and limits. Yes. That is the broader point I have been goofing around. That scientific method, or elements of it, can be used in many aspects of life. Its not SCIENCE per se, but can build a strong foundation for a the more traditional sciences. And a much keener interest in such. And if science was taught like that in grade and jr hi school, at least started out like that, it would get kid's attention much more. At least i would have lit up. (And maybe some teachers do go down that road.) I am suggesting teaching the basic traits of scientific method to basic problem solving in real life things. Testing various techniques to hit a baseball further, get more spin on your forehand, running further and faster with various training and diet regimes, learning more stuff faster and more comprehensively, getting more and better dates, being telling funnier jokes, knowing better when somone is full of BS, etc are all things for which elements of scientific methods can be successfully applied: defining the problem, genrating plausible hypotheses, systematically testing each, using methods to know when something is (usually) working and not just a random fluke, etc. I lost a lot of interest in science, unfortunately, in formative years, when 7th grade biology was all about memorizing a bunch of phylums and sub phylums for things I had little affinity for or knowledge of. It was so dry and unactionable. I have yet to sucessfully apply my 7th grade knowledge of phylums in real life. On the other hand, I had a 6th grade teacher (when I was in 5th grade, I got to sneak into his class, that blew our minds with talking about Gauss, Pythagoras and Einstein and the problems they were trying to solve. And building tetrahydrons without any direction (here is what I want to you build -- you find the materials and figure aout a way to do it. Pure magic to a 11 year old when you create this beautiful 3-d object from scratch an ingenuity). I couldn't get enough of it. That was a great inspiration part of getting hooked on scientific methods. Mr Costelli lit the match that ignited my imagination and motivation for math and science. It just wasn't followed up by others teachers later on teaching the TOOLS of science to solve real problems. My problems. Or neat problems that had not occurred to me. After memorizing phyllums -- I was so zed out with science, I disdained it for years. Much to my diminishment. (Thats why Wiki, and the emerging Wiki University is such a huge step in human progress, IMO. With the $100 internet able PC, and every student, world-wide having one, bad and mediocre and uninspiring teachers can be bypassed and the natural inquisitiveness of kids can find an infinite source to drink upon. Hqave you ever met a 3-4 year old for whmo 50% of their word cound is not , why? (more like why?!??!!!) Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific method. Scrchchtz! Say what? I agree with your distinction above -- and that, my example, the Science of Getting Laid is not a hard Science (12 year old chuckle) but it is a hugely ripe area for applying the scientific method -- and would turn millions of kids onto scientific method -- and some onto hard science. What subject is not applicable to at least some elements of scientific method -- in their most basic forms? I am not saying its all science. There is art. But I just don't see a huge chasm between the two.
[FairfieldLife] Article on stress-free schools
LA Yoga Magazine Adjusting Brain Waves, One School At A Time To view this article online, go to: http://tinyurl.com/5qzw2v http://tinyurl.com/5qzw2v - LA Yoga Magazine Adjusting Brain Waves, One School At A Time Written by Julie Deife Hope is in the air. It could mean student success and systemic change for a failing education system, and it is coming from an unusual source: the Transcendental Meditation (TM) program introduced to the world more than 40 years ago by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, rebranded and artfully packaged as Stress-Free Schools. The TM Stress-Free Schools program has been adopted in thirteen schools nationwide, most of them in only the last three years,after the David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace turned its focus to this cause. Stress-Free Schools' emergence coincides with a surge of interest in consciousness and a national fear that our schools are failing. No small coincidence either that meditation is no longer a stranger to mainstream America or that the Transcendental Meditation program has played a large part in this marvel that didn't happen overnight. Transcendental Meditation is an ancient technique derived from Vedic wisdom. It allows the practitioner to contact the field of pure being, the limitless ocean of life described by physicists as the Unified Field.Learning TM involves receiving a mantra (sacred syllable) and instructions from a TM teacher. The student learns to let go and 'dive in' to the field of pure consciousness, twice daily for about twenty minutes each session through silent repetition of the mantra to focus the mind. Other meditation techniques may also facilitate entry into the Unified Field for dedicated practitioners over time, but the spread of TM has been quickened through its simplicity and ability to produce fast results. Early on an astute Maharishi invited scientists to research the effects of TM, a move that yielded over 600 published scientific studies, many of which have been verified independently. TM researchers collected a body of evidence showing TM reduces stress, increases IQ scores, improves brain function and brain coherence, improves job satisfaction and productivity, reduces substance and alcohol abuse, decreases violent behaviors and positively impacts a host of other issues that students and schools grapple with daily. World-renowned filmmaker David Lynch (Twin Peaks, Mulholland Drive, Eraserhead, Inland Empire) came to TM thirty-four years ago as a self-described fairly miserable struggling artist, because he heard a distinct change in his sister's voice after she'd begun practicing TM. Today, after not missing a single meditation session in all that time, Lynch is an unusually articulate spokesperson for Transcendental Meditation, consciousness and creativity, publicly testifying to the power of TM by recounting his experiences. Lynch is one of many high-profile individuals attracted to TM and the Maharishi; most notably was the Beatles whose fame and political positions helped popularize TM. Lynch describes accessing the Unified Field as pure bliss, transcendent, thrilling and every human's birthright - language that is probably not going to convince school boards that students should do TM. He does, however, paint a clearer construct of Consciousness-based Education through a nature-based analogy wherein the Unified Field is likened to an actual field of soil. As with any field, if the soil is tended well, the plants will be healthier, Lynch explains. When the focus is on the leaves as opposed to the condition of the soil, it exemplifies a symptomatic approach akin to prescribing drugs for the leaves of violence, anger, hatred or fear that are a result of bad soil. As the soil of pure consciousness expands unhealthy leaves will be replaced by leaves of peace, love, harmony and creativity. The David Lynch Foundation initially focused its efforts on peace through the TM program, predominantly on college campuses. Recently the emphasis shifted to teenagers and the idea of education reform, supporting work already begun by the Maharishi organization. Through the Foundation, David Lynch has made a commitment to ensure that any child in America and around the world who would like to learn to meditate can. Finding the means to fulfill this promise is at least as astounding as the promise itself since the standard cost to learn TM is $2,500 per person. Even with this generosity and dedication, skepticism toward a meditation program in an educational setting can be a daunting hurdle to overcome among traditionally trained educators focused on accountability. If you told me I was going to be doing this [school-wide Transcendental Meditation] in my school a few years ago, I never would have believed it, said the principal of an inner-city urban public middle school in the San Francisco Unified School District about the program
[FairfieldLife] Real levitation ?
Hi Rick, some of our sidhis are already heavy into science. Since we where bored and fucked up of the possible results after some decades of hopping, others, who never where in the direct meditating, took all mmy-news as complete reality, and took their road into the possibilities from other angles This is from: http://www.creativecosmos.org/PlanetaryForum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3t=1092 Image http://english.pravda.ru/img/2004/09/levitation.jpg Pic from - http://english.pravda.ru http://english.pravda.ru/ Levitation has been elevated from being pure science fiction to science fact, according to a study reported today by physicists. In earlier work the same team of theoretical physicists showed that invisibility cloaks are feasible. Now, in another report that sounds like it comes out of the pages of a Harry Potter book, the University of St Andrews team has created an 'incredible levitation effects' by engineering the force of nature which normally causes objects to stick together.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
I am aware of the math and physics behind music. But when I was thinking of music theory I was thinking of harmony and melody and other aspects of composition. It takes engineering to build a piano but we would say that studying piano involves engineering would we? I don't think people studying music theory are spending a lot of time working out sine wave analysis of string lengths, even though as you mention it lies as a core understanding of all string instruments. Music theory like melody, and harmony, rhythm and scales are highly influenced by culture and I'm not sure it is referred to as a science. But again maybe some do, I don't have much contact with academics. I'll ask my singing teacher who went the classical Peabody study route. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Most professors of music would tell you that theory is a science and the application of it is an art. That's what I was pointing out. I'm not sure this is true. I tried to do a search on this and can't find anything to support more than a loose connection. No one can get any type of music degree that is a BS, it is always a BA not matter how technical your focus. That doesn't mean that science can't study aspects of music but I don't hang out with music professors so you may be right. He is right. Much of music theory is mathematical, for one thing (ever heard of Pythagoras?). Then there's acoustics, a scientific discipline one of whose branches is musical acoustics. And of course there's psychology, which has at least some hard-science aspects. You can go at music either way, from the artistic side or the scientific side, and there's a big area of overlap in the middle. Try searching for physics of music.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific method. Scrchchtz! Say what? I agree with your distinction above -- and that, my example, the Science of Getting Laid is not a hard Science (12 year old chuckle) but it is a hugely ripe area for applying the scientific method -- and would turn millions of kids onto scientific method -- and some onto hard science. What subject is not applicable to at least some elements of scientific method -- in their most basic forms? I am not saying its all science. There is art. But I just don't see a huge chasm between the two. I agree with your use of feedback mechanisms in real life. I'm just saying that some subjects go though too much reductionism when you try to fit them into the methods of hard science and that includes some areas of the soft sciences. So trying to claim that a philosophy of life is more scientific than another seems like a misuse of the term. For example if you tried to claim that it was scientifically proven that groups of people sitting around thinking meaningless sounds created world peace. That claim would be silly and no educated person would take it seriously...right? It might be a delightful belief, but it wouldn't be scientific even with a bunch of sciency sounding studies claiming to prove it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: [inversely quoting you]] I think the phrase scientific method is more useful than the word alone because that includes its virtues and limits. Yes. That is the broader point I have been goofing around. That scientific method, or elements of it, can be used in many aspects of life. Its not SCIENCE per se, but can build a strong foundation for a the more traditional sciences. And a much keener interest in such. And if science was taught like that in grade and jr hi school, at least started out like that, it would get kid's attention much more. At least i would have lit up. (And maybe some teachers do go down that road.) I am suggesting teaching the basic traits of scientific method to basic problem solving in real life things. Testing various techniques to hit a baseball further, get more spin on your forehand, running further and faster with various training and diet regimes, learning more stuff faster and more comprehensively, getting more and better dates, being telling funnier jokes, knowing better when somone is full of BS, etc are all things for which elements of scientific methods can be successfully applied: defining the problem, genrating plausible hypotheses, systematically testing each, using methods to know when something is (usually) working and not just a random fluke, etc. I lost a lot of interest in science, unfortunately, in formative years, when 7th grade biology was all about memorizing a bunch of phylums and sub phylums for things I had little affinity for or knowledge of. It was so dry and unactionable. I have yet to sucessfully apply my 7th grade knowledge of phylums in real life. On the other hand, I had a 6th grade teacher (when I was in 5th grade, I got to sneak into his class, that blew our minds with talking about Gauss, Pythagoras and Einstein and the problems they were trying to solve. And building tetrahydrons without any direction (here is what I want to you build -- you find the materials and figure aout a way to do it. Pure magic to a 11 year old when you create this beautiful 3-d object from scratch an ingenuity). I couldn't get enough of it. That was a great inspiration part of getting hooked on scientific methods. Mr Costelli lit the match that ignited my imagination and motivation for math and science. It just wasn't followed up by others teachers later on teaching the TOOLS of science to solve real problems. My problems. Or neat problems that had not occurred to me. After memorizing phyllums -- I was so zed out with science, I disdained it for years. Much to my diminishment. (Thats why Wiki, and the emerging Wiki University is such a huge step in human progress, IMO. With the $100 internet able PC, and every student, world-wide having one, bad and mediocre and uninspiring teachers can be bypassed and the natural inquisitiveness of kids can find an infinite source to drink upon. Hqave you ever met a 3-4 year old for whmo 50% of their word cound is not , why? (more like why?!??!!!) Not all subjects are suitable for the scientific method. Scrchchtz! Say what? I agree with your distinction above -- and that, my example, the Science of Getting Laid is not a hard Science (12 year old chuckle) but it is a hugely ripe area for applying the scientific method -- and would turn millions of kids onto scientific method -- and some onto hard science. What subject is not applicable to at least some elements of scientific method
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote:
curtisdeltablues wrote:
someone wrote:
Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your
rejecting a lot of yogic science.
I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share
your faith.
Apparently you think anything that has the word yoga
associated with it is faith based.
I would say that one cannot *deny* the element of
faith-basedness in anything that has the word
yoga associated with it. The faith so permeates
the environment of anything that has the word yoga
associated with it that I don't think there can
*exist* any such thing as yogic science.
According to YS I 20, (asaMpraj�aata) samaadhi is based on, or
preceded by, amongst some other things, faith (shraddhaa [shrad-dhaa]:
heart-putting = faith).
Intersting though. THe word faith in the Christan Bible translates
two words:
a Hebrew word coming from right-handed that implies strength [in
God]
and a Greek word that implies intuitive knowledge.
Neither means simply belief without proof which is how the word
faith
appears to be translated in modern societies. I would say that the
Sanskrit
word sounds reasonably close to the Hebrew and Greek words, and not at
all like the English word for belief without proof, even though
everyone
appears to use it that way (including you, above).
Lawson
Vyaasa's comment goes like this:
shraddhaa cetasaH saMprasaadaH | saa hi jananiiva kalyaaNii yoginaM
paati |
One possible translation could be:
Faith is saMprasaada[1] of mind (cetasaH) | It protects (paati[3])
a yogii (yoginam) like (iva) a kalyaaNii[2] mother (jananii).
1. samprasAda m. perfect quiet (esp. mental repose during deep sleep)
S3Br. Lalit. ; favour , grace Uttarar. ; serenity Bhat2t2. (v.l.) ;
(in Veda7nta) the soul during deep sleep ChUp. MBh. c. ; trust ,
confidence W.
2. kalyANa mf(%{I4})n. (g. %{bahv-Adi}) beautiful , agreeable RV.
S3Br. c. ; illustrious , noble , generous ; excellent , virtuous ,
good (%{kalyANa} voc. ` good sir ' ; %{kalyANi} , ` good lady ') ;
beneficial , salutary , auspicious ; happy , prosperous , fortunate ,
lucky , well , right RV. i , 31 , 9 ; iii , 53 , 6 TS. AV. S3Br. Nir.
ii , 3 MBh. R.
3. pA 3 cl. 2. P. (Dha1t. xxiv , 48) %{pA4ti} (Impv. %{pAhi4} ; pr.
p. P. %{pA4t} A1. %{pAna4} RV. ; pf. %{papau} Gr. ; aor. %{apAsIt}
Ra1jat. Subj. %{pAsati} RV. ; fut. %{pAsyati} , %{pAtA} Gr. ; Prec.
%{pAyAt} Pa1n2. 6-4 , 68 Sch. ; inf. %{pAtum} MBh.) , to watch , keep
, preserve ; to protect from , defend against (abl.) RV. c. c. ; to
protect (a country) i.e. rule , govern Ra1jat. ; to observe , notice ,
attend to , follow RV. AitBr.: Caus. %{pAlayati} see %{pAl}: Desid.
%{pIpAsati} Gr.:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Iowa's worst lead polluter in FF
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Public News Service-IA July 10, 2008 Lead Threat Still Exists Years After it was Banned in Paint and Gasoline Des Moines, IA - Researchers have long known the health dangers associated with exposure to lead. It was banned 30 years ago as an additive in paint, and more recently removed from gasoline and other materials. However, there are thousands of facilities around the country, including some in Iowa, that still emit lead into the air. According the Natural Resource Defense Council, the Dexter Company in Fairfield emits the most lead in the state, over 1 pounds a year. *** Map of Iowa lead emitters: http://tinyurl.com/5mx492 That's about a pound of lead per person in Fairfield -- that'll put some lead in yer pencil!!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
Hi New Morn: On Jul 26, 2008, at 1:20 PM, new.morning wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One may be simple translation. The word often used in the spiritual sciences for the western word science is vidya. However vidya has a deeper meaning that the western term science, as it is less encumbered by the taboo of subjectivity which stultifies western science. The taboo of subjectivity I Know! All that scientific, white-coat, pocket protector eggheads get so riled up about cognitive biases and self-serving results. Whew. When will they get a clue! It's not so much a clue but an understanding and appreciation of subjective science. Since one is public and the other, subjective science is private, it's a natural place for misunderstanding to arise. in the west has a lot to do with the way the scientific fundamentalism You nailed it brother. What a bunch of literalists with massive blinders on. I mean when they read their scientific journals, they actually interpret each word in a precise and literal sense. No creativity. No seeing the big picture of the Known View. No understanding, a priori, of how things really are. I only pray to Jesus that I will never fall into that abyss of ignorance. Pray on dude. came about but it is also a shared element with religious fundamentalism, as both have placed a taboo on subjectivity. I Know! If they delve into subjectivity its only that intersubjective validation crap -- where a whole lot of people need to agree that they seez the same thing. I mean, GD it, I see what i see, and its the damn Truth! no matter if anyone else seez it. Well, that's not my point. It's only worth approaching any science-- subjective or materialistic--if we know the instrumentation we use is reliable. I would not assume just because you said so that your subjective instrument was reliable. In fact, I would assume, since refining an inner instrument to observe consciousness is an acquired trait, that you (or anyone) does not have the refined level of consciousness to observe subjective states. Like it's outer brother, it too requires training and established expertise. Both believe they are heading towards an absolute truth, Yes, if anything, you have hit the nail on the head. Their premier tenent of modern science is the discovery and defense of Absolute Truth, Once Absolute Truth is found, there's no looking back. No counter theories, no debate, no critiques Specially if its MY absolute truth. Again, not my point. The point was not that science established indefensible, unfalsifiable absolute truths, but that public, materialistic truths are all we can know by science and inner truths are beyond the realm of scientific inquiry, in fact that they are taboo. The reason science leans towards the absolute is because it's logical outcome, the defining of all of nature by scientific laws, could eventually mean that we could understand, scientifically, how everything works. This increasing knowledge of the physical world will therefore be the solution to all of man's problems. The idea of modern science as a search for absolutes actually is a prominent theme in Galileo and Newton and, as you point out, was replaced as new theories came about and were found to be more realistic ideas. But once established, such laws can not only be taken as absolute laws (e.g., gravitation, absolute zero, etc.) it's also not unusual for scientific materialists to hold old onto their beliefs with the similar tenacity of religious fundamentalists. So therein lies the similarity. one based on science's grokking of Nature, the other through the absolute word of god. I know! I hate that damn Journal of Scientific Groks. Scientists are so confused that they all think Scientific Groking reveals Truth (the ONE Truth) Again, you miss the point. The point is that just as a scientific paper, that we must take on faith can be replicated, can move beyond mere faith by actually going through the steps to replicate and prove to our actual senses or extended senses (microscopes, telescopes, etc.) the validity of that paper; in an internal science we can also with a steady and refined instrument develop insights which can be replicated by following the same procedures or techniques by others. The main split here is that one is inherently public (I can drop a bowling ball and a bag of feathers off the Leaning Tower of Pisa and invite all my friends to see it with their external senses); and another is, by nature, private. What I'm quietly thinking is generally known to me and not others. Just because it can generally not be known to others does not mean that it cannot be a valid medium for scientific inquiry. The actual basis for what we call science is in fact based on Greek and Hebrew religious and philosophical beliefs which all assert that a god or gods created
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
On Jul 26, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Richard M wrote: (I once saw a documentary on the Kennedy assassination. It was alleged that at the autopsy the Great Man was found to be very poorly endowed with grey stuff. I have no idea whether that's true or not! But the idea that we explain subjective experience by brain correlations seems fishy to me) This may be a bit too woo-woo for some folks here but I've often thought that maybe the brain is really only a transmitter receiver processor for a larger cosmic brain. Never made sense to me that you could store all those impression in such a tiny amount of matter. And then there's the little thing about if you get sick and part of the brain seems to shut down how the mind just seems to go on functioning regardless. This also brings up the idea that if you can reach the source of consciousness through some internal process, can you separate consciousness from the body? And if yes, does that prove that consciousness is independent of matter and only interdependent with matter (i.e. the brain/nervous system)?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !
--- On Sat, 7/26/08, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows ! To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, July 26, 2008, 11:50 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Sat, 7/26/08, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows ! To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, July 26, 2008, 9:37 AM From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard J. Williams Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 7:46 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows ! But the area where the Oregon Shri Yantra appeared was in the flight path of helicopters, and yet the Shri Yantra seems to have been constructed overnight. If you know anything about the psychology of perception, this is very easily explained, especially with a shape that is quite foreign to the pilot's' culture, which a sri yantra certainly is. The bottom line is that Bill W. and his friends made the sri yantra, so that is the foundation upon which everything else must be explained. Well, if the aliens are smart enough to travel many many light years in short enough time to still be alive, and/or have conquored aging, then doesn't it stand to reason that they may have disinformation methods that would blind and dazzle mere earth animals? Think man, think! And if Bill had done it, wouldn't it be obvious from the big earth shoe foot prints he would have left? And if mere earth teachers can make their students hallucinate, couldn't much more highly evolved aliens do at least this? And have we proved that the pilots were not aliens also? And if anyone are aliens, its gotta be GWB and DC. I mean, just LOOK a them. And listen to them! If they let the 911 jets safely pass into protected air space, don't you think they could give brother aliens a free pass? The truth is out there! Somebody's having too many thoughts! 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
[FairfieldLife] Astronaut Edgar Mitchell Experienced *Samadhi* in Space
From The Discovery Channel: http://dsc.discovery.com/space/qa/alien-ufo-edgar-mitchell.html Apollo Astronaut Chats About UFO, Alien Belief [and His Experience of *Samadhi* while in Space] Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell returned from his mission to the moon a changed man. He has spent the last 35 years trying to use the tools of science to figure out what happened. Along the way, he says that people knowledgeable about an alleged crash of an alien spaceship in Roswell, N.M., shared the information with him. He's been speaking out ever since, most recently on a radio talk show that tripped off an unexpected wave of media attention. In a telephone interview with Irene Klotz, Mitchell sets the record straight -- as he sees it. Irene Klotz: Hi Dr. Mitchell Edgar Mitchell: Just a minute ... I'm sorry. My dog jumped in my lap and knocked over my coffee cup. It's OK. Go ahead. IK: What's your dog's name? EM: Oh, that's Cutie (Q.T.?) IK: Cutie? EM: Yup, I've got two of them and right now they're telling me that it's their suppertime and I must come in and fix their supper ... at least that's what they want. IK: Well first of all thanks very much for making a little time. I wanted to ask you if there was anything about the radio interview you did that was different from what you've said in the past. EM: No, there's nothing different. Several of (the reports of the interview) that I've seen come around have some flaws in them. Some of the reports pushed it or spun it incorrectly. NASA had nothing to do with anything I've done. I wasn't briefed by NASA. There haven't been any sightings as a result of my flight service there, so if that part of it comes out on anything you've seen it is just totally wrong. IK: Yes, I did want to clarify that. EM: My major knowledge comes from what I call the old-timers, people who were at Roswell and subsequent who wanted to clear the things up and tell somebody credible even though they were under severe threats and things -- this was back in the Roswell days. Having gone to the moon and being a local citizen out in the Roswell area some of them thought I would be a safe choice to tell their story to, which they did. Even though the government put real clamps on everybody, it got out anyhow. Subsequent to that, I did take my story to the Pentagon -- not NASA, but the Pentagon -- and asked for a meeting with the Intelligence Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and got it. And told them my story and what I know and eventually had that confirmed by the admiral that I spoke with, that indeed what I was saying was true. IK: You mean what had been told to you was true? EM: Yup, in other words. There was a UFO crash. There was an alien spacecraft. This gentleman tried his damndest to get me in and like so many others in the administration over the last 60 years, since JFK's time, was unable to. He was told 'Admiral, you don't have a need to know, and therefore go get lost,' essentially. IK: Have you ever come out and said who this person was who briefed you? EM: No, I have not. IK: Would you at some point? EM: No, it is out and around but I don't feel like I have the liberty to do that. IK: When did you have your meeting at the Pentagon? EM: It was in the late '90s in Washington when I was there working with The Disclosure Project, trying to get all those opened up with another Naval officer by the name of Will Miller and Steven Greer, who you probably heard of. SEE: http://www.disclosureproject.org/ Steven and I don't really work on this anymore together, but we did at that point and getting to the Pentagon and seeing what we could do there to try to get this opened up. IK: Why do you think the government hasn't acknowledged that there is life outside of Earth? I thought that was sort of the point of NASA. EM: Well most people in government don't know. The government is highly compartmentalized. You could work next door to somebody for 30 years not knowing what they're doing in certain areas. The whole point of all of this ... goes back to World War II. This Roswell incident took place right at the aftermath of World War II when the U.S. Army Air Corps was split off and became the Air Force and the OSS (Office of Strategic Services), which was the intelligence service of World War II, was disbanded and eventually became the CIA. At that point the Cold War was just starting to move under way and we were at odds with the Soviets. The Air Force was brand new and supposedly in control of the skies and didn't know what they were doing, and the CIA didn't know what they were doing, so Pres. Truman was in a big problem here: Here people were telling him there were aliens around and nobody knew if they were hostile or what they were and what was he going to do about it? So he formed a committee, a very high-level military and academic and intelligent people -- politically powerful people -- and said 'You guys work on this.' And that was called ... the MAJIC
[FairfieldLife] 'Coming Out' about UFO's and Aliens - The Disclosure Project
The Disclosure Project is a nonprofit research project working to fully disclose the facts about UFOs, extraterrestrial intelligence, and classified advanced energy and propulsion systems. We have over 400 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology, and the cover-up that keeps this information secret. On Wednesday, May 9th, 2001, over twenty military, intelligence, government, corporate and scientific witnesses came forward at the National Press Club in Washington, DC to establish the reality of UFOs or extraterrestrial vehicles, extraterrestrial life forms, and resulting advanced energy and propulsion technologies. The weight of this first-hand testimony, along with supporting government documentation and other evidence, will establish without any doubt the reality of these phenomena. Download or watch the press conference here: http://www.netro.ca/disclosure/npccmenu.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Coming Out' about UFO's and Aliens - The Disclosure Project
MORE at website: http://www.disclosureproject.org/ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Disclosure Project is a nonprofit research project working to fully disclose the facts about UFOs, extraterrestrial intelligence, and classified advanced energy and propulsion systems. We have over 400 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology, and the cover-up that keeps this information secret. On Wednesday, May 9th, 2001, over twenty military, intelligence, government, corporate and scientific witnesses came forward at the National Press Club in Washington, DC to establish the reality of UFOs or extraterrestrial vehicles, extraterrestrial life forms, and resulting advanced energy and propulsion technologies. The weight of this first-hand testimony, along with supporting government documentation and other evidence, will establish without any doubt the reality of these phenomena. Download or watch the press conference here: http://www.netro.ca/disclosure/npccmenu.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi New Morn: On Jul 26, 2008, at 1:20 PM, new.morning wrote: I am still not sure we are connecting here. First, per ground rules, as you know, I hope, I am not satirizing you. I am taking some ideas that, to me, don't seem robust -- and at some distinctions that are not necessary, IMO. I use the technique, of moving the ideas to more extreme applications to see if they hold up (for me) and if the more extreme application is funny (to me), it tend the feel the underlying idea needs more work. Thus, while I was having some fun, it was not ridicule. It was taking some ideas out for a spin to see how they take sharp corners. And maybe I have gotten off on some sort detour, or into some sort of satiric loop where I am missing some key points. I don't know. All of this is an exploration for me (as with many of my posts) though the path I take may seem odd and strange to others -- including myself some days hence. For one thing, you appeared, to me, to be using a number of loaded words. Which became the target of my half-wit brain. sciences for the western word science is vidya. However vidya has a deeper meaning that the western term science, as it is less encumbered by the taboo of subjectivity which stultifies western science. The taboo of subjectivity to me, loaded words: stultifies, taboo, even encumbered. To me, what you are pointing out is that some knowledge is inside the head, and some is outside the head. It's not so much a clue but an understanding and appreciation of subjective science. Since one is public and the other, subjective science is private, it's a natural place for misunderstanding to arise. First, I don't accept the term science applied to the subjective realm IF you are then redefining science to fit this inner realm of inquiry. I think modern science looks at a huge amount if inside the head stuff. In modern scientific ways. Other investigators look at internal stuff in ways outside of modern science. That doesn't a priori make one better than the other. But it doesn't make the other means of investigation science. in the west has a lot to do with the way the scientific fundamentalism Another loaded word -- that does not bring much meaning, IMO. But more of an emotional response. if you feel science is fundamentalist -- first define fundamentalist -- because we may be taking different things -- then point out examples where the majority of science -- not a few isolated cases are fundamentalist. Per my definitions if f. and my view of science and its processes as I am aware if it, to me this juxtaposition of words science and fundamentalism is looney. Thus the satire of it. If you can make the aboe case, I am open to listening. came about but it is also a shared element with religious fundamentalism, as both have placed a taboo on subjectivity. That there is a rift between various religious factions on the role of personal experience vs grace and salvation for outside does not follow or seem to apply to science which certainly does not reject inside the head experience -- huge amount of research his indeed done in that. I Know! If they delve into subjectivity its only that intersubjective validation crap -- where a whole lot of people need to agree that they seez the same thing. I mean, GD it, I see what i see, and its the damn Truth! no matter if anyone else seez it. Well, that's not my point. It's only worth approaching any science-- subjective or materialistic Again, a false dicchotomy, and loaded words, IMO. materialism has several meanings, a largly used one, which hangs over all uses of the word, is a negative thing: crass, gross, superficial, shallow. I hardly view science as that. --if we know the instrumentation we use is reliable. I would not assume just because you said so that your subjective instrument was reliable. In fact, I would assume, since refining an inner instrument to observe consciousness is an acquired trait, that you (or anyone) does not have the refined level of consciousness to observe subjective states. Like it's outer brother, it too requires training and established expertise. OK. I have no problem that there are inside the head disciplines that are able to get rid of (many) unreliable factors. As does science. But I don't by, right off the shelf, any claim that some inside the head tradition has developed reliable instruments unless they run the gaunlet of testing for unreliability that science (and the philosophy of knowledge) have uncovered -- including, but not limited to cognitive biases, logical fallacies, fluke and random events seen as true and stable patterns, correlation seen as causation, etc. As I said, I like what HHD.Lama said, and is doing, to reject tibetian b. dogma that doesn't stand up to the gauntlet of science. I am very open to the probability that past traditions
Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Bush Needs to be Impeached, soon!
Rick Archer wrote: When Obama was in FF, I asked him about impeaching Bush and Cheney. He said he felt it would be too disruptive - that Congress wouldn't get anything else accomplished - but he said that if elected, one of his first moves would be to have his attorney general review everything Bush and Cheney had done to erode the Constitution, and that he would reverse those decisions so as to repair the damage. I think that is BS. My Congressman says the same thing even with his constituency yelling at him when he says that. They've all been bought and paid for, hence their behavior except for a few like Kucinich and Paul. They'll all be in their paid for safe places when the shit hits the fan and the rest of us are running from the wolves.
[FairfieldLife] Naomi Klein on the Extortionist in Chief
I was listening to her talk about Bush as the Extortionist in Chief on Laura Flander's show earlier today. I always like Klein's clear analysis of the situation with the Rakshasa hoard that have stolen the White House: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/lookout And we all know what eventually happens to rakshasas.
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Yahoo Groups Post Counter = Start Date (UTC): Sat Jul 26 00:00:00 2008 End Date (UTC): Sat Aug 2 00:00:00 2008 -- Searching... 112 messages as of (UTC) Sun Jul 27 00:07:23 2008 Member Posts new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] 13 lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10 Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED]10 curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED]7 Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED]6 Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6 TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]5 Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5 Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4 off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3 cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3 R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED]3 turiya89 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3 authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3 shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED]2 Brian Horsfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 sriswamijisadhaka [EMAIL PROTECTED]1 gullible fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED]1 nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED]1 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com1 Richard M [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 posters: 28 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Real levitation ?
Since the only person on this forum that claims to have had any experience with real levitation (yeah, right) is Barry Wright, perhaps he will give us the poop on the authenticity of this photo. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Rick, some of our sidhis are already heavy into science. Since we where bored and fucked up of the possible results after some decades of hopping, others, who never where in the direct meditating, took all mmy-news as complete reality, and took their road into the possibilities from other angles This is from: http://www.creativecosmos.org/PlanetaryForum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php? f=3t=1092 Image http://english.pravda.ru/img/2004/09/levitation.jpg Pic from - http://english.pravda.ru http://english.pravda.ru/ Levitation has been elevated from being pure science fiction to science fact, according to a study reported today by physicists. In earlier work the same team of theoretical physicists showed that invisibility cloaks are feasible. Now, in another report that sounds like it comes out of the pages of a Harry Potter book, the University of St Andrews team has created an 'incredible levitation effects' by engineering the force of nature which normally causes objects to stick together.
[FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Sat, 7/26/08, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But the area where the Oregon Shri Yantra appeared was in the flight path of helicopters, and yet the Shri Yantra seems to have been constructed overnight. If you know anything about the psychology of perception, this is very easily explained, especially with a shape that is quite foreign to the pilot's' culture, which a sri yantra certainly is. The bottom line is that Bill W. and his friends made the sri yantra, so that is the foundation upon which everything else must be explained. Well, if the aliens are smart enough to travel many many light years in short enough time to still be alive, and/or have conquored aging, then doesn't it stand to reason that they may have disinformation methods that would blind and dazzle mere earth animals? Think man, think! And if Bill had done it, wouldn't it be obvious from the big earth shoe foot prints he would have left? And if mere earth teachers can make their students hallucinate, couldn't much more highly evolved aliens do at least this? And have we proved that the pilots were not aliens also? And if anyone are aliens, its gotta be GWB and DC. I mean, just LOOK a them. And listen to them! If they let the 911 jets safely pass into protected air space, don't you think they could give brother aliens a free pass? The truth is out there! Somebody's having too many thoughts! But at least they are funny thoughts! Did you ever see bill all dressed up in SIMS attire, blues suit and all, wearing earth shoes? Others did this too. My dad went to a lecture bill gave on TM for Executives or some such thing, and he commented on this too. Thought Bill was a good speaker and nice guy in talking to him afterwards, but said the shoes made him look a bit of the clown. (The point being if you are going to play the game enough to put on a blue suit,red shirt and red tie -- you appear pretty clueless if you add earth shoes to the attire. A TM lecture is not the place to make one's little blows against the Empire statements) In the above comments, poking fun at the logic of some that it must be Z since A does not explain it also seems somewhat parallel to to flying leaps we all made -- and lectured -- such as in recent discussions -- different sounds have different effects on the nervous system ERGO our special sound will make you healthy wealthy and wise. And/or, the dogmatic stance, or confirmational bias, of taking a conclusion as given, and then only seeing stuff that fills in the dots in the right way -- to confirm the prior conclusion. Aliens must have done it ERGO here are are a bunch of dots, chosen from 10,000 other possible dots that sort of make the conclusion possible. And this sort of logic can be pretty prevalent, in my experience, even amongst quite smart and educated people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Naomi Klein on the Extortionist in Chief
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was listening to her talk about Bush as the Extortionist in Chief on Laura Flander's show earlier today. I always like Klein's clear analysis of the situation with the Rakshasa hoard that have stolen the White House: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/lookout And we all know what eventually happens to rakshasas. They retire comfortably with annual speaking fees reaching the 10s of millions of dollars?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The evolution of meditation
curtisdeltablues wrote: I am aware of the math and physics behind music. But when I was thinking of music theory I was thinking of harmony and melody and other aspects of composition. It takes engineering to build a piano but we would say that studying piano involves engineering would we? I don't think people studying music theory are spending a lot of time working out sine wave analysis of string lengths, even though as you mention it lies as a core understanding of all string instruments. Music theory like melody, and harmony, rhythm and scales are highly influenced by culture and I'm not sure it is referred to as a science. Counterpoint is a good example of something that can get somewhat mathematical. You're working with tension and release of it over a pattern of notes. Yes some musicians would hate for it to be referred to as a science but when I was in music school there were two groups: the performers and the composers. The former often received tutoring from folks like me (the latter) to help them get through their theory courses. I always enjoyed theory from my first music lesson when I was 8. So I kinda understand why performers don't often get it. But again maybe some do, I don't have much contact with academics. I'll ask my singing teacher who went the classical Peabody study route. And ask a few others. Another professor at the university I attended was William O. Smith who some may remember here as Dave Brubeck's clarinetist on his early stuff. BTW, Bill was also a TM'er and on some of the residence courses I attended. I did some experimental music with him while I was at the U. However we're getting a bit offtrack here and most yogis will tell you that mantras on the aural level have the same effect at the mental level but are even more powerful there. Again most of them who have given it much thought in terms of sound physics would say it is resonance and how the nervous system resonates with the mantra. And that is why different mantras have different effects. If there are people here who don't experience that well maybe later
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: boo_lives boo_lives@ wrote: Sorry your understanding of law is about as deep as your preferred source of reading material. You actually think everything rags like the enquirer publish has been proven true or else they can be sued successfully?? The article I read had details, video, interviews. Start refuting. This was not some hearsay article. This account was specific dude. Dates, exact times, eye witness reports. Sorry. My point is that you can't sue a paper for publishing allegations made by someone else. I don't know what Edwards did or didn't do, but I'm not going to treat and publicize allegations in the Enquirer as fact.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Naomi Klein on the Extortionist in Chief
shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was listening to her talk about Bush as the Extortionist in Chief on Laura Flander's show earlier today. I always like Klein's clear analysis of the situation with the Rakshasa hoard that have stolen the White House: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/lookout And we all know what eventually happens to rakshasas. They retire comfortably with annual speaking fees reaching the 10s of millions of dollars? Like Mussolini and Hitler?
[FairfieldLife] Re: South Field Crop Circle grown from 3 to 5 Swallows !
I'd like to see Dr.Peter and his friends do a complicated design in less than halfanhour in broad daylight... I'd like to see Dr. Peter and any of his friends simply draw a Shri Yantra on a piece of paper with a crayon in a month or two! The most complex yantra, like the Oragon yantra, is the Shri Yantra of the tantric school of Sri Vidya. The structure of this yantra is described in Shankara's Saundaryalahari (Wave of Beauty). Construction of the Sri Yantra: http://tinyurl.com/6btvys ...AND without being detected! Dr. Pete probably can't even draw a simple rorschach! Rorschach inkblot test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_inkblot_test
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama's many accomplishments
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: boo_lives boo_lives@ wrote: Sorry your understanding of law is about as deep as your preferred source of reading material. You actually think everything rags like the enquirer publish has been proven true or else they can be sued successfully?? The article I read had details, video, interviews. Start refuting. This was not some hearsay article. This account was specific dude. Dates, exact times, eye witness reports. Sorry. My point is that you can't sue a paper for publishing allegations made by someone else. Boo, you don't know what you're talking about. It's the Enquirer making the allegations: SEN. JOHN EDWARDS CAUGHT WITH MISTRESS AND LOVE CHILD! Vice Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards was caught visiting his mistress and secret love child at 2:40 this morning in a Los Angeles hotel by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER. The married ex-senator from North Carolina - whose wife Elizabeth continues to battle cancer -- met with his mistress, blonde divorcée Rielle Hunter, at the Beverly Hilton on Monday night, July 21 - and the NATIONAL ENQUIRER was there! He didn't leave until early the next morning Read more (if you can stomach it) at: http://tinyurl.com/627m9s I don't know what Edwards did or didn't do, but I'm not going to treat and publicize allegations in the Enquirer as fact. Fine, but at least get the facts straight about who's making the allegations if you're going to criticize somebody else for doing so. Also note the date. This isn't an old story, as you claimed.
