[FairfieldLife] Re: Love At First Sight
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu buttsplicer@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: But really, dude. What IS it if it isn't a flash of recognition of someone you've done time with before in another life? I'd like to hear your take on it, espec- ially given your involvement in one of the most unabashedly hopelessly romantic TV series in ages. The poetry of Pushing Daisies was the result of a team of experts who knew how to manipulate images and sound in the most dynamic way to get a visceral reaction from the audience. Some of us on the crew are huge romantics other of us are not. But we are all good at creating the illusion of connection and magic on a flickering 2 dimensional surface. There is no romance in the process - it is carefully controlled frame by frame so the process is transparent and the eye is delighted. Its a mirage. I usually don't reply to my own posts. But when I was meditating I realized I missed an important point about the manipulation at play on a show like Pushing Daisies. The budget was more than 5 million dollars. The script was worked and reworked over a period of several years. It took a crew of about 80 people 18 12-hour plus days to shoot it. I had about 8 weeks to cut the show aided by assistants, a dialog editor, efx editor, music editor, Foley artist mixers, a visual effects crew of a dozen people, and a composer and musicians. All of these people are dedicated to making the final 42 minutes look fresh, spontaneous, and emotional. But the process itself is anything but. All very interesting, I...uh...guess. But did you notice that there was a question at the top of the post you're replying to with all this stuff about how the illusion of romance is created? That question was why I posted, not to hear more about the making of Pushing Daisies, as fascinating as that may be. I'll repeat the question: What is your explanation for love at first sight? Also, I'm going through the posts sequentially, and may just not have gotten to your reply to one of my other posts in which I also rapped a bit about reincarnation. But just in case there was no such reply, I thought that in that post I made a pretty clear case for me believing in reincarnation per- sonally, on the basis of my personal experiences, but that belief NOT being anything I would consider truth or claim to be fact. As I said, if the reincarnation theory is wrong, I will never know it, because I will just blink out. ON THE OTHER HAND, if the reincarnation theory is correct, I may be in a better position to handle what's going on between death and rebirth than someone who was counting on the blink out theory. So, as I said, for me it's a bet with no down side to it, not a rigid belief. How does that equate in your mind to Barry weigh- ing in as a believer? My belief is a working hypothesis that is consistent with my experience, but one that I do NOT hold or promote as truth, and one that I couldn't have been clearer about saying that I DON'T know whether it's true or not. I was certainly not trying to SELL my belief in reincarnation. On the other hand, Stu, you seem to be selling your belief that it doesn't exist pretty hard. Why? What does it matter to you what other people believe about what happens when they die? You seem to be so *certain* that you know. In fact, the degree of certainty that you are bringing to your posts on this subject is higher IMO than some of the people replying who believe in reincarnation. I don't think I've heard any of them say that they know for sure that reincarnation is a fact. But you seem to be saying that blinking out IS a fact. What's up with that? The way I presented my beliefs on this subject was pretty clear IMO. I went out of my way to say that NO ONE ON THIS PLANET knows for sure what happens when one dies. That statement included me, and it included you. I don't see how believing that one knows for sure that there is no afterlife is any different than believing that one knows for sure that there is. See what I'm getting at? Reincarnation is a fact and that's that. There is no reincarnation and that's that. Both statements sound pretty damned fundamentalist to me. I used neither of them, but as I read what you're writing you seem to be preaching the latter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jan Garbarek Group - Bluesy 99 names
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Janet Luise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm curious as why you linked this music with such a gut blue-y number as the Stand By Me that started this thread? Nabby, after all these years, doesn't know how to start a new thread. Really. Look at any of his posts to FFL. The only way he seems to know how to post is to reply to an existing post that he's saved. That's why the real Subject (not sub-Subject) of so many of his posts is UFC Goons, a thread that died years ago. Nabby, here's how you do it. If you are posting from the Yahoo page, look at the link in the upper left that says Post or in the upper right that says Start Topic. Clicking on either of them will allow you to *really* start a new thread and not just change the sub-Subject header on an existing topic. If you are posting from an email client and want to *really* start a new thread, DON'T reply to an existing post. Send a new one to the address of the list.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Terje Rypdal - the return of Per Ulv
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote: I won't even listen to this Eurotrash nonsense. Everybody in America KNOWS that jazz can only be played by colored people. God, everybody knows this!! Huh!? Gene Krupa, Buddy Rich, Louie Bellson, George Wettling, Joe Morello...Can't *stand* Elvin Jones, Max Roach, Billy Cobham, to name a few! ;-) Me too; watch this drummer : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjgr9UJuODMfeature=related
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love At First Sight
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the other hand, Stu, you seem to be selling your belief that it doesn't exist pretty hard. Why? What does it matter to you what other people believe about what happens when they die? You seem to be so *certain* that you know. In fact, the degree of certainty that you are bringing to your posts on this subject is higher IMO than some of the people replying who believe in reincarnation. I don't think I've heard any of them say that they know for sure that reincarnation is a fact. But you seem to be saying that blinking out IS a fact. What's up with that? The way I presented my beliefs on this subject was pretty clear IMO. I went out of my way to say that NO ONE ON THIS PLANET knows for sure what happens when one dies. That statement included me, and it included you. I don't see how believing that one knows for sure that there is no afterlife is any different than believing that one knows for sure that there is. See what I'm getting at? Reincarnation is a fact and that's that. There is no reincarnation and that's that. Both statements sound pretty damned fundamentalist to me. I used neither of them, but as I read what you're writing you seem to be preaching the latter. Here's why I'm saying this, Stu, two sentences from one of your earlier replies on this thread. Past lives are a fantasy based on hard wired predilections of the mind. There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist. The first sentence sounds like a theory to me, but it is presented as if it were a fact. What's up with that? And the second sentence is even more off the wall. I know of no such evidence that past lives don't exist. In an earlier reply I asked you to point us to where such evidence is if you can. I think the most you can say is that There is no evidence that past lives exist, and no evidence that they do not. It's as much a mystery to science as it is to each and every one of us. None of us know for sure what happens subjectively when you die, and neither does science. Isn't that a more fair and realistic statement than There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist?
[FairfieldLife] File - FFL Acronyms
BC - Brahman Consciousness BN - Bliss Ninny or Bliss Nazi CC - Cosmic Consciousness GC - God Consciousness MMY - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi OTP - Off the Program - a phrase used in the TM movement meaning to do something (such as see another spiritual teacher) considered in violation of Maharishi's program. POV - Point of View SBS - Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, Maharishi's master SCI Science of Creative Intelligence SOC - State of Consciousness SSRS - Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (Pundit-ji) SV - Stpathya Ved (Vedic Architecture) TB - True Believer (in TM doctrines) TNB - True Non-Believer TMO - The Transcendental Meditation organization TTC TM Teacher Training Course UC - Unity Consciousness WYMS - World Youth Meditation Society later changed to World Youth Movement for the Science of Creative Intelligence was founded by Peter Hübner in Germany, as a national TM outlet competing with SIMS, Students International Meditation Society YMMV = Your Mileage may vary 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 visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] File - FFL Guidelines.txt
Guidelines File - Updated 9/8/08 Fairfield Life used to average 75-150 posts a day - 300+ on peak days - and the guidelines included steps on how to deal with the volume. But this volume was due largely to indiscriminate posting by a few members. We now have a policy that limits all members to 50 posts a week. Most participants feel this policy has greatly enhanced the quality of the forum. A Post Count message is posted every evening, listing members' names (or aliases) and the number of messages they've posted that week. Those who exceed their weekly quota will be prohibited from posting for a week. The new week starts each Friday at 7pm Iowa time, or 00:00 UTC (Coordinated Universal Time). UTC is the same as Greenwich Mean Time during winter. -- You can also read FFL posts at http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/. Some say this is faster than the Yahoo groups interface, and prefer it because it allows sorting by thread and has a better search function. Additional images are archived at http://alex.natel.net/ffl/images/. -- 1) This group has long maintained a thoughtful and considerate tone. Please refrain from personal attacks, insults and excessive venting. Speak the truth that is sweet is a worthy aspiration. If angry, take some time to gain composure before writing or pushing the send button. 2) Edit your posts and make them as concise and non-repetitive as possible. 3) Please snip - be highly selective in quoting a message to which you are responding, deleting all but the most relevant portions of the prior posts. This makes the daily digest easier to read for those who subscribe to it. Also, if the topic of a thread changes, please change the subject header. 4) Try to make clear to the reader if you are writing from the perspective of personal experience, from information gained from teachers or books, from your own thoughts, reasoning, logic or conjecture. Please cite sources where relevant. 5) Reference prior posts by their archive number whenever possible. 6) Anonymous posts are permitted, using an account you create. 7) FFL is a newsgroup public forum. FFL can be openly read from the web. Posting privileges are through membership only. Material published to FFL is not privileged or protected by law. Material published to FFL might be quoted and used elsewhere. 8) Posting of adult material, either text or photos, is prohibited. Violation of this guideline may result in expulsion from the group. 9) Make cross-posts from other sites only as they are relevant to this group. If you think another site has great value, write one post saying so, then let others join or go to that site on their own, at their discretion. 10) Only post links to other sites that are relevant references to the specific discussion at hand. 11) While friendly exchange between friends is natural, try to pass on personal messages via personal e-mail, refraining where possible from sending personal messages to the whole list. 12) Feel to invite your friends to join FFL, and to use the site's Promote feature on your websites. The broader the personal network, the greater the value to all. Friends may now access the posts of FFL directly off the home page without having to join the list. 13) Please don't post commercial announcements in the main message area. Folders have been set up in the Database, Links and Files sections for listing books, CDs, DVDs and other items for trade, a Fairfield ride board, local events, hiring/looking for work announcements, informative articles, useful links, etc. Also check http://fairfieldtoday.com/. 14) Political discussions are allowed. However, be kind and respectful of others' viewpoints. Come with a humble heart, an open mind, and the desire to contribute constructively to everyone's broader awareness. 15) Keep in mind that many FFL members desire to maintain anonymity. If you happen to know a member's real name, perhaps because that member has mentioned it in a post or two, or to you privately, please refer to that member only by their pseudonym. 16) If you want to make suggestions for the refinement of these guidelines, please post them in the forum.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love At First Sight
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: On the other hand, Stu, you seem to be selling your belief that it doesn't exist pretty hard. Why? What does it matter to you what other people believe about what happens when they die? You seem to be so *certain* that you know. In fact, the degree of certainty that you are bringing to your posts on this subject is higher IMO than some of the people replying who believe in reincarnation. I don't think I've heard any of them say that they know for sure that reincarnation is a fact. But you seem to be saying that blinking out IS a fact. What's up with that? The way I presented my beliefs on this subject was pretty clear IMO. I went out of my way to say that NO ONE ON THIS PLANET knows for sure what happens when one dies. That statement included me, and it included you. I don't see how believing that one knows for sure that there is no afterlife is any different than believing that one knows for sure that there is. See what I'm getting at? Reincarnation is a fact and that's that. There is no reincarnation and that's that. Both statements sound pretty damned fundamentalist to me. I used neither of them, but as I read what you're writing you seem to be preaching the latter. Here's why I'm saying this, Stu, two sentences from one of your earlier replies on this thread. Past lives are a fantasy based on hard wired predilections of the mind. There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist. The first sentence sounds like a theory to me, but it is presented as if it were a fact. What's up with that? And the second sentence is even more off the wall. I know of no such evidence that past lives don't exist. In an earlier reply I asked you to point us to where such evidence is if you can. I think the most you can say is that There is no evidence that past lives exist, and no evidence that they do not. It's as much a mystery to science as it is to each and every one of us. None of us know for sure what happens subjectively when you die, and neither does science. Isn't that a more fair and realistic statement than There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist? Stu is apparently a dyed-in-the-wool TFNB [true fundamentalist non-believer].
[FairfieldLife] When Rachel Maddow looked at America's Values Voters
More than one year ago, before she became a Big TeeVee Cablefest Host, Rachel Maddow produced a revelatory segment of her Campaign Asylum about the GOP presidential candidates' appearance among the Wingnutty Wingnuts of Wingnutville -- the Values Voter Summit, where a choral group performed the lovely re-purposed composition Why Should God Bless America? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0IvNydHFhQ
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip As usual Judy your argument leads to meta- communication. Far from the original topic, a post-modern jumble of questioned syntax and illusive trops. Oh, Stu, what a load of bull. I'm making one very straightforward point: your arguments aren't anywhere near strong enough to claim certainty (same point Barry's making). We don't have anything but beliefs either way, and you ought to be able to recognize that and deal with it as you do any other belief that can't be proved or disproved, without demeaning those who don't believe as you do. There is not enough time in the day for this. You dragged me into this, and now you want out. Don't pretend it's because what I'm saying is post-modern blah-de-blah. You pulled those words out of a hat for all the relevance they have.
[FairfieldLife] Don't smoke the tomatoes!
Police team looking for cannabis finds only tomatoes It was like a scene from Hamish MacBeth. Police launched a full-scale drugs raid on a Highland home - but discovered only the 79-year-old owner's tomato plants. Uniformed officers burst into Lulu Matheson's house in the village of Shieldaig, Wester Ross, kept her son Gus in his bedroom for two hours, handcuffed her grandson Stephen, and turned the house upside down. The high-profile afternoon raid involved three squad cars, seven officers and sniffer dogs. They told the family they were looking for cannabis, but after searching for several hours had to concede the green plants visible in the window from the roadside were tomatoes. The plants, of which police requested a sample for analysis, were bearing fruit. The swoop follows on a number of recent drugs busts across the Highlands in which rented houses have been found converted to cannabis factories. But Mrs Matheson, a widow who has lived in the house for 53 years, was flabbergasted when the police poured into her home. She said: I got a terrible fright and I couldn't understand what they were doing here because I knew we had nothing more than tomatoes in the window. I don't know what the neighbours must be thinking. Gus Matheson, 47, a former diver, said: I was standing looking out the window at the pier when I saw two cop cars pull up beside the house with five officers getting out and I wondered what on earth was going on. I opened the door and they more or less barged past saying that I was growing cannabis on the windowsills. He added: It was a terrible carry-on. The police didn't even apologise. Mr Matheson now intends to make a formal complaint. A spokesman for Northern Constabulary said last night: Recently we have had a lot of high- profile raids on properties where cannabis has been grown, as there have been across Scotland. These have been conducted on an intelligence-led basis acting on information. But on this occasion no controlled substances were found. He denied it was a heavy-handed operation. http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2471073.0.Police_team _looking_for_cannabis_finds_only_tomatoes.php http://tinyurl.com/6j9wmf
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
On Nov 30, 2008, at 11:53 PM, Stu wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu buttsplicer@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip As usual Judy your argument leads to meta-communication. Far from the original topic, a post-modern jumble of questioned syntax and illusive trops. There is not enough time in the day for this Now, Stu, it's obvious you're just copping out because Judy's arguments are so darn irrefutable, just like the ones about aliens romping about in cornfields. :) Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 30, 2008, at 11:53 PM, Stu wrote: snip There is not enough time in the day for this Now, Stu, it's obvious you're just copping out because Judy's arguments are so darn irrefutable, just like the ones about aliens romping about in cornfields. :) Sal's lying, Stu. I never made any such argument, and she knows it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.
Curtis, Joerg's sanctimonious tone is certainly irritating but comparing him to the Mumbai terrorists is a little harsh. He claims his subjective experience forms his belief about past lives and something he reads verifies it. The Mumbai terrorists read something from the Koran and it forms a belief but they do not base their belief on subjective experience. Apples and Oranges. Well if you are calling me out for being a bit of a dick in my response to Joerg, I certainly couldn't argue with that! But your point about what the terrorists are experiencing is interesting. I'm not sure we do know what they were experiencing. I'm not ready to assume that they just read something and then decided to face death. We don't know the nature of how they were called to this mission. On the other hand, I really can't assume that they did have some compelling subjective experience that matches Joerg's either. Whatever it was, it worked pretty well as a force compelling enough to rise above a fear of death. But what makes it NOT apples and oranges IMO is that it was a very strong compelling belief that their actions were right despite the fact that society as a whole believes they were wrong wrong wrong. They had unplugged from civilization's you are full of shit meter, and were acting on their own compellingly intense beliefs. So the bigger point for me is that humans are wrong about all sorts of stuff but we have a tendency (this includes me) to become attached to beliefs and mistake their intensity for epistemological solidity. I love that field of knowledge because it gives man hope to rise above our own cognitive flaws and weed out some of the bogus stuff that we hold dear. We may apply the principles we have discovered so far to testing knowledge imperfectly, but it has helped us do some cool stuff like count the ribs of man instead of assuming that men have one less than women because the Bible says so. Now believing that you are the reincarnation of a special famous person from history can't be compared in it's damaging effects to believing that killing a bunch of innocent people and dying in the act should be included in your next week's Daytimer personal planner. But they both stem from a total conviction in a belief that has had a limited exposure to counterargument from people outside yourself. Thanks for advancing the discussion. How we feel certain about beliefs, and how we can minimize our tendency to be enthusiastically wrong about those beliefs is on of my favorite topics. Having had my epistemological ass handed to me so throughly when I left the movement's belief system, I now value epistemological humility very highly. And like a sober convert to AA who has to leave the holiday party when he finds out the punch has been spiked, I can be a bit reactive when I see someone being too sure of their inner knowledge. That is one reason why I value the feedback I get on posts here. But just because I am wrong a lot, doesn't mean I shouldn't keep on swinging. And maybe Joerg really IS the reincarnation of someone famous enough to have stuff written about him in a language he can read today which limits the number of possible people to a tiny number in the history of mankind. And maybe the guys who died in a hail of bullets in India are now knee deep in a cosmic Heffner-like mansion grotto being serviced by 72 chicks who all think that a nerdy terrorist is the ultimate hunk of their dreams. But I'm just saying that neither of them KNOW, KNOW. Really believing things strongly doesn't make them more likely to be true. Riddle: If we wonder what it is like to be dead. What do dead people wonder? Answer: What is it like to be alive? Steven Wright,is that you man? No one is ever satisfied. Desire for more keeps the wheel turning. Just saying. That's the point, we shouldn't be too satisfied with what we think we KNOW. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, margovon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Hi Rick, I read some of the discussion about the Solid Proof. Since I had some of these clear experiences, about who I was in former time, and even read some of the biographies about me, I can tell you, that no mount of speculation and theoryrizing will ever clear that subject to someone, who never had these insights. Yeah, you know who else confuses intensity of subjective experience and beliefs with epistemological validity? The guys who just turned Mumbai into a slaughterhouse. And I'm guessing that you have never worked out the mathematical probability of the lesser population of the past becoming the exponentially higher population of today with you as one of the famous people. Isn't that a convenient connection with how special you feel about yourself? Curtis, Joerg's sanctimonious tone is certainly irritating but comparing him to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love At First Sight
Turq: I think the most you can say is that There is no evidence that past lives exist, and no evidence that they do not. It's as much a mystery to science as it is to each and every one of us. None of us know for sure what happens subjectively when you die, and neither does science. Isn't that a more fair and realistic statement than There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist? This thread continues to kick ass! This is a very interesting point. I don't think that pointing out that a person's assertion lacks good evidence is a belief on the same order as the person's belief being asserted. The burden of proof is on the person asserting the belief. So Stu's confidence that there is a lack of good evidence may be justified IMO and does not mean that he is supporting a dogmatic belief. I do prefer your formulation of there being a lack of evidence to claiming that there is plenty evidence of lack in this case however. I also prefer this way of expressing my own lack of believe in any of the God ideas as being more than ideas of man. Despite the fact that nobody does really know know what happens after death, we can be confident that there is a lack of good evidence for the specific belief in reincarnation. But as humans we do end up betting on the probability of our beliefs so none of us are exactly impassive observers of our POV, we are advocates usually. Every belief is not equally valid just because we can't prove it wrong without taking a dirt bath. We might find alternate explanations for beliefs that are more satisfying. Once we learn how generative our minds can be in unconsciously creating detailed experiences, we should lose absolute conviction in them being real at face value. You expressed this appropriate lack of certainty when you brought in the idea that there was some outside corroboration of your inner experiences in predicting what was in a room you had not been in. Since I was not there, I don't know how much confidence I can put in that as a test. But it illustrates that these experiences can be tested to some degree. Before we could study chemical imbalances in the brain, mankind attributed mental illness to supernatural forces. Now that we can correct some of these imbalances does it prove that there are still no demons at work? Not really. But the usefulness of that explanation drops off. And despite the fact that the Judy-Stu aspect of this discussion has broken down a bit, everyone is adding really interesting points in this thread. This goes to the heart of what we know and how we can be confident about it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: On the other hand, Stu, you seem to be selling your belief that it doesn't exist pretty hard. Why? What does it matter to you what other people believe about what happens when they die? You seem to be so *certain* that you know. In fact, the degree of certainty that you are bringing to your posts on this subject is higher IMO than some of the people replying who believe in reincarnation. I don't think I've heard any of them say that they know for sure that reincarnation is a fact. But you seem to be saying that blinking out IS a fact. What's up with that? The way I presented my beliefs on this subject was pretty clear IMO. I went out of my way to say that NO ONE ON THIS PLANET knows for sure what happens when one dies. That statement included me, and it included you. I don't see how believing that one knows for sure that there is no afterlife is any different than believing that one knows for sure that there is. See what I'm getting at? Reincarnation is a fact and that's that. There is no reincarnation and that's that. Both statements sound pretty damned fundamentalist to me. I used neither of them, but as I read what you're writing you seem to be preaching the latter. Here's why I'm saying this, Stu, two sentences from one of your earlier replies on this thread. Past lives are a fantasy based on hard wired predilections of the mind. There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist. The first sentence sounds like a theory to me, but it is presented as if it were a fact. What's up with that? And the second sentence is even more off the wall. I know of no such evidence that past lives don't exist. In an earlier reply I asked you to point us to where such evidence is if you can. I think the most you can say is that There is no evidence that past lives exist, and no evidence that they do not. It's as much a mystery to science as it is to each and every one of us. None of us know for sure what happens subjectively when you die, and neither does science. Isn't that a more fair and realistic statement than There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Catholic Cleric Attacks Disney Corp.'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He suggests that many people have become obsessed with work, sex and eating in an attempt to ignore their underlying unhappiness, and criticises corporations and industries that have benefited from promoting false notions of fulfilment. I agree with the Abbot. But after decades of the Ad Man pushing consumerism in a free market, what's a capitalist society to do? Picking on Disney as the corrupter of little minds is a drop in the bucket. My personal villain is American Girl http://tinyurl.com/2q6vfd I planned taking my 4 year old granddaughter on the Amtrak from Mt. Pleasant and to see Frog and Toad at the Children's Theater in Chicago for the weekend. Since we were staying in a hotel nearby, on the recommendation of a friend, we visited the American Girl Store. Hundreds of females of all ages packed the place front to back with very long check out lines, only one on each of two floors. Every doll, accessorized to the eyeballs. One doll even had its own poodle, which included a leash, collar and I.D. tag. You probably could have gotten dog food for it as well. Call me a scrooge but I didn't buy a doll. Unbelievable.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Margovan wrote:] Curtis, Joerg's sanctimonious tone is certainly irritating but comparing him to the Mumbai terrorists is a little harsh. Boy, I'll say. The notion of reincarnation seems to really upset the skeptics for some reason. snip But your point about what the terrorists are experiencing is interesting. I'm not sure we do know what they were experiencing. I'm not ready to assume that they just read something and then decided to face death. We don't know the nature of how they were called to this mission. On the other hand, I really can't assume that they did have some compelling subjective experience that matches Joerg's either. Whatever it was, it worked pretty well as a force compelling enough to rise above a fear of death. FWIW, in all the discussions about terrorism (including interviews with terrorists), I've never heard even a suggestion that terrorists have been motivated by some kind of subjective woo-woo experience. That just doesn't seem to be part of the lore, and the lack is in distinct contrast to, say, what some people who have slaughtered their children report--that they were given to understand by some higher power that the children were demonic, e.g. But what makes it NOT apples and oranges IMO is that it was a very strong compelling belief that their actions were right despite the fact that society as a whole believes they were wrong wrong wrong. They had unplugged from civilization's you are full of shit meter, and were acting on their own compellingly intense beliefs. That's one batch of apples, but there doesn't seem to be a corresponding batch of people who believe they've lived previous lives and as a result have undertaken actions society believes are wrong. So the bigger point for me is that humans are wrong about all sorts of stuff but we have a tendency (this includes me) to become attached to beliefs and mistake their intensity for epistemological solidity. I think you really have to make a distinction between a belief adopted from external sources and one generated by powerful subjective experience. Not that the latter is necessarily any more valid than the former, but you can't use the same kind of epistemological analysis that you do for externally acquired beliefs to evaluate them. We don't really *have* an epistemological approach to evaluating profound subjective experience. we shouldn't be too satisfied with what we think we KNOW. What's interesting is that, as Barry has pointed out, Stu is at least as certain that there is no such thing as reincarnation as Joerg is that there is, yet you don't go after Stu.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'India's Security at 'War Level'...
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:14 AM, bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: India has been at war, hot or cold, with Pakistan since the partition 61 years ago -- http://snipurl.com/6zgzb [en_wikipedia_org]. Graphic pics of the Mumbai attacks: Volatile India-Pakistan Standoff Enters 11,680th Day http://www.theonion.com/content/video/volatile_india_pakistan_standoff
Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Catholic Cleric Attacks Disney Corp.'
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:19 AM, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Disney accused by Catholic cleric of corrupting children's minds A leading Catholic cleric has launched a fierce attack on Disney, claiming it has corrupted children and encouraged greed. In other Catholic news, the American College of Catholic Bishops has offered Michael Jackson his own parish...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Riddle: If we wonder what it is like to be dead. What do dead people wonder? Answer: What is it like to be alive? Steven Wright,is that you man? No one is ever satisfied. Desire for more keeps the wheel turning. Just saying. That's the point, we shouldn't be too satisfied with what we think we KNOW. Curtis, A friend used my computer and didn't sign out. The post was mine. I'll just second Judy's reply and leave it at that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Don't smoke the tomatoes!
Second weed article in a week Judy...is the Garden State living up to its name? ( Disclaimer: this is a joke and in no way implies any illegal activity on anyone's part including but not limited to the owner of the Chinese tomb where a stash of kind bud was found since it might have fallen out of one of the pockets of the low slung baggy jeans of one of the Chinese workman who originally built the tomb.) I just read again that weed is our number one cash crop and may be as high as 65 billion dollars a year. And our government is s committed to the Sisyphean effort of eradicating a weed that can grow anywhere (but for the record there is none growing in my closet) that it is willing to burn our tax dollars like Autumn leaves to fill our jails with non-violent offenders, breaking up families which compounds the damage to society and eventually the cost, and losing tax revenues as well as ignorantly lumping in hemp plants whose value to our economy and as a source of energy could also be in the billions... and for what? To keep people from listening to the Dark Side of the Moon in the state it was meant to be heard? To avoid an artificially inflated market for Ding-Dongs, Twinkies and Lil Debbie products? To avoid the terrible fate of some stoner giggling too much at the drivel I contribute here? Mr. Obama, in your first term please stop the war in Iraq. Then ask Congress to look into how we can legalize weed. You are gunna need all the money we will save on law enforcement for all the other stuff we want you to do. Like utilizing hemp for more than making small woven purses with the colors of the African flag on them for us to keep our weed in. (I meant for OTHER people to keep THEIR weed in. No need to tear my house apart just to find a bunch of...uh...you know, tomato plants.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Police team looking for cannabis finds only tomatoes It was like a scene from Hamish MacBeth. Police launched a full-scale drugs raid on a Highland home - but discovered only the 79-year-old owner's tomato plants. Uniformed officers burst into Lulu Matheson's house in the village of Shieldaig, Wester Ross, kept her son Gus in his bedroom for two hours, handcuffed her grandson Stephen, and turned the house upside down. The high-profile afternoon raid involved three squad cars, seven officers and sniffer dogs. They told the family they were looking for cannabis, but after searching for several hours had to concede the green plants visible in the window from the roadside were tomatoes. The plants, of which police requested a sample for analysis, were bearing fruit. The swoop follows on a number of recent drugs busts across the Highlands in which rented houses have been found converted to cannabis factories. But Mrs Matheson, a widow who has lived in the house for 53 years, was flabbergasted when the police poured into her home. She said: I got a terrible fright and I couldn't understand what they were doing here because I knew we had nothing more than tomatoes in the window. I don't know what the neighbours must be thinking. Gus Matheson, 47, a former diver, said: I was standing looking out the window at the pier when I saw two cop cars pull up beside the house with five officers getting out and I wondered what on earth was going on. I opened the door and they more or less barged past saying that I was growing cannabis on the windowsills. He added: It was a terrible carry-on. The police didn't even apologise. Mr Matheson now intends to make a formal complaint. A spokesman for Northern Constabulary said last night: Recently we have had a lot of high- profile raids on properties where cannabis has been grown, as there have been across Scotland. These have been conducted on an intelligence-led basis acting on information. But on this occasion no controlled substances were found. He denied it was a heavy-handed operation. http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2471073.0.Police_team _looking_for_cannabis_finds_only_tomatoes.php http://tinyurl.com/6j9wmf
[FairfieldLife] Re: Love At First Sight
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turq: I think the most you can say is that There is no evidence that past lives exist, and no evidence that they do not. It's as much a mystery to science as it is to each and every one of us. None of us know for sure what happens subjectively when you die, and neither does science. Isn't that a more fair and realistic statement than There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist? This thread continues to kick ass! This is a very interesting point. I don't think that pointing out that a person's assertion lacks good evidence is a belief on the same order as the person's belief being asserted. The burden of proof is on the person asserting the belief. Only if that person is trying to convince someone else that his belief is right. I have never done this with regard to my belief in reincarnation. It may be total hooey, but I'm comfortable with it. I have nothing to prove and no way to prove it, and no desire to. So Stu's confidence that there is a lack of good evidence may be justified IMO and does not mean that he is supporting a dogmatic belief. I think you need to read what he actually SAID. He didn't just say that there was a lack of good evi- dence; he said: There is too much evidence that past lives don't exist. As far as I know, that statement is completely false. There may be a host of experiments that failed to confirm someone's claim of remembering past lives, but that does NOT constitute evidence that past lives don't exist. Such evidence is the thing that doesn't exist, one way or another, AFAIK. I do prefer your formulation of there being a lack of evidence to claiming that there is plenty evidence of lack in this case however. I also prefer this way of expressing my own lack of believe in any of the God ideas as being more than ideas of man. Despite the fact that nobody does really know know what happens after death... No one knows what happens *subjectively* after death. Big distinction. We can be pretty certain from the smell and other things what happens physically. :-) ...we can be confident that there is a lack of good evidence for the specific belief in reincarnation. As there is for a belief in God. But people still believe in God, and will no matter how many people do the scientist fundamentalist rant and tell them that they are stupid for believing it. That, to me, is *exactly the same hubris* as someone who believes in God telling an atheist that they are stupid and just don't realize the truth yet. Neither the atheist or the theist knows ANYTHING; they just have beliefs. But as humans we do end up betting on the probability of our beliefs so none of us are exactly impassive observers of our POV, we are advocates usually. Not necessarily. Have I ever tried to convert anyone here to my lack of belief in God? Have I ever tried to convert anyone to my personal belief in reincarnation? Have I even advocated it as a preferable belief? I don't think I have. Every belief is not equally valid just because we can't prove it wrong without taking a dirt bath. I would say instead that every belief IS equally valid when it comes to things that cannot be proved. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with considering them all equally valid, as long as it's only a personal belief. If the believer starts prosyletizing obnoxiously, or starts crusades to forcibly convert others to his belief, then you have a point. But if the person just believes in God, or believes in reincarnation, I don't see either of those two beliefs as any less valid than someone who doesn't believe in God or doesn't believe in reincarnation. We might find alternate explanations for beliefs that are more satisfying. To whom? :-) Once we learn how generative our minds can be in unconsciously creating detailed experiences, we should lose absolute conviction in them being real at face value. We should? :-) Why not say, I might lose such conviction. 'Should' is a pretty nasty word, one that you have given others shit for using inappropriately many times. Knowing how inventive our minds are does NOT necessarily invalidate a person's beliefs in something like rein- carnation. In my case, I am more than willing to admit that my beliefs might be totally without basis, but I kinda like them anyway. They cover more bases of my own life experience than the that's just my mind being inventive again theory does. And as long as I'm not pushing my beliefs on anyone else, I don't see that you or anyone else has the right to should me about them. You expressed this appropriate lack of certainty when you brought in the idea that there was some outside corroboration of your inner experiences in predicting what was in a room you had not been in. I did that for you guys. I knew what was in the next room, and the next, and the next. It was only my
[FairfieldLife] Re: Don't smoke the tomatoes!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Second weed article in a week Judy...is the Garden State living up to its name? The Garden State--you mean China, or Scotland? snip Mr. Obama, in your first term please stop the war in Iraq. Then ask Congress to look into how we can legalize weed. You are gunna need all the money we will save on law enforcement for all the other stuff we want you to do. Or at the very least, teach the drug police to recognize tomato plants on sight (especially the ones bearing actual tomatoes) so they can cut back on the lab budget: The plants, *of which police requested a sample for analysis*, were bearing fruit. [emphasis added] (I wonder how many tomatoes you could attach to a marijuana plant without breaking the branches? Maybe if you used cherry tomatoes...)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: [Margovan wrote:] Curtis, Joerg's sanctimonious tone is certainly irritating but comparing him to the Mumbai terrorists is a little harsh. Boy, I'll say. The notion of reincarnation seems to really upset the skeptics for some reason. You mean more than other beliefs with little evidence? I can't speak for others but upset is an inappropriate emotional term for how I feel about it. I love discussing my views on it. snip But your point about what the terrorists are experiencing is interesting. I'm not sure we do know what they were experiencing. I'm not ready to assume that they just read something and then decided to face death. We don't know the nature of how they were called to this mission. On the other hand, I really can't assume that they did have some compelling subjective experience that matches Joerg's either. Whatever it was, it worked pretty well as a force compelling enough to rise above a fear of death. FWIW, in all the discussions about terrorism (including interviews with terrorists), I've never heard even a suggestion that terrorists have been motivated by some kind of subjective woo-woo experience. That just doesn't seem to be part of the lore, and the lack is in distinct contrast to, say, what some people who have slaughtered their children report--that they were given to understand by some higher power that the children were demonic, e.g. You may be right here. They are such a closed society it is hard to tell till they start getting deprogrammed and coming on talk shows. But what makes it NOT apples and oranges IMO is that it was a very strong compelling belief that their actions were right despite the fact that society as a whole believes they were wrong wrong wrong. They had unplugged from civilization's you are full of shit meter, and were acting on their own compellingly intense beliefs. That's one batch of apples, but there doesn't seem to be a corresponding batch of people who believe they've lived previous lives and as a result have undertaken actions society believes are wrong. The comparison was not in the result but in the flawed proof system for the beliefs themselves. But we don't see groups of Atheists on suicide missions and their lack of confidence of what happens after death may be a factor. Terrorist young men have described their confidence in the 72 virgins as a motivation. So the bigger point for me is that humans are wrong about all sorts of stuff but we have a tendency (this includes me) to become attached to beliefs and mistake their intensity for epistemological solidity. I think you really have to make a distinction between a belief adopted from external sources and one generated by powerful subjective experience. Not that the latter is necessarily any more valid than the former, but you can't use the same kind of epistemological analysis that you do for externally acquired beliefs to evaluate them. I'm not sure that the source matters for proving something. A scientist may be inspired by prayer or a dream or by reading something. But in the end he needs to get out the tool kit if he wants to assert a belief as true for others. We don't really *have* an epistemological approach to evaluating profound subjective experience. I'm not sure we need one. It is when we communicate with others that assertions need more analysis. we shouldn't be too satisfied with what we think we KNOW. What's interesting is that, as Barry has pointed out, Stu is at least as certain that there is no such thing as reincarnation as Joerg is that there is, yet you don't go after Stu. I did make my opinion about that known in another thread today. But I would not be inclined to go after you or Turq or Stu in that discussion because everyone was contributing such interesting stuff and you seemed to be handling any point I was thinking of. Sometimes the dialectic here goes on without my feeling a need to jump in. Raunchy nailed it that Joerg's tone from on high triggered my reactive post to him. If someone had already expressed my feelings on it, I wouldn't be inclined to burn a post. But if you are pointing out that I have a bias toward skepticism and skeptical posters, I am guilty as charged.
[FairfieldLife] Antioxidants fail to protect body, study concludes
Blow to vitamins as antidote to ageing Antioxidants fail to protect body, study concludes - Theory cited by health food industry is wrong The notion that antioxidant supplements such as vitamins C and E could slow ageing has been dealt a blow by a scientific study showing that the theory behind the advice is wrong. Beloved of health food shops and glossy magazines alike, antioxidants have long been peddled as preventative pills that have the ability to slow ageing and protect against diseases such as cancer. But the research has shown that the molecular mechanism proposed to explain how they work is mistaken. David Gems, at University College London, who led the study, said: It really demonstrates finally that trying to boost your antioxidant levels is very unlikely to have any effect on ageing. The dominant theory for ageing has been around since the 1950s; it blames glitches in cells caused by the damaging byproducts of our metabolism. As cells break down sugars to release energy, they also unleash reactive forms of oxygen such as superoxide. These supposedly cause the damage which is the hallmark of ageing. Gems' team set about testing the theory that raising or lowering the body's natural defences against superoxide could affect an individual's lifespan: make the defences stronger, and lifespan should increase; make them weaker, and it should decrease. As it would be unethical to experiment on humans, his team used the nematode worm, Caenorhabditis elegans. By tweaking its genes, the scientists were able to tune the worms' natural defences - enzymes it produces to tackle superoxide. However, this made no difference to the worms' lifespan. You can drastically change the natural defence levels and there's just no effect on ageing, said Gems, who published his results yesterday in the journal Genes and Development. He added that molecular damage was probably caused by numerous different chemicals within the cell.With increasing lifespan comes greater exposure and vulnerability to the ageing process, said Alan Schafer, head of molecular and physiological sciences at the Wellcome Trust. Research such as this points to how much we have to learn about ageing, and the importance of understanding the mechanisms behind this process. This new study will encourage researchers to explore new avenues in ageing research. Gems's findings coincide with a recent US study on the effectiveness of antioxidants against cancer. The clinical trial on nearly 15,000 men tested whether vitamin C and E supplements were effective against the disease. After following the subjects for several years, researchers found no statistical difference in the number of cancers between the groups taking the vitamins and those on a placebo. ~~The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/dec/01/medical-research-health-vitamin-supplements http://snipurl.com/6zubc
[FairfieldLife] The Simpsons lampoon Apple (Mapple)
Hilarious. http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/01/the-simpsons-mocks-m-apple/ LINK
[FairfieldLife] Ocean currents can power the world, say scientists
Ocean currents can power the world, say scientists A revolutionary device that can harness energy from slow-moving rivers and ocean currents could provide enough power for the entire world, scientists claim. By Jasper Copping Last Updated: 2:39PM GMT 29 Nov 2008 www.telegraph.co./4EDE50DA.jpg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01123/ocean-current s_1123425c.jpg Existing technologies require an average current of five or six knots to operate efficiently, while most of the earth's currents are slower than three knots Photo: AP The technology can generate electricity in water flowing at a rate of less than one knot - about one mile an hour - meaning it could operate on most waterways and sea beds around the globe. Existing technologies which use water power, relying on the action of waves, tides or faster currents created by dams, are far more limited in where they can be used, and also cause greater obstructions when they are built in rivers or the sea. Turbines and water mills need an average current of five or six knots to operate efficiently, while most of the earth's currents are slower than three knots. The new device, which has been inspired by the way fish swim, consists of a system of cylinders positioned horizontal to the water flow and attached to springs. As water flows past, the cylinder creates vortices, which push and pull the cylinder up and down. The mechanical energy in the vibrations is then converted into electricity. Cylinders arranged over a cubic metre of the sea or river bed in a flow of three knots can produce 51 watts. This is more efficient than similar-sized turbines or wave generators, and the amount of power produced can increase sharply if the flow is faster or if more cylinders are added. A field of cylinders built on the sea bed over a 1km by 1.5km area, and the height of a two-storey house, with a flow of just three knots, could generate enough power for around 100,000 homes. Just a few of the cylinders, stacked in a short ladder, could power an anchored ship or a lighthouse. Systems could be sited on river beds or suspended in the ocean. The scientists behind the technology, which has been developed in research funded by the US government, say that generating power in this way would potentially cost only around 3.5p per kilowatt hour, compared to about 4.5p for wind energy and between 10p and 31p for solar power. They say the technology would require up to 50 times less ocean acreage than wave power generation. The system, conceived by scientists at the University of Michigan, is called Vivace, or vortex-induced vibrations for aquatic clean energy. Michael Bernitsas, a professor of naval architecture at the university, said it was based on the changes in water speed that are caused when a current flows past an obstruction. Eddies or vortices, formed in the water flow, can move objects up and down or left and right. This is a totally new method of extracting energy from water flow, said Mr Bernitsas. Fish curve their bodies to glide between the vortices shed by the bodies of the fish in front of them. Their muscle power alone could not propel them through the water at the speed they go, so they ride in each other's wake. Such vibrations, which were first observed 500 years ago by Leonardo DaVinci in the form of Aeolian Tones, can cause damage to structures built in water, like docks and oil rigs. But Mr Bernitsas added: We enhance the vibrations and harness this powerful and destructive force in nature. If we could harness 0.1 per cent of the energy in the ocean, we could support the energy needs of 15 billion people. In the English Channel, for example, there is a very strong current, so you produce a lot of power. Because the parts only oscillate slowly, the technology is likely to be less harmful to aquatic wildlife than dams or water turbines. And as the installations can be positioned far below the surface of the sea, there would be less interference with shipping, recreational boat users, fishing and tourism. The engineers are now deploying a prototype device in the Detroit River, which has a flow of less than two knots. Their work, funded by the US Department of Energy and the US Office of Naval Research, is published in the current issue of the quarterly Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightened Robin: From Ignorance to Enlightenment 2
I'd actually advise all readers to consider an anti-emetic regime before reading that post. Barring that, it may be sufficient to have a large porcelain basin-like device with flushing capabilities nearby. On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:11 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: this is the best of your posts of robin's stuff so far-- much more narrative than the disconnected philosophical musings posted earlier, and i enjoyed the parts where he interacts with the Maharishi.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'India's Security at 'War Level'...
Since both India and Pakistan are said to have between 50 and 100 atom bombs each, a nuclear war between the two would kill a very large number of people. The large amount of extra radiation in the world would also increase the rate of evolution of disease organisms, which might lead to a decrease in the world's human population from one or more severe epidemics. Many people in the Islamic nations are beginning to become quite upset with the terrorism, so they will try to bring about its reduction. Two things: 1. We need to make everyone in the Islamic nations hopeful about the future. This could be done by setting up procedures and programs which would ensure that every nation in the world rises to a developed standard of living, in an economy safe for the environment. A guideline of working for the benefit of all nations simultaneously should be formally adopted. About ten years ago, I did send a plan to the Indian governments economic development think tank in Mumbai, and the development economists there thought it would work, but also thought that politically, it could not be adopted. That is possible, but it wouldn't hurt to try. The idea would be an international economic development think tank which would work to come up with new international coordinations which would simultaneously improve the economy of all nations in the world. Since the world's economic system is so complicated, I suggested that a new supercomputer much more powerful than any now in existence be built, and used to construct an economic model much better than any current ones, which would include and coordinate fine details of the international economy, environmental effects, new research needed, and sociological effects. The think tank would have several thousand top world experts in developmental economics, environmental science, materials engineering, alternative energy production, sociology, social work, psychology of creative thinking, etc. A number of the world's top computer programmers would be included. The extremely advanced computer model would be used to test new economic coordination ideas. That is to say, a proposed new idea would be put into the model to see if it would work and if it would have any negative side effects which would have to be corrected by a revision of the idea. Once a coordination idea were developed, it would be presented to the world's nations for their consideration. The governments of the world would then decide whether or not to implement the recommendation. If the recommendation were of obvious benefit to everyone, the governments would probably usually adopt it. If there were some question, the think tank would try to come up with something better. With this in place, people would have an International think tank they could trust, so would be less likely to give support to terrorists claiming to be protecting them. B. It might be a good idea to place the terrorists in mental hospitals rather than jail them. Then psychiatrists and psychologists could study the terrorists to find out more about their mental health problems. There are obvious mental health problems involved when people decide to become suicide bombers and so forth instead of working out constructive solutions to problems. Perhaps with more knowledge about what these mental health problems are, people who had those problems could be treated before they joined a terrorist group. But we need good psychiatric knowledge of what is wrong with the mental health of the terrorists. Jim --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By Rina Chandran MUMBAI (Reuters) - The fallout from a three-day rampage that killed nearly 200 people in Mumbai threatened on Sunday to unravel India's improving ties with Pakistan and prompted the resignation of India's security minister. New Delhi said it was raising security to a war level and had no doubt of a Pakistani link to the attacks, which unleashed anger at home over the intelligence failure and the delayed response to the violence that paralyzed India's financial capital. Officials in Islamabad have warned any escalation would force it to divert troops to the Indian border and away from a U.S.-led anti-militant campaign on the Afghan frontier. Newspaper commentaries blasted politicians for failing to prevent the attacks and for taking advantage of its fallout before voting in Delhi on Saturday and national polls due by May. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said he would boost and overhaul the nation's counterterrorism capabilities, an announcement which came after Federal Home Minister Shivraj Patil resigned over the attacks. We share the hurt of the people and their sense of anger and outrage, Singh said. Several measures are already in place ... But clearly much more needs to be done and we are determined to take all necessary measures to overhaul the system, he said. Air and sea security would be increased, and India's main counter-terrorist
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jan Garbarek Group - Bluesy 99 names
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Janet Luise janluise@ wrote: I'm curious as why you linked this music with such a gut blue-y number as the Stand By Me that started this thread? Nabby, after all these years, doesn't know how to start a new thread. Thanks for your concern but I don't understand what you are talking about; in the subjectline on my screen it says Re: Jan Garbarek Group - is that different from yours ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Don't smoke the tomatoes!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Second weed article in a week Judy...is the Garden State living up to its name? ( Disclaimer: this is a joke and in no way implies any illegal activity on anyone's part including but not limited to the owner of the Chinese tomb where a stash of kind bud was found since it might have fallen out of one of the pockets of the low slung baggy jeans of one of the Chinese workman who originally built the tomb.) I just read again that weed is our number one cash crop and may be as high as 65 billion dollars a year. And our government is s committed to the Sisyphean effort of eradicating a weed that can grow anywhere (but for the record there is none growing in my closet) that it is willing to burn our tax dollars like Autumn leaves to fill our jails with non-violent offenders, breaking up families which compounds the damage to society and eventually the cost, and losing tax revenues as well as ignorantly lumping in hemp plants whose value to our economy and as a source of energy could also be in the billions... and for what? To keep people from listening to the Dark Side of the Moon in the state it was meant to be heard? To avoid an artificially inflated market for Ding-Dongs, Twinkies and Lil Debbie products? To avoid the terrible fate of some stoner giggling too much at the drivel I contribute here? Mr. Obama, in your first term please stop the war in Iraq. Then ask Congress to look into how we can legalize weed. You are gunna need all the money we will save on law enforcement for all the other stuff we want you to do. Like utilizing hemp for more than making small woven purses with the colors of the African flag on them for us to keep our weed in. (I meant for OTHER people to keep THEIR weed in. No need to tear my house apart just to find a bunch of...uh...you know, tomato plants.) i was with you all the way bro, until you mentioned Lil Debbies as equivalent to the Hostess products. sorry, but lil debbies are not only a lil creepy with that lil girls face from the fifties on em, but a decidedly inferior product to the veritable ambrosia of the hostess products, particularly the venerable -Twinkie-, with its luscious creme filling.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightened Robin: From Ignorance to Enlightenment 2
if you are saying it is far easier to rid oneself of the information contained in this article, than it is to rid yourself of all the petrified anti TM, anti Maharishi, pro Buddhist dinosaur poop you are lugging around, agreed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd actually advise all readers to consider an anti-emetic regime before reading that post. Barring that, it may be sufficient to have a large porcelain basin-like device with flushing capabilities nearby. On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:11 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: this is the best of your posts of robin's stuff so far-- much more narrative than the disconnected philosophical musings posted earlier, and i enjoyed the parts where he interacts with the Maharishi.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jan Garbarek Group - Bluesy 99 names
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Janet Luise janluise@ wrote: I'm curious as why you linked this music with such a gut blue-y number as the Stand By Me that started this thread? Nabby, after all these years, doesn't know how to start a new thread. Thanks for your concern but I don't understand what you are talking about; in the subjectline on my screen it says Re: Jan Garbarek Group - is that different from yours ? Yes. On the detail page for this post, one sees your Subject line as a kind of sub-Subject line, while the post itself is still clearly within the thread called Stand By Me - Playing for Change. This is what happens when you reply to an existing post. Your post is going to be *in that thread*, and will *not* start a new thread, even if you change the Subject line when you send it. This is the reason that when you fire off some new post by replying to the UFC Goons post you obviously stored somewhere, the new post always is part of the UFC Goons thread. It does NOT create a new thread. I understand that if you are viewing your posts in your own email reader that you probably can't see this. I'm just trying to explain it to you for the benefit of people who might read Fairfield Life threaded, or by topic. If you really intend to create a new topic, the way to do it is to send your new post directly to the mailing list address, *not* by replying to an existing post. That will *never* create a new thread; it will always be part of the parent thread of the post you replied to. Generally, it is considered nicer to start all-new threads than to change the Subject line of an existing thread. Just FYI.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: In Barack We Trust?
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 11:58 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: In Barack We Trust? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An empty suit never satisfies anyone. Told ya. Are you pointing out that the general rhetoric of a campaign may look different in detail and in specific situations? I think trying to point to a term like change, which is practically a hypnotic induction, as a contradiction to him hiring experienced people in different areas misses the point. The change is his way of approaching problems through whoever he brings on to flesh out the details. Don't you think calling him an empty suit is both harsh and premature? It's also idiotic, absurd, and petty. Empty suits don't graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and become editor of the law review. George Bush was obviously an empty suit. Sarah Palin was an empty pantsuit. Obama is obviously a very intelligent guy and most observers, even on the right, think that his conduct of the campaign and his current preparations for the presidency reflect that intelligence. As you say, we'll see how he does as president. I suspect he'll be impressive.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
The conversation is too massive for me to have time to reply to everyone, but I think I will step in here. That is a good point about what might be pre-wired in. In fact, evolution works very slowly, so the pre-wiring would have had to occur over the past couple of million years. It is hard to see how a belief in an afterlife would have helped Paleolithic Homo sapiens (I don't know why the spell checker says that is wrong. I double-checked the dictionary and that is what the dictionary says) and earlier species, to survive. It is a complicated idea so would require selection of several genes, which would require a very large number of deaths of early people not having the genes to become set in by evolution. Why would not having that belief have caused almost all early humans without that belief to die before reproducing? Perhaps when something shows up in brain research, it is only emotions associated with the belief, not the belief itself, which is being detected. It is also, by the way, generally thought that neurological research is not yet able to detect specific ideas that someone is thinking. In any case, whether there is a hard-wired belief or not is completely irrelevant to whether or not reincarnation actually occurs. Note that all my derivations start with data which is highly commonplace. Jim --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu buttsplicer@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: Top posting. No comments at bottom: Both Jews AND Christians expoused a belief in reincarnation at some point. Some Jews still do. L A very small percentage. In Catholicism the belief in reincarnation is heretical. As for the very small portion of Jewish mystics that have such beliefs it is not at all like the Eastern notion of a wheel of birth and death. The common Jewish notion of the afterlife is Ashes to ashes and dust to dust. Only two characters in the Bible manage to have an afterlife. Elijah and Jesus - who both rise up to heaven with their bodies. For the rests of us we will rise from the graves on Judgment day like in a zombie movie. The concept of a soul surviving the body came from the writings of Greek pagans like Aristotle. He was all the rage of early middle age theologians. Body or no body, the predominant western afterlife myth is a one way street. s. In which case, the hard-wired prediliction for believing in it isn't too strong, eh? Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: In Barack We Trust?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip It's also idiotic, absurd, and petty. Empty suits don't graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and become editor of the law review. See my post #199830. That's not what's meant by empty suit here. It doesn't refer to lack of intelligence but lack of ideological commitment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The argument was not about your beliefs or disbeliefs. The discussion was about the motivations that would lead one to accept the doctrine of reincarnation. Jim::: Motivations are something to double check to make sure one isn't biased, but motivations have nothing to do with whether or not something is true. It is a logical fallacy to think that motivations determine truth. Stu::: I was pointing out there is very good evidence that the belief in an afterlife is pre-wired. This provides strong predilection to rationalize an after death doctrine. Jim:::The evidence you have presented is only an interpretation of fuzzy data by a scientist who wants to disprove all religious ideas. That is not adequate evidence. In fact, I don't think any neurological research tools at present can adequately detect what people are specifically thinking. For pre-wiring, you need to show how, over hundreds of thousands of years, people who believed in an afterlife survived while people who didn't believe in an afterlife died. That would be essential to select as group of genes which would wire something as specific as that belief into the brain. Eventually, it would be necessary to find the actual genes involved. But there is another hypothesis which is possible. Perhaps people to some extent often remember a little about having had past lifetimes, and that common memory is the reason for the widespread belief. Stu::: On the other hand, people such as us have enjoyed the alternative myths from the far East which posit the doctrine of karma. Sounds good. Let's buy into it. Don't question it. The doctrine of Karma comes packaged with a bonus gift - a morality tale. Jim::: Actually, I haven't posted it yet, but I do have a proof of karma as well, which came together for me about the turn of the century. It involves the way conation memories would be acted upon naturally by similarity processes (Gestalt grouping, association processes which involve similarity, generalization). The natural processes involved in these interactions, act like karma. Again, what people believe with respect to karma has nothing to do with whether karma is true or not. Jim
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightened Robin: From Ignorance to Enlightenment 2
On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:31 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: if you are saying it is far easier to rid oneself of the information contained in this article, than it is to rid yourself of all the petrified anti TM, anti Maharishi, pro Buddhist dinosaur poop you are lugging around, agreed. No that's not what I was saying and your impressions, per usual, are way off. Better work on that omniscience kiddo (or your reading skills)!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightened Robin: From Ignorance to Enlightenment 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:31 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: if you are saying it is far easier to rid oneself of the information contained in this article, than it is to rid yourself of all the petrified anti TM, anti Maharishi, pro Buddhist dinosaur poop you are lugging around, agreed. No that's not what I was saying and your impressions, per usual, are way off. Better work on that omniscience kiddo (or your reading skills)! Looks like maybe it's Vaj who needs to tune up his Sarcasm Detector.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Enlightened Robin: From Ignorance to Enlightenment 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:31 AM, enlightened_dawn11 wrote: if you are saying it is far easier to rid oneself of the information contained in this article, than it is to rid yourself of all the petrified anti TM, anti Maharishi, pro Buddhist dinosaur poop you are lugging around, agreed. No that's not what I was saying and your impressions, per usual, are way off. Better work on that omniscience kiddo (or your reading skills)! try this: Citrucel Fiber Smoothie Methylcellulose Fiber Therapy for Regularity Add to your Favorite Juice - Juice Smoothie Mix with your Favorite Juice -Non-allergenic therapeutic fiber derived from a natural source. -This unique fiber does not ferment, so it won't cause gas. -Encourages gentle elimination naturally, without chemical stimulants. -Doctor recommended for restoring and maintaining regularity. -Mixes easily and completely for a smooth textured drink.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saving Free Enterprise
Getting rid of everyone displaced by automation would create a process which would lead to human extinction in the end. Of course we do have to get our birth control up to an adequate level, but I see no reason to kill people. It would be better to have people work towards discovering all the spiritual, intellectual, artistic, and other knowledge which would make it possible to advance all humans to the most advanced state of consciousness possible. Of course, one of the science fiction dreams is to move people into huge orbital colonies in space, which would solve the population problem. There are enough metals in the asteroids, a very large number of cubic kilometers if iron, aluminum, etc. so that would not be a problem. However, it is so expensive at present to lift mass into orbit that we couldn't afford to send the first factories into space, and large numbers of humans. One current cost for sending a human into orbit I recently read was 100 million dollars. If it were to cost 100 million dollars per person, it would be a bit difficult to transport most of humanity to orbital colonies in space. But if we could get the cost of lifting mass to orbit way down, we could do it. I can't predict. It depends on what new technology we discover in the future. Jim --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Since I have heard a number of interviews with people advocating stipends due to the decreasing jobs market I went on a search for some of them. Here's one proposal and the author has done his homework on the subject: http://marshallbrain.com/25000.htm More detailed information on the impact of technology on the workforce: http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-freedom.htm snip, Maybe, with the population reduction proponents working on it, there wont be any problem after all. N.
[FairfieldLife] MMY: Everyone must create heaven on earth for himself!
. . Maharishi tells us: Everyone must create heaven on earth for himself - that results in: Millions of heavens on earth! - because the heaven on earth is created on the level of bliss. He says: Be innocently united in the experience of bliss, and heaven on earth will become a perpetual reality for whole mankind. It is on the level of ananda that we call the heaven to earth. By aligning ourselves with the reality of heaven within, we create heaven on earth. What will achieve heaven on earth is blissfulness. Just have the simple awareness that heaven is within - develop that inner awareness: that is the root to create heaven on earth. Everyone has to create heaven on earth for himself. Therefore, engage yourself, economically, socially ... (etc.). Having the kingdom of heaven within you, you have no right to suffer in life. Discovery of the unified field is discovery of millions of heavens on earth. I actually mean it, millions of heavens. - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 21.05.83 Jai Guru Dev -- Sensationsangebot verlängert: GMX FreeDSL - Telefonanschluss + DSL für nur 16,37 Euro/mtl.!* http://dsl.gmx.de/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K1308T4569a attachment: MMY_1961-Train to Brooklyn.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip So the bigger point for me is that humans are wrong about all sorts of stuff but we have a tendency (this includes me) to become attached to beliefs and mistake their intensity for epistemological solidity. I think you really have to make a distinction between a belief adopted from external sources and one generated by powerful subjective experience. Not that the latter is necessarily any more valid than the former, but you can't use the same kind of epistemological analysis that you do for externally acquired beliefs to evaluate them. I'm not sure that the source matters for proving something. Well, in the first place, the demand for proof of such beliefs as reincarnation or the existence of God is a category error. I'm talking about epistemological analysis, not proof per se. In terms of externally acquired beliefs, they're pretty well defined as to their specifics and provenance. Any externally acquired belief is by definition one that is shared by multiple individuals, and we can gather empirical data about the circumstances of its acceptance by any given individual. We can know much more about its nature and grounds than we can with beliefs arising from subjective experience. As an example, take the kid who grows up in a fundamentalist household. We know where the kid acquired his/her beliefs and what they are; we know the social imperatives influencing the kid to accept the beliefs. Now take a kid who grows up in an atheist, materialist household who has a profound mystical experience at a very young age. Nobody around him is going to validate the experience or validate any beliefs the kid may develop as a result. There's no way to trace the origins of those beliefs because what generated them was a purely internal, private occurrence. If the kid holds on to the beliefs, it isn't because of parental pressure; if there's any pressure, it's to drop the beliefs. So it seems to me there's an element operating in this situation that doesn't exist with externally acquired beliefs, one that isn't subject to examination or analysis, at least in anything like the same way as with externally acquired beliefs. It's pretty well established that there's a psychological component to accepting external beliefs, but that isn't necessarily the case with beliefs arising from profound mystical experience. Psychology may influence how the experience is interpreted, but we don't know what the role of psychology is in the experience itself. Subjective experience of this sort is really an epistemological black box. That's why I think making a distinction is important.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Enlightened Robin: From Ignorance to Enlightenment 2
This was in 1975 and the Age of Enlightenment techniques. I also was given a program of three sets of asanas morning and evening before meditation and the other new techniques, but I guess I didn't feel quite as special as Robin! Also I was in one of the nil groups! --- On Mon, 12/1/08, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Enlightened Robin: From Ignorance to Enlightenment 2 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 9:33 AM Robin continues on the road to the Enlightened Dawn.--
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.
Thanks for keeping this ball in play. snip I think you really have to make a distinction between a belief adopted from external sources and one generated by powerful subjective experience. Not that the latter is necessarily any more valid than the former, but you can't use the same kind of epistemological analysis that you do for externally acquired beliefs to evaluate them. I'm not sure that the source matters for proving something. Well, in the first place, the demand for proof of such beliefs as reincarnation or the existence of God is a category error. I'm talking about epistemological analysis, not proof per se. I'm not sure about that. For Reincarnation they are making specific claims about having memories of what actually existed in the world when they were alive before. So in principle they can be tested. We may not know what happens after death, but if someone claims that they DO know because they can remember specifics of having lived before it can be tested. Sam Harris makes the point about the God belief that religious people are actually making claims about how the world actually is. They are going beyond describing a place after death. So challenging their assertions with a request for proof seems reasonable to me. If you look at Christian beliefs based on the New Testament's claims, we do see an attempt for an evidence system based on the Jesus miracles. They may default to faith on a challenge to their bad evidence, but they do try to make a proof. When you throw in the prophesy of the Old Testament we have another attempt at a proof system that we may not regard as reasonable today. (at least I don't) In terms of externally acquired beliefs, they're pretty well defined as to their specifics and provenance. Any externally acquired belief is by definition one that is shared by multiple individuals, and we can gather empirical data about the circumstances of its acceptance by any given individual. We can know much more about its nature and grounds than we can with beliefs arising from subjective experience. As an example, take the kid who grows up in a fundamentalist household. We know where the kid acquired his/her beliefs and what they are; we know the social imperatives influencing the kid to accept the beliefs. Now take a kid who grows up in an atheist, materialist household who has a profound mystical experience at a very young age. Nobody around him is going to validate the experience or validate any beliefs the kid may develop as a result. I think he would pretty much have to be raised by wolves for this to be true. Kids are such sponges. I hear from my Atheist mom friends that their kids discuss all sorts of religious things they never taught them. But I guess Mao's China or Russia might have met the necessary conditions. There's no way to trace the origins of those beliefs because what generated them was a purely internal, private occurrence. If the kid holds on to the beliefs, it isn't because of parental pressure; if there's any pressure, it's to drop the beliefs. So it seems to me there's an element operating in this situation that doesn't exist with externally acquired beliefs, one that isn't subject to examination or analysis, at least in anything like the same way as with externally acquired beliefs. It seems the same to me. Lets take the beliefs of an OCD person who KNOWS that if they don't turn the light off and on 3 times something bad will happen. Once he articulates this belief it is subject to someone saying, this is not true and I think it can be proven. It's pretty well established that there's a psychological component to accepting external beliefs, but that isn't necessarily the case with beliefs arising from profound mystical experience. Psychology may influence how the experience is interpreted, but we don't know what the role of psychology is in the experience itself. I agree that we don't know how beliefs shape ineffable experiences. It is in the world of interpretation when these become important. Take my recent experiment with meditating again. I had similar experiences to when I also had the belief system in place. (Although I will never know its unconscious influence.) Subjective experience of this sort is really an epistemological black box. That's why I think making a distinction is important. I think you have a knack for isolating a pretty clean version of experience sans belief. It took me quite a few years to understand it. (assuming that I actually do!) But for most people who have these experiences, they quickly do make statements about what it means and then they are subject to the WTF line of epistemological questioning just like everybody else. I think this is Sam Harris's main point. That we don't have to give a person a pass on claims just because they came from an inner source once they cross the threshold of talking about
[FairfieldLife] Re: Jan Garbarek Group - Bluesy 99 names
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Janet Luise janluise@ wrote: I'm curious as why you linked this music with such a gut blue-y number as the Stand By Me that started this thread? Nabby, after all these years, doesn't know how to start a new thread. Thanks for your concern but I don't understand what you are talking about; in the subjectline on my screen it says Re: Jan Garbarek Group - is that different from yours ? Yes. On the detail page for this post, one sees your Subject line as a kind of sub-Subject line, while the post itself is still clearly within the thread called Stand By Me - Playing for Change. This is what happens when you reply to an existing post. Your post is going to be *in that thread*, and will *not* start a new thread, even if you change the Subject line when you send it. This is the reason that when you fire off some new post by replying to the UFC Goons post you obviously stored somewhere, the new post always is part of the UFC Goons thread. It does NOT create a new thread. I understand that if you are viewing your posts in your own email reader that you probably can't see this. I'm just trying to explain it to you for the benefit of people who might read Fairfield Life threaded, or by topic. If you really intend to create a new topic, the way to do it is to send your new post directly to the mailing list address, *not* by replying to an existing post. That will *never* create a new thread; it will always be part of the parent thread of the post you replied to. Generally, it is considered nicer to start all-new threads than to change the Subject line of an existing thread. Just FYI. OK, thanks
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu buttsplicer@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip snip There is not enough time in the day for this. You dragged me into this, and now you want out. Don't pretend it's because what I'm saying is post-modern blah-de-blah. You pulled those words out of a hat for all the relevance they have. Don't you see? At this point in our exchange the only response can be about the why and hows of the response. Communication about communication. Its post-modern blah-de-blah and I don't have time for it. I have notice most of your threads devolve this way. s.
[FairfieldLife] What changes belief?
This might be an interesting topic, because many of the recent posts seem to want very much to change other people's beliefs. Basically, when it comes to my beliefs about meditation and other spiritual subjects, I've watched those beliefs change and evolve over the years, and there seems to be a pattern to when they change and when they don't. Before I started TM, I probably believed that it was impossible for thought to stop. There had really never been a time, other than deep sleep, when my thoughts *did* stop. Therefore believing that they couldn't stop while awake made sense. Then came TM, and I found that thoughts indeed stopped, first for short periods of time, and then for longer and longer periods of time. And then an intellectual model was supplied to me for *how* they stopped. It was all because of the effortless, donchaknow. And that same intel- lectual model went further and said that effort- lessness was the ONLY way that thoughts could stop and transcendence occur. And, since the only thing I knew in terms of meditation was TM, I bought that one hook, line, and sinker, and believed it. And then I learned other forms of meditation, forms that were based on concentration. And what I found was that *contrary* to the TM dogma, thoughts stopped not only as often as they did in TM, they tended to stop more often, and for longer periods of time. So my belief about the nature of meditation changed, because my *experience* had changed. I could no longer pretend that the TM model was true, and had to find a more comprehensive model, one that had no problem with transcendence occurring as the result of *both* effort and effortlessness. But would my belief ever have changed if my exper- ience hadn't? To this day we see people here who have never experienced any other form of meditation than TM, and who will swear on a stack of bibles that the ONLY way to transcend is via effortlessness. That belief of theirs will probably *never* change, because their experience pool has never broadened and never will. I would suggest that a similar thing might be rele- vant to belief in reincarnation. For those who have no personal memories of past lives or of the Bardo between death and rebirth, belief in reincarnation is a Purely Intellectual Belief. It's just a theory. They may have an intuitive feel for the correctness or the incorrectness of the theory, but they don't have any *experience* with which to validate their belief or disbelief. I do. That experience may be, as Curtis and Stu have suggested, illusory. But it's *my* experience. Others can only speculate about it and come up with theories to either support my belief or theories to try to shoot down the belief and pooh-pooh it. But for me, a belief in reincarnation makes the most sense to me because it covers the bases of my many personal experiences over the years better than any other theory. None of the other rational explanations presented here, or that I have read elsewhere, deal with all of the things I have experienced as well and in as Occam's Razor a manner as reincarnation does. So until they do, I see no real need to change my belief that reincarnation might just be a real phenomenon. It's not as if this belief *affects* much in my life. I don't change anything I do or anything I don't do based on believing in reincarnation. And I don't even care much if it winds up not being true when I die. As I've said many times now, if that happens, I won't be there any more to be disappointed. I guess all I'm saying is that the fundamentalists who declare that only their theory is correct may simply not have had the breadth of experience that the people they consider fools have had. If I had not had the kinds of experiences I've had, a belief in reincarnation might be for me a Purely Intellectual Belief, the way it appears to be for them. But that's not the case. Reincarnation makes sense to me because it is consistent with experiences that long predated ever hearing about it as a theory.
[FairfieldLife] Affidavit: Michael Grove, Mark Frost and Michael Herkel v . Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, etc.
Affidavit [This affidavit was used as part of a one lawsuit by the followers of the controversial group leader Robin Carlson in their attempt to gain reentry to MIU and for Civil Rights claims against MIU. ] Affidavit: Michael Grove, Mark Frost and Michael Herkel v . Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Maharishi International University, World Plan Executive Council United States, Capital of the Age of Enlightenment, Gregory Thatcher, Gregg Wilson and Bevan Morris. I, T. Gemma Cowhig, being sworn upon my oath depose and state; 1. I have been practicing the Transcendental Meditation Program for 16 years. I have been an initiator of the Transcendental Meditation Program since 1971 and worked as a full time employee of the defendant World Plan Executive Council from 1971-1973. I am still an initiator and since 1977 have been a Governor of the TM Program, also a position within the defendant World Plan Executive Council centers in Toronto, Ontario and London, Ontario. 2 . My brother John Cowhig has been defendant Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's secretary since 1974. On many occasions, including visits with our parents, on my six month course, and recently when I was in Switzerland, he has stated to me that Maharishi is concerned about his security because he believes that the American CIA has infiltrated his organization and is constantly working to undermine his image. My brother has stated, and it is well know within the TM Movement, that Maharishi often states that the CIA is a threat to his security and that Maharishi hates the CIA and feels that it is out to get him. Last summer, in Switzerland, my brother said to me that Maharishi has stated that I was also involved with the CIA. 3. In late 1979 my brother John Cowhig said to me in a phone call from Thailand that Maharishi had a message for Robin. The message was for Robin to be careful that the CIA would begin to surround him and begin to puff him up for their own purposes. 4. After the Jim Jones Guyana Massacre my brother told me that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi claimed that the CIA was responsible for an article in the newspaper linking the TM Movement to that of Jim Jones. 5. It is well known within the TM Movement that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has accused many former teachers of the Transcendental Meditation Movement and employees of World Plan Executive Council such as Charley Donahue and Billie Clayton, of being agents of the CIA who were out to get him. Sworn and Notarized on, January 30, 1984, by T. Gemma Cowhig~
[FairfieldLife] Re: Antioxidants fail to protect body, study concludes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gems's findings coincide with a recent US study on the effectiveness of antioxidants against cancer. The clinical trial on nearly 15,000 men tested whether vitamin C and E supplements were effective against the disease. After following the subjects for several years, researchers found no statistical difference in the number of cancers between the groups taking the vitamins and those on a placebo. The problem with science these days is that research is less about discovery and more about designing experiments to prove what is already believed to be true or desired to be true. In the case of vitamins, antioxidants, etc., all a researcher has to do is compare a placebo against a subclinical amount of vitamin/antioxidant, and voila! a catchy news headline proclaiming that vitamin/antioxidants are proven to not do anything. Similarly, Big Pharma conducts studies that are specifically designed to prove their drugs work. A good example of that is AstraZeneca's recent, headline-grabbing Jupiter study, which is a complete joke when you dig down beneath the headlines and actually look at the study parameters.
[FairfieldLife] The typical Obama voter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Reincarnation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, James F. Newell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The conversation is too massive for me to have time to reply to everyone, but I think I will step in here. That is a good point about what might be pre-wired in. In fact, evolution works very slowly, so the pre-wiring would have had to occur over the past couple of million years. It is hard to see how a belief in an afterlife would have helped Paleolithic Homo sapiens If you took the time to read the research you would see the genetic markers for Person Permanence have strong evolutionary consequences - the propensity to believe in an afterlife is a side effect of the gene. This propensity is not subject to natural selection. snip In any case, whether there is a hard-wired belief or not is completely irrelevant to whether or not reincarnation actually occurs. It is highly relevant. Because of our inability to conceptualize non-consciousness we have a strong need to fill in the blanks. We all come with strong feelings or intuition of an afterlife. This is a basic desire like our predisposition to like sweets or/and fats. It means when confronted with the observable data that supports that dead things are dead we have an extremely strong desire to deny it. If reincarnation occurs - what is the evidence? All evidence is fantastic, requires leaps of faith in the supernatural, and comes with bizarre rules - like only certain people have insight into their past lives (Why do past life believers domonstrate poor source monitoring?), Why do these people all have different conceptions about the details of the process. Buddhist and Hindu versions differ and there are difference between sects. Does it cross species - is there some sort of karmic judgment involved to people move up? Is personality lost? Do people remain in the castes? Can they become inanimate objects? Why do Catholics bypass reincarnation and go straight to the pearly gates? The evidence that it does not occur is stronger. For in order to believe that death is death one only needs to accept things as they are. Physics does not have to change. Physical conditions are met to hold consciousness. The physical conditions stop - consciousness stops. I remember Thich Nhat Hanh likened it to a candle and a flame. A match, the wax and a wick make the flame possible. Take away part of these basic conditions and the flame goes away. With the later, it leaves open the possibility that there is some sort of universal consciousness/intelligence that may or may not continue after the physical conditions desist. But that consciousness/intelligence is largely abstract and bears no consequence to us. You telling me to believe in unicorns becasue you have absolute proof. Yet your proof is obscure and depends on speculation. I am saying I will continue to be skeptical about unicorns until I see one for myself or at the very least see some very credible evidence. Why should I accept the fantastic over the obvious? s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What changes belief?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess all I'm saying is that the fundamentalists who declare that only their theory is correct may simply not have had the breadth of experience that the people they consider fools have had. If I had not had the kinds of experiences I've had, a belief in reincarnation might be for me a Purely Intellectual Belief, the way it appears to be for them. But that's not the case. Reincarnation makes sense to me because it is consistent with experiences that long predated ever hearing about it as a theory. So why do only a smattering of people have this delusion? Why am I not privy to voices in my head, past lives, alien probing and other plot contrivances from the X files? s.
[FairfieldLife] Hillary and Barack - Then and Now
President-elect Obama noted at his press conference today that the media likes to have fun digging up old quotes from the Democratic primary campaign, but few are as interesting as this exchange from a debate in Iowa. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/12/01/a_glimpse_into_the_future.html -Then- Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhPxSm9Es0w -Today- December 1, 2008: Obama Names Hillary Clinton to State Post Watch: http://snipurl.com/6zzj9 --From the pool report: The press announcement ended at about 10:30am central time and Obama walked out of the room arm in arm with Clinton. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/12/01/friends.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you have a knack for isolating a pretty clean version of experience sans belief. It took me quite a few years to understand it. (assuming that I actually do!) But for most people who have these experiences, they quickly do make statements about what it means and then they are subject to the WTF line of epistemological questioning just like everybody else. The thing is, Curtis, I don't see the skeptics merely criticizing the what I think this exper- ience means thing in people who believe things they don't. I see a lot of them trying to chal- lenge the experiences *themselves*. They seem almost compelled to come up with ration- alizations to explain away the person's exper- iences. And those rationalizations may be valid. Then again, they might not be. To claim that a person's experiences aren't what he thinks they are just because you can think of a theory that paints them in a different light strikes me as the height of hubris. Why is the skeptic's theory any more valid than the believer's theory? It seems to me that what's going on is just a dick-size contest: My theory has a longer dick than yours. I think this is Sam Harris's main point. That we don't have to give a person a pass on claims just because they came from an inner source once they cross the threshold of talking about their meaning. And I don't perceive the threshold the same way you do. I don't think that a person *talking about* their experience and saying, This was just my experience; make what you want of it has crossed any threshold that demands that you must challenge it. The threshold, for me, is when the believer talks about his beliefs and casts them as Truth, as The Way Things Are, You Betcha. Or when the believer tries to sell you his beliefs. When a person does this, then you might have the right to come after them with a stiff dick. But if they just say, Hey...this is what my experience is, and what I make of it, YMMV, I don't see what the big issue is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY: Everyone must create heaven on earth for himself!
Nice reminder for everyone, in particular those who are suffering from wars and injustice. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . . Maharishi tells us: Everyone must create heaven on earth for himself - that results in: Millions of heavens on earth! - because the heaven on earth is created on the level of bliss. He says: Be innocently united in the experience of bliss, and heaven on earth will become a perpetual reality for whole mankind. It is on the level of ananda that we call the heaven to earth. By aligning ourselves with the reality of heaven within, we create heaven on earth. What will achieve heaven on earth is blissfulness. Just have the simple awareness that heaven is within - develop that inner awareness: that is the root to create heaven on earth. Everyone has to create heaven on earth for himself. Therefore, engage yourself, economically, socially ... (etc.). Having the kingdom of heaven within you, you have no right to suffer in life. Discovery of the unified field is discovery of millions of heavens on earth. I actually mean it, millions of heavens. - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 21.05.83 Jai Guru Dev -- Sensationsangebot verlängert: GMX FreeDSL - Telefonanschluss + DSL für nur 16,37 Euro/mtl.!* http://dsl.gmx.de/? ac=OM.AD.PD003K1308T4569a
[FairfieldLife] Re: The typical Obama voter
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8 Really scary Shemp! It goes to show how powerful a biased media can be, and also the complete failure of public education in this Country. This is not a good sigh for America. I also hope Obama's cabinet isn't a result of merely 'affirmative action' down through the years which does not secure the best qualified in the Country for the job. How many voted for Obama 'just because' he was black? or for the empty rhetoric, 'change'?
[FairfieldLife] Evolution versus creationism
The Master's article for Share International magazine, December 2008 Evolution versus creationism by the Master , through Benjamin Creme, 9 November 2008 Many people believe, or affect to believe, that this world as it stands today is not more than 5,000 years old; that Man and all the creatures of the animal kingdom and the rocks of the mineral kingdom were created in a few days, fully fledged and finished in all aspects. They hold that evolution is a myth, that the Christian Bible account of creation is literally true and correct. To accept such a theory it is necessary to close one's eyes to science in general and to the sciences of geology, anthropology, palaeontology and archaeology in particular. It is indeed true to say that there was a time when men did not walk the Earth, when dinosaurs, gigantic in size, roamed and ruled instead. It is also true that, according to Our reckoning, Man's history is infinitely older than today's science believes. By today's reckoning, humanity is approximately five or six million years old at the most. By Our science and tradition, however, early animal-man had reached the point when individualization became possible, and the `Sons of mind' began their long journey of evolution. It has taken Man 18-and-a-half million years to reach the level of today. How then is it possible for intelligent, educated `creationists' to hold, against the evidence of science, what seems to be a ludicrous concept? Cross-purposes The answer lies in the fact that the evolutionists and the creationists are really arguing at cross-purposes; both, in their limited way are right. Modern scientists, looking objectively at the findings of Darwin, have accumulated a wealth of evidence for the case of evolution, a long, slow development of men from animal ancestors, in particular by the development of mind. The creationists look to the Christian Bible as their guide, ignoring the fact that the Bible was written by hundreds of people over hundreds of years; that it is written in symbolic language, and is meant to be symbolic rather than factual. The creationist is at pains to emphasise that `Man' was made by God, in `God's own image', and so owes nothing to evolution. To such, Darwin and those who follow him are missing the point about Man: that he is a spiritual being, of divine heritage, and if he does not always behave as God's creation he has been corrupted by Satan. Bridged Can these two diametrically opposed views be bridged and expanded at the same time? From Our point of understanding the scientists of today, the evolutionists, are undoubtedly correct in their analysis of Man's development from the animal kingdom. We owe our physical bodies to the animal kingdom. That, however, does not make us animals. Darwin, and those who correctly followed his thought, describes only the outer, physical development of Man, largely ignoring that we are all engaged in the development of consciousness. The human body has all but reached its completeness: there remains little further to be achieved. From the standpoint of consciousness, however, man has scarcely taken the first steps towards a flowering which will prove that man is indeed divine, a Soul in incarnation. One day, the fact of the Soul will be proved by science and so become generally accepted, and the old dichotomy will be healed. (Read more articles by the Master) http://shareintl.org/master/master.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: What changes belief?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I guess all I'm saying is that the fundamentalists who declare that only their theory is correct may simply not have had the breadth of experience that the people they consider fools have had. If I had not had the kinds of experiences I've had, a belief in reincarnation might be for me a Purely Intellectual Belief, the way it appears to be for them. But that's not the case. Reincarnation makes sense to me because it is consistent with experiences that long predated ever hearing about it as a theory. So why do only a smattering of people have this delusion? Why am I not privy to voices in my head, past lives, alien probing and other plot contrivances from the X files? Dude, you just didn't pay the right dues in your past lives. (-: Kidding, really. :-) My real answer is, Beats the shit outa me, man. I have no fucking clue. Why do you insist that it's a delusion. You don't know *what* it is. You just have theories.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Evolution versus creationism
Interesting article. However, one should realize that human beings are both body and spirit. One cannot neglect one facet at the expense of the other. This reasoning can be traced to the findings documented by attendees of the Council of Nicea. They have concluded that Christ was both God and Man. As such, the rest of humanity has the same capability since Christ took on the body of a human being. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Master's article for Share International magazine, December 2008 Evolution versus creationism by the Master , through Benjamin Creme, 9 November 2008 Many people believe, or affect to believe, that this world as it stands today is not more than 5,000 years old; that Man and all the creatures of the animal kingdom and the rocks of the mineral kingdom were created in a few days, fully fledged and finished in all aspects. They hold that evolution is a myth, that the Christian Bible account of creation is literally true and correct. To accept such a theory it is necessary to close one's eyes to science in general and to the sciences of geology, anthropology, palaeontology and archaeology in particular. It is indeed true to say that there was a time when men did not walk the Earth, when dinosaurs, gigantic in size, roamed and ruled instead. It is also true that, according to Our reckoning, Man's history is infinitely older than today's science believes. By today's reckoning, humanity is approximately five or six million years old at the most. By Our science and tradition, however, early animal-man had reached the point when individualization became possible, and the `Sons of mind' began their long journey of evolution. It has taken Man 18-and-a-half million years to reach the level of today. How then is it possible for intelligent, educated `creationists' to hold, against the evidence of science, what seems to be a ludicrous concept? Cross-purposes The answer lies in the fact that the evolutionists and the creationists are really arguing at cross-purposes; both, in their limited way are right. Modern scientists, looking objectively at the findings of Darwin, have accumulated a wealth of evidence for the case of evolution, a long, slow development of men from animal ancestors, in particular by the development of mind. The creationists look to the Christian Bible as their guide, ignoring the fact that the Bible was written by hundreds of people over hundreds of years; that it is written in symbolic language, and is meant to be symbolic rather than factual. The creationist is at pains to emphasise that `Man' was made by God, in `God's own image', and so owes nothing to evolution. To such, Darwin and those who follow him are missing the point about Man: that he is a spiritual being, of divine heritage, and if he does not always behave as God's creation he has been corrupted by Satan. Bridged Can these two diametrically opposed views be bridged and expanded at the same time? From Our point of understanding the scientists of today, the evolutionists, are undoubtedly correct in their analysis of Man's development from the animal kingdom. We owe our physical bodies to the animal kingdom. That, however, does not make us animals. Darwin, and those who correctly followed his thought, describes only the outer, physical development of Man, largely ignoring that we are all engaged in the development of consciousness. The human body has all but reached its completeness: there remains little further to be achieved. From the standpoint of consciousness, however, man has scarcely taken the first steps towards a flowering which will prove that man is indeed divine, a Soul in incarnation. One day, the fact of the Soul will be proved by science and so become generally accepted, and the old dichotomy will be healed. (Read more articles by the Master) http://shareintl.org/master/master.htm
[FairfieldLife] About 1/2 of one percent...
...that's what the total number of American troops killed in the Iraq War represent as a percentage of all American troops killed in all wars America has fought: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html .
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi introducing Guru Dev
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 12:29 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi introducing Guru Dev In the movement mindset, I always assumed that this claim meant that Guru Dev was using magic to support the place without cash. Now I think this is unlikely at best. Of course he might have had an inheritance that he could direct to the math so outside money was not needed. The movement story is that Guru Dev had a magic box and that whenever he needed money, he opened it and found what he needed in there. Haven't you heard that story?
[FairfieldLife] AP: Bush Backed Off Strict Mortgage Rules In '06
The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents. Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories, California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job. Bowing to aggressive lobbying along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK regulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way. These mortgages have been considered more safe and sound for portfolio lenders than many fixed rate mortgages, David Schneider, home loan president of Washington Mutual, told federal regulators in early 2006. Two years later, WaMu became the largest bank failure in U.S. history. The administration's blind eye to the impending crisis is emblematic of its governing philosophy, which trusted market forces and discounted the value of government intervention in the economy. Its belief ironically has ushered in the most massive government intervention since the 1930s... ~~Associated Press - More here: http://www.miamiherald.com/business/breaking-news/story/794076.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] About 1/2 of one percent...
shempmcgurk wrote: ...that's what the total number of American troops killed in the Iraq War represent as a percentage of all American troops killed in all wars America has fought: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html The number should be zero. There should have been no war in Iraq. Or do you advocate using young people as cannon fodder?
[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...
One American soldier killed in this dumb Iraq War is too much. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...that's what the total number of American troops killed in the Iraq War represent as a percentage of all American troops killed in all wars America has fought: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html .
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Milarepa DVD
I was in Cannon Beach in 2006 and that scene looked like the unpopulated area south of the town which would have been too loaded with tourists to shoot there. I don't know what La Push looks like as the most I've seen of the Washington Pacific coast was Neah Bay and Ocean Shores. But in 2006 a friend and I drove from here all the way up the coast from Marin to Cannon Beach where he and his wife frequently vacation. Most of the coast all looks similar so it *is* hard to tell. ;-) Marek Reavis wrote: That could easily be Cannon Beach and not La Push in Twilight. I've got no recollection of what Cannon Beach looks like. The fact that the spot was presented as La Push and my imperfect memories of it from the mid-80s could easily be an explanation. But it sure looked good in the part. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The director is a Tibetan monk. He apparently did one feature film before. The interview with him was very interesting. The cinematographer was from Australia. Most of the cast and crew were amateurs and many were monks from his monastery. I'm waiting for part 2. According to IMDB that was Cannon Beach not La Push. And it looked like Cannon Beach the part south of Haystack Rock. But IMDB can be wrong. Marek Reavis wrote: Just saw the DVD weekend last and I agree with you. It's excellent. Milarepa's story is really compelling; I first read his bio on some course in the 70s and it totally took me in. The director and cinematographer are fine; the actors are excellent (Milaprepa's mother is so intense); I'm looking forward to the next chapter. Saw Twilight in SF with my daughter and her boyfriend the night before thanksgiving. You were right, it's a teen girl's movie, entirely; but it was excellent to see the Olympic Peninsula on the big screen. And particularly so, La Push. I'd heard that folks surfed there but my memories of it are as a purely beautiful but forbidding wild ocean beach. If I ever make it up there again I'll bring my board. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: I rented this on DVD and watched it last night. I think many here would enjoy it. It is part one and part two according to the DVD will be out next year: http://milarepamovie.com/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499238/
[FairfieldLife] Wouldn't it be a trip...
...if what happened to you subjectively when you die was completely a result of what you believed would happen to you? The Mormons would go to a Mormon heaven. (Which, if you've ever spent any time in Utah, might be the same thing that other people would call Hell.) The Christians would go to a Christian heaven, and be issued harps and wings at the door. At least some of them would. Others, who really got off more on guilt than they did inspiration, might believe that they were going straight to Hell or Purgatory when they died. And so they would. Those who believe that consciousness just blinks out and there is nothing but darkness would blink out. End of story. Those who believe in reincarnation would reincarnate. And those who don't have any beliefs at all about what happens to them when they die would be shit out of luck. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hillary and Barack - Then and Now
From my point of view, Obama is paying a political debt to Hillary by naming her as the Secretary of State in exchange for her solid support during the general election. Hillary is just as happy to take the job since, since I would presume, Obama will pay all of the campaign debts she incurred during the primaries. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: President-elect Obama noted at his press conference today that the media likes to have fun digging up old quotes from the Democratic primary campaign, but few are as interesting as this exchange from a debate in Iowa. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/12/01/a_glimpse_into_the_future .html -Then- Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhPxSm9Es0w -Today- December 1, 2008: Obama Names Hillary Clinton to State Post Watch: http://snipurl.com/6zzj9 --From the pool report: The press announcement ended at about 10:30am central time and Obama walked out of the room arm in arm with Clinton. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/12/01/friends.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: ...that's what the total number of American troops killed in the Iraq War represent as a percentage of all American troops killed in all wars America has fought: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html The number should be zero. There should have been no war in Iraq. Or do you advocate using young people as cannon fodder? I'm not advocating anything. All I'm doing is reproducing some statistics to put the Iraq War in perspective. Oh, and I forgot to name it correctly: It's not the Iraq War but the Iraq/Afghanistan War because the casualty stats are from both. So for those of you reading this that are FOR the Afghanistan War (such as Barack Obama and Ron Paul), the figures are actually less for just the Iraq War...
[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...that's what the total number of American troops killed in the Iraq War represent as a percentage of all American troops killed in all wars America has fought: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy. ~~ Henry Kissinger, Nixon Sec of State and National Security Advisor during the Vietnam War http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger -Bush: My Biggest Regret Was Failure Of Iraq Intelligence- As if right on cue, Barack Obama's successful national security presser today, in which he declared that the buck stops with me and took full responsibility for his presidency's vision, is cast in an even more positive light by the deeply pathetic interview that his predecessor just gave to ABC News. In the interview, which was conduced by Charlie Gibson, George W. Bush evades responsibility for his catastrophic foreign policies to the last, saying that his greatest regret was over something that he allegedly didn't control -- the intel failure in Iraq: ~~~BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess. Of course, Bush made the decision to overlook all the *good* intel -- not to mention the claims of those poor forgotten inspectors -- saying that Saddam wasn't really a threat at all, or certainly not one requiring the response Bush himself ordered. One overlooked thing about this is that not only Bush, but many supporters of the war -- Dems and liberal hawks included -- also have a vested interest in pretending that the *good* intel never existed and those inspectors never said what they said. Those inconvenient historical facts reflect rather badly on them, too. With so many opinion-makers having vested interests of their own in telling the story this way, history has been tidily rewritten, and Bush is able to make this claim without a peep of objection from his big-time network interviewer. In other news from the interview, Bush conceded that he was unprepared for war, though he meant it more by way of saying that he hadn't asked for war. No follow-up from his interviewer about the war of choice Bush started, or the fact that the self-described role of war president wasn't one Bush was all that adverse to adopting. Late Update: Matthew Yglesias adds the crucial context here, which is that it was the complete lack of an opposition party that is largely responsible for so much going down the memory hole. Links here: http://snipurl.com/70289
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wouldn't it be a trip...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...if what happened to you subjectively when you die was completely a result of what you believed would happen to you? The Mormons would go to a Mormon heaven. (Which, if you've ever spent any time in Utah, might be the same thing that other people would call Hell.) The Christians would go to a Christian heaven, and be issued harps and wings at the door. At least some of them would. Others, who really got off more on guilt than they did inspiration, might believe that they were going straight to Hell or Purgatory when they died. And so they would. Those who believe that consciousness just blinks out and there is nothing but darkness would blink out. End of story. Those who believe in reincarnation would reincarnate. And those who don't have any beliefs at all about what happens to them when they die would be shit out of luck. :-) You forgot about the Muslims and their heavenly rewards, in particular the bevy of virgins for the martyrs who sacrificed their lives in holy wars. I remember Hugh Hefner lamenting in the past about why wars have all started in the name of religions. At the end of the day, it all comes down to the responsibilities for being human. That would include examining one's own life and respect for other people's belief.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saving Free Enterprise
No people shouldn't be killed to reduce the population even though there are those who seem to advocate it. Education and birth control are the key. Probably limiting tax deductions for children to two in the US would help. In the US we seem to have a lot born agains who feel it is their duty to have large families even if they don't have the wealth to support one. Similarly we have people in impoverished nations who believe they have to have lots of children so some will survive to take care of them in old age. Education and some retirement programs would solve the problem there. Laissez-faire capitalism has proven to be a big failure. When you have dense populations as the earth now has you need structure not a bunch of free-wheeling goons plundering the resources. We are probably observing the death throws of capitalism. A wise choice would be to eliminate big business (by breaking them up) and making the worlds government be mostly socialist as a safety net and allow small business. This method appeases those who are individualists and want to be their own boss by allowing them to have restricted size businesses. I notice the failure of some many of the socialist experiments was the governments trying to run everything including small businesses. That is inefficient. I've been thinking about this stuff ever since I was involved in TM back in the 70's and got interested in Bucky Fuller's ideas in his books. He'was nailing this problem years ago. He was one who saw we could get to a state where there wouldn't be enough jobs for everyone and the solution would be to pay those who didn't work. As domesticated animals we've been trained to believe that work is somehow sacred which is BS. Work is just a means to an end. If it is not necessary then it is not necessary. Creative people will be creative whether they get paid for it or not. Marshall Brain's article uses the example of Linux as such a phenomenon. Scott McNeely, the head of Sun Systems, sees the open source model being extended to other things. Old systems of economics weren't made for a world which has been shrunk to the size of a pinhead because of the Internet (which the elite would love to destroy as it challenges their power). James F. Newell wrote: Getting rid of everyone displaced by automation would create a process which would lead to human extinction in the end. Of course we do have to get our birth control up to an adequate level, but I see no reason to kill people. It would be better to have people work towards discovering all the spiritual, intellectual, artistic, and other knowledge which would make it possible to advance all humans to the most advanced state of consciousness possible. Of course, one of the science fiction dreams is to move people into huge orbital colonies in space, which would solve the population problem. There are enough metals in the asteroids, a very large number of cubic kilometers if iron, aluminum, etc. so that would not be a problem. However, it is so expensive at present to lift mass into orbit that we couldn't afford to send the first factories into space, and large numbers of humans. One current cost for sending a human into orbit I recently read was 100 million dollars. If it were to cost 100 million dollars per person, it would be a bit difficult to transport most of humanity to orbital colonies in space. But if we could get the cost of lifting mass to orbit way down, we could do it. I can't predict. It depends on what new technology we discover in the future. Jim --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Since I have heard a number of interviews with people advocating stipends due to the decreasing jobs market I went on a search for some of them. Here's one proposal and the author has done his homework on the subject: http://marshallbrain.com/25000.htm More detailed information on the impact of technology on the workforce: http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-freedom.htm snip, Maybe, with the population reduction proponents working on it, there wont be any problem after all. N.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi introducing Guru Dev
--Maybe the Ashram was facing North. That would explain it. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 12:29 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi introducing Guru Dev In the movement mindset, I always assumed that this claim meant that Guru Dev was using magic to support the place without cash. Now I think this is unlikely at best. Of course he might have had an inheritance that he could direct to the math so outside money was not needed. The movement story is that Guru Dev had a magic box and that whenever he needed money, he opened it and found what he needed in there. Haven't you heard that story?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saving Free Enterprise
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No people shouldn't be killed to reduce the population even though there are those who seem to advocate it. Education and birth control are the key. Probably limiting tax deductions for children to two in the US would help. In the US we seem to have a lot born agains who feel it is their duty to have large families even if they don't have the wealth to support one. Similarly we have people in impoverished nations who believe they have to have lots of children so some will survive to take care of them in old age. Education and some retirement programs would solve the problem there. On the other hand: Go home early and multiply, Japanese told -Japan's workers are being urged to switch off their laptops, go home early and use what little energy they have left on procreation, in an attempt to avert demographic disaster. The drive to persuade employers that their staff would be better off at home than staying late at the office comes amid warnings from health experts that many couples are simply too tired to have sex. A survey of married couples under 50 found that more than a third had not had sex in the previous month. Many couples said they didn't have the energy. A study by Durex found that the average couple has sex 45 times a year, less than half the global average of 103 times. It's a question of work-life balance, Kunio Kitamura, head of the Japan Family Planning Association, told Reuters. The people who run companies need to do something about it. Japan's birth rate of 1.34 is among the lowest in the world and falls well short of the 2.07 children needed to keep the population stable. If it persists, demographers say the population will drop to 95 million by 2050 from its 2006 peak of 127.7 million. This month Keidanren, Japan's biggest business organisation, implored its 1,600 member companies to allow married employees to spend more time at home. Several firms have organised family weeks during which employees must get permission to work past 7pm, but most continue to squeeze every last drop of productivity from their staff. In response, the labour ministry plans to submit a bill exempting employees with children under three from overtime and limiting them to six-hour days. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/29/japan-sexual-health
[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] ~~~BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess. Of course, Bush made the decision to overlook all the *good* intel - - not to mention the claims of those poor forgotten inspectors -- saying that Saddam wasn't really a threat at all, or certainly not one requiring the response Bush himself ordered. [snip] I don't think he did overlook all the good intel. If he did, he would have made a surprise attack, not the long, drawn out attack in which he gave Saddam every possible opportunity to let inspectors in, according to his prior agreements, and allow them, unfettered, to inspect every crook and nanny of Iraq that they wanted to but that Saddam for 12 years had thwarted (and which 17 resolutions of the U.N. said he thwarted). Saddam's incalcitrance only encouraged the attack that eventually happened. But let's not pretend that Bush went into Iraq all gung- ho. That simply didn't happen...it WOULD have happened and it SHOULD have happened if Bush had 100% convincing intel that there were in fact weapons of mass destruction. Here's another point: In our never-ending discussions on global warming on this forum, it is inevitably brought up by those who believe in catastrophic man- made global warming that it is better to be safe than sorry; that we may not be 100% sure that global warming is going to cause the destruction in the future that people like Al Gore are predicting but when so much is at stake it's better to err on the side of safety. Well, is that not what Bush did with Iraq? No one could say with 100% certainty that Iraq had WMD but why not err on the side of safety? What we DID know was that Saddam had used them before, had attempted to build a nuclear facility -- which the Israelis bombed in '81 (and which I flew over on the very same day on return from my Kashmir TM course) -- and was an all-out nasty character...and if he wasn't letting people in and he did NOT have WMD, isn't Saddam to shoulder SOME of the blame? So why is it okay to be safe than sorry with global warming but not with Saddam Hussein?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saving Free Enterprise
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No people shouldn't be killed to reduce the population even though there are those who seem to advocate it. Education and birth control are the key. Probably limiting tax deductions for children to two in the US would help. In the US we seem to have a lot born agains who feel it is their duty to have large families even if they don't have the wealth to support one. Similarly we have people in impoverished nations who believe they have to have lots of children so some will survive to take care of them in old age. Education and some retirement programs would solve the problem there. I agree that people should be responsible for their actions including their reproductive and sexual habits. If a person can afford to raise children in accordance with their religious beliefs, we should let them. Laissez-faire capitalism has proven to be a big failure. When you have dense populations as the earth now has you need structure not a bunch of free-wheeling goons plundering the resources. We are probably observing the death throws of capitalism. A wise choice would be to eliminate big business (by breaking them up) and making the worlds government be mostly socialist as a safety net and allow small business. This method appeases those who are individualists and want to be their own boss by allowing them to have restricted size businesses. I notice the failure of some many of the socialist experiments was the governments trying to run everything including small businesses. That is inefficient. True capitalism died many years ago. In particular, the US is using a mixed system to run its economy. We just witnessed this process in the bail out of banks and financial institutions. The US auto industry might be included in this scenario as well. I've been thinking about this stuff ever since I was involved in TM back in the 70's and got interested in Bucky Fuller's ideas in his books. He'was nailing this problem years ago. He was one who saw we could get to a state where there wouldn't be enough jobs for everyone and the solution would be to pay those who didn't work. As domesticated animals we've been trained to believe that work is somehow sacred which is BS. Work is just a means to an end. If it is not necessary then it is not necessary. Creative people will be creative whether they get paid for it or not. Marshall Brain's article uses the example of Linux as such a phenomenon. Scott McNeely, the head of Sun Systems, sees the open source model being extended to other things. Work is necessary for people to exist. Human beings should not have to do work in areas that can be done by a robot or automation. Human beings can do work that requires creativity and service for others. I believe this is and has been the trend of post-industrial society. This is the reason why the economy in the US will be more devoted to the service sector in the future. Old systems of economics weren't made for a world which has been shrunk to the size of a pinhead because of the Internet (which the elite would love to destroy as it challenges their power). The new economy will be based on innovation and creativity. There's no need to keep the status quo or lament about the past.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'India's Security at 'War Level'...
Point 1 sounds like the New World Order on steroids. The solution is to turn Muslims into consumers? That's what it sounds like. What's wrong with a leisurely pace of life? Do you think it is good to work 80 hour weeks? When I was in India business people were telling me how hard it was to find anyone who wanted to work more than 2 hours a day. That was all the work they needed to do to put a roof over their head and food on their table. Lucky folks. Idiots in the US trying to keep up with the Jones and be good consumers have to work two or more jobs just to do so. Economic thought is now shifting from growth to sustainable economies. And it is laughable (being a computer programmer myself) to think that a machine could design a superior economic system. For machines maybe, not for people. Only nutjobs like Ray Kurzweil think that way. :-D James F. Newell wrote: Since both India and Pakistan are said to have between 50 and 100 atom bombs each, a nuclear war between the two would kill a very large number of people. The large amount of extra radiation in the world would also increase the rate of evolution of disease organisms, which might lead to a decrease in the world's human population from one or more severe epidemics. Many people in the Islamic nations are beginning to become quite upset with the terrorism, so they will try to bring about its reduction. Two things: 1. We need to make everyone in the Islamic nations hopeful about the future. This could be done by setting up procedures and programs which would ensure that every nation in the world rises to a developed standard of living, in an economy safe for the environment. A guideline of working for the benefit of all nations simultaneously should be formally adopted. About ten years ago, I did send a plan to the Indian governments economic development think tank in Mumbai, and the development economists there thought it would work, but also thought that politically, it could not be adopted. That is possible, but it wouldn't hurt to try. The idea would be an international economic development think tank which would work to come up with new international coordinations which would simultaneously improve the economy of all nations in the world. Since the world's economic system is so complicated, I suggested that a new supercomputer much more powerful than any now in existence be built, and used to construct an economic model much better than any current ones, which would include and coordinate fine details of the international economy, environmental effects, new research needed, and sociological effects. The think tank would have several thousand top world experts in developmental economics, environmental science, materials engineering, alternative energy production, sociology, social work, psychology of creative thinking, etc. A number of the world's top computer programmers would be included. The extremely advanced computer model would be used to test new economic coordination ideas. That is to say, a proposed new idea would be put into the model to see if it would work and if it would have any negative side effects which would have to be corrected by a revision of the idea. Once a coordination idea were developed, it would be presented to the world's nations for their consideration. The governments of the world would then decide whether or not to implement the recommendation. If the recommendation were of obvious benefit to everyone, the governments would probably usually adopt it. If there were some question, the think tank would try to come up with something better. With this in place, people would have an International think tank they could trust, so would be less likely to give support to terrorists claiming to be protecting them. B. It might be a good idea to place the terrorists in mental hospitals rather than jail them. Then psychiatrists and psychologists could study the terrorists to find out more about their mental health problems. There are obvious mental health problems involved when people decide to become suicide bombers and so forth instead of working out constructive solutions to problems. Perhaps with more knowledge about what these mental health problems are, people who had those problems could be treated before they joined a terrorist group. But we need good psychiatric knowledge of what is wrong with the mental health of the terrorists. Jim --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By Rina Chandran MUMBAI (Reuters) - The fallout from a three-day rampage that killed nearly 200 people in Mumbai threatened on Sunday to unravel India's improving ties with Pakistan and prompted the resignation of India's security minister. New Delhi said it was raising security to a war level and had no doubt of a Pakistani link to the attacks, which unleashed anger at home over the intelligence failure
Re: [FairfieldLife] What changes belief?
TurquoiseB wrote: I guess all I'm saying is that the fundamentalists who declare that only their theory is correct may simply not have had the breadth of experience that the people they consider fools have had. If I had not had the kinds of experiences I've had, a belief in reincarnation might be for me a Purely Intellectual Belief, the way it appears to be for them. But that's not the case. Reincarnation makes sense to me because it is consistent with experiences that long predated ever hearing about it as a theory. Fundamentalists are mostly literalists. They understand things only at a very basic level. OTOH, if you want to go deep enough there really isn't any proof that anything exists. This existence can be and may be nothing more than an illusion. How can you prove otherwise?
[FairfieldLife] Benjamin Creme comments on the US presidentil election
Questions Answers - a selection Q. Did vote tampering take place in the recent US presidential elections? A. Yes, but to a lesser degree than the last two elections. Q. If so, what would the real results have been without vote rigging and other tricks? A. About 5 per cent higher for Barack Obama. Q. Does the election of Barack Obama mean that the soul aspect of America can more easily manifest itself? A. Not necessarily. He has not done anything yet! A better indication will come when the US public hear and assess Maitreya. The African-American community will feel empowered and vindicated by Barack Obama's election victory but almost half of the popular vote, 48 per cent, went to the Republicans. The breakdown of America's economic and financial hegemony will be very influential in the months ahead. Q. Do you think Barack Obama will be more responsive to Maitreya's ideas than his Republican counterpart? A. Yes, and he has come to presidential power at a significant moment for the world. Q. Will Barack Obama be the last president of the United States? I believe it was either Maitreya's associate or your Master who said that eventually the US presidency will be replaced by a group of wise elder statesmen and that former president Jimmy Carter (in office, 1976-1980) will be invited to join them if he lives long enough. A. That is still the Plan so there is every chance that Mr Obama will be the last President. Q. The International Monetary Fund seems to be gaining a new level of importance as more and more economies begin to suffer from the economic collapse. What should or could best happen to the IMF? Is it also doomed to disappear along with other bodies which help maintain traditional capitalism? A. The IMF is deeply disliked and distrusted, especially by the developing countries which have been driven to its door by desperation. Time after time they have been given money, which they badly need, at the cost of their free will and the right to develop according to their traditions. They have been forced to grow food, for example, on a large scale for the foreign market and to buy their people's food from abroad. They are trapped. It is useful for countries at the moment who are suffering from the current economic crisis but eventually, when the principle of sharing reigns, it will be disbanded and close its doors. It has been blatantly a tool used for purely political ends. Q. On the Day of Declaration, (1) will our pets be aware of what is happening? (2) Will the animal kingdom in general be aware of the most important day of our planet ? A. (1) No, only men and women over the age of 14 years. (2) No. Q. I have been a believer in the return of the World Teacher for several years. It was my understanding that Maitreya had an open invitation to appear on a major television network, at a time of His choosing. Recently, I heard someone involved with Share International say that that invitation was no longer in effect. I would really like to get the latest status from 'the horse's mouth'. What is the status of the invitation? I don't want to be giving out wrong information. A. The invitation still stands and 'the time of His choosing' is very near. Someone, for whatever reason, is giving out false information. Q. Was Hurricane Gustav that affected the southern US coast, including New Orleans, the result of karma, the result of the devas being out of equilibrium, or just a natural phenomenon? (You stated that Hurricane Katrina that deluged New Orleans in 2005 and killed over 12,000 people 'per your Master's information' was the result of our actions in the Middle East). A. Hurricane Gustav was the result of the devas being out of equilibrium. Humanity is under great stress and strain and this affects the devic evolution. So, although indirect, it is karmic but more general in cause. Q. According to Buddhist eschatology, the teachings of Buddha will be forgotten by the time Maitreya comes to Earth. Also, there are certain physical events which will take place prior to his arrival. If you recognize Buddhism as a true teaching, how do you explain Maitreya's arrival under current circumstances? A. Among orthodox Buddhists the expectation of Maitreya Buddha varies between thousands and, in Japan, many millions of years. They really have no idea. Nor do they understand Who, in fact, Maitreya is. He does not 'come' to Earth, He has never left it. He is a great teacher like the Buddha before Him, and His manifestation is at a time of His choosing, not our fantasy or speculation. Buddhist teaching is about human psychology, spiritual awareness and how we should live together for the greatest good of all. It is not about dates. Q. I am interested in how some people have seen aliens. Benjamin Creme says that if we went to Mars we would not see them as they live on a different plane and their bodies are etheric, so how is it possible that some people supposedly see them? We know about crashes and
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saving Free Enterprise
do.rflex wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No people shouldn't be killed to reduce the population even though there are those who seem to advocate it. Education and birth control are the key. Probably limiting tax deductions for children to two in the US would help. In the US we seem to have a lot born agains who feel it is their duty to have large families even if they don't have the wealth to support one. Similarly we have people in impoverished nations who believe they have to have lots of children so some will survive to take care of them in old age. Education and some retirement programs would solve the problem there. On the other hand: Go home early and multiply, Japanese told -Japan's workers are being urged to switch off their laptops, go home early and use what little energy they have left on procreation, in an attempt to avert demographic disaster. The drive to persuade employers that their staff would be better off at home than staying late at the office comes amid warnings from health experts that many couples are simply too tired to have sex. A survey of married couples under 50 found that more than a third had not had sex in the previous month. Many couples said they didn't have the energy. A study by Durex found that the average couple has sex 45 times a year, less than half the global average of 103 times. It's a question of work-life balance, Kunio Kitamura, head of the Japan Family Planning Association, told Reuters. The people who run companies need to do something about it. Japan's birth rate of 1.34 is among the lowest in the world and falls well short of the 2.07 children needed to keep the population stable. If it persists, demographers say the population will drop to 95 million by 2050 from its 2006 peak of 127.7 million. This month Keidanren, Japan's biggest business organisation, implored its 1,600 member companies to allow married employees to spend more time at home. Several firms have organised family weeks during which employees must get permission to work past 7pm, but most continue to squeeze every last drop of productivity from their staff. In response, the labour ministry plans to submit a bill exempting employees with children under three from overtime and limiting them to six-hour days. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/29/japan-sexual-health Japan is crowded! The drop in population would actually be good for them. Redo the way the economy works to accommodate the reduction in population. China is facing the same thing but it is a boon not a tragedy. Fewer people means more for each individual, more people means less for each individual.
[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: [snip] ~~~BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess. Of course, Bush made the decision to overlook all the *good* intel - - not to mention the claims of those poor forgotten inspectors -- saying that Saddam wasn't really a threat at all, or certainly not one requiring the response Bush himself ordered. [snip] I don't think he did overlook all the good intel. The clear evidence shows that he did intentionally ignore intel that showed much of the WMD intel to be bogus or questionable at best. Not only that, but that he and his team continued to make claims that had been clearly shown to them be false. If he did, he would have made a surprise attack, not the long, drawn out attack in which he gave Saddam every possible opportunity to let inspectors in, according to his prior agreements, and allow them, unfettered, to inspect every crook and nanny of Iraq that they wanted to but that Saddam for 12 years had thwarted (and which 17 resolutions of the U.N. said he thwarted). Saddam's incalcitrance only encouraged the attack that eventually happened. Before the invasion Saddam had given total unfettered access to the UN inspection teams. Bush kicked them out so he could invade. But let's not pretend that Bush went into Iraq all gung- ho. That simply didn't happen...it WOULD have happened and it SHOULD have happened if Bush had 100% convincing intel that there were in fact weapons of mass destruction. The evidence is clear that the Bush gang had wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11 and had made definite plans to do it right after 9/11. Here's another point: In our never-ending discussions on global warming on this forum, it is inevitably brought up by those who believe in catastrophic man- made global warming that it is better to be safe than sorry; that we may not be 100% sure that global warming is going to cause the destruction in the future that people like Al Gore are predicting but when so much is at stake it's better to err on the side of safety. Well, is that not what Bush did with Iraq? No one could say with 100% certainty that Iraq had WMD but why not err on the side of safety? What we DID know was that Saddam had used them before, had attempted to build a nuclear facility -- which the Israelis bombed in '81 (and which I flew over on the very same day on return from my Kashmir TM course) -- and was an all-out nasty character...and if he wasn't letting people in and he did NOT have WMD, isn't Saddam to shoulder SOME of the blame? So why is it okay to be safe than sorry with global warming but not with Saddam Hussein? This is another clear example of Magoo's social pathology. Here he tries to compare working to stop polluting the earth to prevent massive deaths resulting from drastic climate changes in a globally agreed consensus that it's imperiative to address it - to invading a sovereign nation that has resulted in the deaths and injuries of millions of human beings. What a sick fuck.
Re: [FairfieldLife] What changes belief?
On Dec 1, 2008, at 3:09 PM, Bhairitu wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: I guess all I'm saying is that the fundamentalists who declare that only their theory is correct may simply not have had the breadth of experience that the people they consider fools have had. If I had not had the kinds of experiences I've had, a belief in reincarnation might be for me a Purely Intellectual Belief, the way it appears to be for them. But that's not the case. Reincarnation makes sense to me because it is consistent with experiences that long predated ever hearing about it as a theory. Fundamentalists are mostly literalists. They understand things only at a very basic level. OTOH, if you want to go deep enough there really isn't any proof that anything exists. This existence can be and may be nothing more than an illusion. How can you prove otherwise? Ah yes, the empty piano falls on your empty head--but you still die. Why? :-) The paradox of emptiness and form; form and emptiness. The witness has to be dissolved to where we grok the two as coemergent properties in our own (unconventional) experience. It cannot be resolved via the intellect alone.
[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: ...that's what the total number of American troops killed in the Iraq War represent as a percentage of all American troops killed in all wars America has fought: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html The number should be zero. There should have been no war in Iraq. Or do you advocate using young people as cannon fodder? I'm not advocating anything. All I'm doing is reproducing some statistics to put the Iraq War in perspective. -snip- in terms of putting the war in perspective, although it may be a tiny percentage when compared to other wars, we as humans don't evaluate it that way, essentially as a rounding error and who cares who died. instinctively we each know that for each soldier or civilian killed, if that was our brother, sister, child or spouse, the statistic goes way above .5 percent, to 50% or more, of our family, or closest loved ones died. this then is why so many people detest war, not for its comparitive statistics, but for its direct impact.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] For Reincarnation they are making specific claims about having memories of what actually existed in the world when they were alive before. So in principle they can be tested. We may not know what happens after death, but if someone claims that they DO know because they can remember specifics of having lived before it can be tested. To an extent - but there is something about Death that seems to leave us always *locked out*. After all - let's say I claim I was Blackbeard the pirate in a previous life. When challenged by scoffers I say I am so confident of my recollections that I can prove it. I *remember* the location of a small island where I (Blackbeard) buried my treasure. Let's go there and we'll dig it up! OK - suppose we put that to the test. We go to some remote island. I count six half paces from the third palm tree from the north beach, start digging - and shiver me timbers - there be a treasure chest. It has to be said that (as far as I know), tests like these never seem to work out for reincarnation. But even if they did, all we can say is this: Something very odd is going on. Reincarnation could explain it - but so could other equally challenging conjectures. For example this:- Perhaps I have some strong psychic abilities with which I can indeed do a remarkable thing (viz. divine the thoughts of a dead pirate that are somehow still echoing or reverberating in the ether today.). If true, that means that I am mistaken and confused in thinking I WAS Blackbeard. I have a special ability, but my understanding of my own ability is false. So the question is: How could you ever test between these two competing explanations? There is a similar barrier to empirical experiment with near-death experience. I read a while back that they were setting up tests in a London hospital. I think the plan was to leave some odd objects in places that could not be seen by a patient under normal circumstances, but might be visible to someone *looking back at their body* after *death*. I don't know how they have got on, but interesting as it is, I don't see how it could ever establish anything about *life after death*. I think if someone could indeed correctly refer to these things after being resuscitated, we would reasonably conclude that shows the person wasn't dead. But how could the patient have seen something hidden away on the top of a cupboard or some such? Well that would be remarkable - but to explain this as the astral travelling of a dead soul around the ceiling ignores other possible (but still extraordinary) possibilities. Isn't it easier to believe that minds may have psychic abilities and in this case the non-dead patient may have somehow read the mind of the experimenter? Perhaps brains slip easier in to weird mode when under stress and close to death! It just seems that death presents a knowledge barrier that we can never get past... (I think the near death experiments were being organised by Peter Fenwick, one of the early researchers into TM)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi introducing Guru Dev
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 12:29 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi introducing Guru Dev In the movement mindset, I always assumed that this claim meant that Guru Dev was using magic to support the place without cash. Now I think this is unlikely at best. Of course he might have had an inheritance that he could direct to the math so outside money was not needed. The movement story is that Guru Dev had a magic box and that whenever he needed money, he opened it and found what he needed in there. Haven't you heard that story? I had heard this. Probably generated by the very imaginative Dr. Varma. I was just trying to make sense out of what Maharishi was claiming without resorting to that explanation. I was trying to go the route of good will intentions rather than my usual assumption of bamboozlement. In that case there could coexist a separate material source of funds but Maharishi was just letting the individual devotee off the hook for contributions. I would like this version to be true.
[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] (do.rflex speaking about Shemp:) What a sick fuck. And you, Bongo Brazil, exemplify perfect mental health. It's always so much fun dialoging with you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I think you have a knack for isolating a pretty clean version of experience sans belief. It took me quite a few years to understand it. (assuming that I actually do!) But for most people who have these experiences, they quickly do make statements about what it means and then they are subject to the WTF line of epistemological questioning just like everybody else. The thing is, Curtis, I don't see the skeptics merely criticizing the what I think this exper- ience means thing in people who believe things they don't. I see a lot of them trying to chal- lenge the experiences *themselves*.\ Stu is taking a challenging position by referring to these beliefs as delusions. I am not on board with that. I'm more Sam Harris to his Christopher Hitchins in the non saints of this POV. They seem almost compelled to come up with ration- alizations to explain away the person's exper- iences. And those rationalizations may be valid. Then again, they might not be. To claim that a person's experiences aren't what he thinks they are just because you can think of a theory that paints them in a different light strikes me as the height of hubris. Or it could be a sincere attempt to understand the phenomenon. I don't have an apriori stake in these experiences meaning that a person had past lives. I just haven't been convinced by the evidence yet. That doesn't give me a license to be a dick about it. (Not that that always stops me.) Why is the skeptic's theory any more valid than the believer's theory? It seems to me that what's going on is just a dick-size contest: My theory has a longer dick than yours. The discussion with Stu has taken on some of that character but it doesn't have to. And I have appreciated the point that no one has the definitive answer on this topic. A true skeptic should be just as skeptical of his own theories. I haven't found that to be a problem in our discussions even when I believe that my POV is righter than yours. I am not against a person expressing their convictions that are different from mine and I don't always assume they are trying to alpha chimp me using beliefs as a bone to bludgeon my furry ape head. I think this is Sam Harris's main point. That we don't have to give a person a pass on claims just because they came from an inner source once they cross the threshold of talking about their meaning. And I don't perceive the threshold the same way you do. I don't think that a person *talking about* their experience and saying, This was just my experience; make what you want of it has crossed any threshold that demands that you must challenge it. Well we are on an online forum for such discussions, so I think it is a fair assumption that anything we post is up for grabs. The threshold, for me, is when the believer talks about his beliefs and casts them as Truth, as The Way Things Are, You Betcha. Or when the believer tries to sell you his beliefs. When a person does this, then you might have the right to come after them with a stiff dick. But if they just say, Hey...this is what my experience is, and what I make of it, YMMV, I don't see what the big issue is. I don't have any issues with the beliefs and experiences you posted. I enjoy them. You seem willing to discuss them and have already looked at alternate explanations, so I think we are on the same page of respect for your personal perspective. But Stu being an enthusiastic advocate of his position creates the kind of discussion that brings out interesting points on this topic. The choice of tone is a personal matter that I only address when it is aimed at me! Or if I just want to jump in and comment on someone's post just to be a dick. Yeah. I'm deep like that!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Wouldn't it be a trip...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...if what happened to you subjectively when you die was completely a result of what you believed would happen to you? The Mormons would go to a Mormon heaven. (Which, if you've ever spent any time in Utah, might be the same thing that other people would call Hell.) The Christians would go to a Christian heaven, and be issued harps and wings at the door. At least some of them would. Others, who really got off more on guilt than they did inspiration, might believe that they were going straight to Hell or Purgatory when they died. And so they would. Those who believe that consciousness just blinks out and there is nothing but darkness would blink out. End of story. Those who believe in reincarnation would reincarnate. And those who don't have any beliefs at all about what happens to them when they die would be shit out of luck. :-) Eh, such theories abound in reincarnation circles, I think: you get the heaven you expect which is just another illusion, according to some. L
[FairfieldLife] Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security
Do we need this? I don't think so. Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security By Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott Tyson Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, December 1, 2008; A01 The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials. The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said. There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement. More here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217_pf.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] What changes belief?
Vaj wrote: On Dec 1, 2008, at 3:09 PM, Bhairitu wrote: TurquoiseB wrote: I guess all I'm saying is that the fundamentalists who declare that only their theory is correct may simply not have had the breadth of experience that the people they consider fools have had. If I had not had the kinds of experiences I've had, a belief in reincarnation might be for me a Purely Intellectual Belief, the way it appears to be for them. But that's not the case. Reincarnation makes sense to me because it is consistent with experiences that long predated ever hearing about it as a theory. Fundamentalists are mostly literalists. They understand things only at a very basic level. OTOH, if you want to go deep enough there really isn't any proof that anything exists. This existence can be and may be nothing more than an illusion. How can you prove otherwise? Ah yes, the empty piano falls on your empty head--but you still die. Why? :-) Are you sure about that? Maybe it just happens to the other beings in the illusion. But I'm not going to test the thesis. :-D The paradox of emptiness and form; form and emptiness. The witness has to be dissolved to where we grok the two as coemergent properties in our own (unconventional) experience. It cannot be resolved via the intellect alone.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Saving Free Enterprise
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: Similarly we have people in impoverished nations who believe they have to have lots of children so some will survive to take care of them in old age. Education and some retirement programs would solve the problem there. I recently heard the oceanographer Robert Ballard say that the way to manage overpopulation would be to empower women worldwide. He said the average age at which a female becomes a mother, worldwide, is 14. Let me say that again. Take the age at which all the mothers in the world first became mothers, and calculate the average age at which they bear their first child. Turns out that age is 14 years old. Ballard observed that if you could raise that age to 20-something, you could flatten the population curve pretty quickly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you pointed out some valid points about the difficulty testing these theories. But I think that could be worked out if you had the kind of numbers of people willing to be tested that the reality of reincarnation would be expected (by me) to provide. If ALL of us have had many lives I would expect many many more examples of people coming up with the kind of details that could corroborate the claim. And if truth was created by consensus vote, I would vote for reincarnation to be true. I'm having a blast in my life, and am very pissed off that death has taken away people I love and care about. I would like this myth to be true. But I have to be honest with myself that I put a low probability on it. I do believe that we have only scratched the surface of understanding what our minds are capable of. We don't even know how most birds find their direction across large areas of flight paths. But I would like to see a bit more willingness for rigorous research on the part of believers. I often get the sense that they are too invested with the physiological benifits of such beliefs to be committed to a falsifiable testing standard. I guess we all make choices about what basket we are gunna put our eggs (this analogy has taken a weird turn). This is true of so called skeptics and believers both. No one believes everything from the many beliefs available to us from man's history. We are all skeptics and believers both. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: [snip] For Reincarnation they are making specific claims about having memories of what actually existed in the world when they were alive before. So in principle they can be tested. We may not know what happens after death, but if someone claims that they DO know because they can remember specifics of having lived before it can be tested. To an extent - but there is something about Death that seems to leave us always *locked out*. After all - let's say I claim I was Blackbeard the pirate in a previous life. When challenged by scoffers I say I am so confident of my recollections that I can prove it. I *remember* the location of a small island where I (Blackbeard) buried my treasure. Let's go there and we'll dig it up! OK - suppose we put that to the test. We go to some remote island. I count six half paces from the third palm tree from the north beach, start digging - and shiver me timbers - there be a treasure chest. It has to be said that (as far as I know), tests like these never seem to work out for reincarnation. But even if they did, all we can say is this: Something very odd is going on. Reincarnation could explain it - but so could other equally challenging conjectures. For example this:- Perhaps I have some strong psychic abilities with which I can indeed do a remarkable thing (viz. divine the thoughts of a dead pirate that are somehow still echoing or reverberating in the ether today.). If true, that means that I am mistaken and confused in thinking I WAS Blackbeard. I have a special ability, but my understanding of my own ability is false. So the question is: How could you ever test between these two competing explanations? There is a similar barrier to empirical experiment with near-death experience. I read a while back that they were setting up tests in a London hospital. I think the plan was to leave some odd objects in places that could not be seen by a patient under normal circumstances, but might be visible to someone *looking back at their body* after *death*. I don't know how they have got on, but interesting as it is, I don't see how it could ever establish anything about *life after death*. I think if someone could indeed correctly refer to these things after being resuscitated, we would reasonably conclude that shows the person wasn't dead. But how could the patient have seen something hidden away on the top of a cupboard or some such? Well that would be remarkable - but to explain this as the astral travelling of a dead soul around the ceiling ignores other possible (but still extraordinary) possibilities. Isn't it easier to believe that minds may have psychic abilities and in this case the non-dead patient may have somehow read the mind of the experimenter? Perhaps brains slip easier in to weird mode when under stress and close to death! It just seems that death presents a knowledge barrier that we can never get past... (I think the near death experiments were being organised by Peter Fenwick, one of the early researchers into TM)
[FairfieldLife] Re: About 1/2 of one percent...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: [snip] (do.rflex speaking about Shemp:) What a sick fuck. And you, Bongo Brazil, exemplify perfect mental health. It's always so much fun dialoging with you. I'm sure. Here's the key part of what Magoo snipped: In our never-ending discussions on global warming on this forum, it is inevitably brought up by those who believe in catastrophic man- made global warming that it is better to be safe than sorry; that we may not be 100% sure that global warming is going to cause the destruction in the future that people like Al Gore are predicting but when so much is at stake it's better to err on the side of safety. Well, is that not what Bush did with Iraq? No one could say with 100% certainty that Iraq had WMD but why not err on the side of safety? What we DID know was that Saddam had used them before, had attempted to build a nuclear facility -- which the Israelis bombed in '81 (and which I flew over on the very same day on return from my Kashmir TM course) -- and was an all-out nasty character...and if he wasn't letting people in and he did NOT have WMD, isn't Saddam to shoulder SOME of the blame? So why is it okay to be safe than sorry with global warming but not with Saddam Hussein? This is another clear example of Magoo's social pathology. Here he tries to compare working to stop polluting the earth to prevent massive deaths resulting from drastic climate changes in a globally agreed consensus that it's imperiative to address it - to invading a sovereign nation that has resulted in the deaths and injuries of millions of human beings. What a sick fuck.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security
remember *The*National*Guard*??? as i recall, they were supposed to do stuff like this...oh, right, they're all overseas fighting wars. this sounds like an excuse to expand the military and that is all. probably because the politicians can't convince us any other way, since the current wars are unpopular, they are reinventing the natl guard. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do we need this? I don't think so. Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security By Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott Tyson Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, December 1, 2008; A01 The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials. The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said. There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement. More here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217_pf.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: What changes belief?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu buttsplicer@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I guess all I'm saying is that the fundamentalists who declare that only their theory is correct may simply not have had the breadth of experience that the people they consider fools have had. If I had not had the kinds of experiences I've had, a belief in reincarnation might be for me a Purely Intellectual Belief, the way it appears to be for them. But that's not the case. Reincarnation makes sense to me because it is consistent with experiences that long predated ever hearing about it as a theory. So why do only a smattering of people have this delusion? Why am I not privy to voices in my head, past lives, alien probing and other plot contrivances from the X files? Dude, you just didn't pay the right dues in your past lives. (-: Kidding, really. :-) My real answer is, Beats the shit outa me, man. I have no fucking clue. Why do you insist that it's a delusion. You don't know *what* it is. You just have theories. Yea theories, but mine far more reasonable theories because they are grounded. In other words, reincarnation is a random fantasy. Of all the after death fantasies, reincarnation is but one route. Why choose the reincarnation fantasy over the pearly gates fantasy? And among the reincarnation fantasy is yours the one were your karma effects how you come back or is the your the one were things just cycle? Don't the Hindu's have an elaborate story where your next life is related to your own clan? Because there is no ground to this myth it can go anywhere and it has. On the other hand the Ashes to ashes and dust to dust speculation is grounded in rules we are familiar with. Our ego/personality is a construct developed as a survival necessity. Memories are collected in body tissue. Why wouldn't this stuff go away when the plug is pulled? We can observe occurrences of people in accidents or with sever pathologies who loose memory and personality. Why shouldn't death have the same effect as an injury on the personality of the individual? Sure - you claim to have these deep memories of a past life - but there is plenty of psychological evidence to explain this as the result of a healthy psyche. It may not be a delusion. Same goes for UFO's and sightings of the Virgin Mary - But I remain skeptical of the supernatural. I have had psychic experiences myself. Seen auras, read minds, saw a ghost, even witness weird coincidences. But all can be explained as the workings of a normal, healthy, creative mind. Sure they're fun experiences - and in one case spooked the shit out of some hotel employees - But really, how can I put credence in this stuff. For every delusion I have there is someone else with an equal and opposite delusion. Your reincarnation is another's judgement day. Who is correct? Start collecting delusions and eventually your not going to have a footing in this dear world of ours. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi introducing Guru Dev
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of curtisdeltablues Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 12:29 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi introducing Guru Dev In the movement mindset, I always assumed that this claim meant that Guru Dev was using magic to support the place without cash. Now I think this is unlikely at best. Of course he might have had an inheritance that he could direct to the math so outside money was not needed. The movement story is that Guru Dev had a magic box and that whenever he needed money, he opened it and found what he needed in there. Haven't you heard that story? I had heard this. Probably generated by the very imaginative Dr. Varma. I was just trying to make sense out of what Maharishi was claiming without resorting to that explanation. I was trying to go the route of good will intentions rather than my usual assumption of bamboozlement. In that case there could coexist a separate material source of funds but Maharishi was just letting the individual devotee off the hook for contributions. I would like this version to be true. no reason the magic money making box couldn't have existed. just as we are talking about other subjects that can't be proven, this one can't either. but rather than declare the lack of proof as the reason the magic money making box couldn't have existed, i'd rather turn that reasoning on its head, and say that is the reason the money making box could've existed. there is a 50-50 probability.
[FairfieldLife] Is decider a legitimate word?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decider
[FairfieldLife] Ha ha ha! Idiot Bongo Brazil contradicts his hero Obama!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] This is another clear example of Magoo's social pathology. Here he tries to compare working to stop polluting the earth to prevent massive deaths resulting from drastic climate changes in a globally agreed consensus that it's imperiative to address it - to invading a sovereign nation that has resulted in the deaths and injuries of millions of human beings. What a sick fuck. Putting aside the millions of human beings part of that (no more than 80,000 Iraqi civilians have died; about 4,000 American troops), let's zero in on his invading a sovereign nation comment: 1) During the campaign, Barack Obama supported the idea of going after Osamb Bin Laden in SOVEREIGN Pakistani territory...WITHOUT the permission of Pakistan! 2) Just today, the above statement came back to haunt Obama when he was asked at a press conference whether India had that same right to invade a sovereign nation like Pakistan without their permission vis a vis the recent terrorist attacks in India. Obama reiterated his campaign statement by saying: I think sovereign nations have the right to defend themselves...and I'll limit my comment to that. Wow. Did Obama just give India the green light to invade Pakistan? Or at least bomb terrorist targets within the borders of Pakistan? H
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi introducing Guru Dev
no reason the magic money making box couldn't have existed. Sure there is. It violates many laws of how shit works that we have discovered. just as we are talking about other subjects that can't be proven, this one can't either. An accountant would be able to eliminate most of the obvious sources for the funds that ran the Math and locate the actual accounts the money came from. This is the kind of rumor that exists because we don't have access to the Math's financial records. but rather than declare the lack of proof as the reason the magic money making box couldn't have existed, i'd rather turn that reasoning on its head, and say that is the reason the money making box could've existed. there is a 50-50 probability. Then you are taking an extreme skeptical position on our ability to know things within probabilities. All options are not equally likely or we would never be able to advance out knowledge. It isn't just a lack of proof that makes this claim unlikely. It is our confidence in how the world works from our collective experiences. Just because we can be wrong or have incomplete knowledge about reality doesn't mean we can't ever be confident in our probability choices for knowledge. And in this case extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof because it violates all sorts of well founded beliefs on how the world functions from our experience. Now if many of us had experienced boxes that could generate currency that was magically valid in the banking system of a country (I believe it was coins or bills rather than raw gold that the box was supposed to produce)then the odds of Guru Dev having his very own would go up. But I sure haven't seen one or heard about one except in this movement rumor so the odds for me go way, way down. The movement story is that Guru Dev had a magic box and that whenever he needed money, he opened it and found what he needed in there. Haven't you heard that story? I had heard this. Probably generated by the very imaginative Dr. Varma. I was just trying to make sense out of what Maharishi was claiming without resorting to that explanation. I was trying to go the route of good will intentions rather than my usual assumption of bamboozlement. In that case there could coexist a separate material source of funds but Maharishi was just letting the individual devotee off the hook for contributions. I would like this version to be true. no reason the magic money making box couldn't have existed. just as we are talking about other subjects that can't be proven, this one can't either. but rather than declare the lack of proof as the reason the magic money making box couldn't have existed, i'd rather turn that reasoning on its head, and say that is the reason the money making box could've existed. there is a 50-50 probability.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ha ha ha! Idiot Bongo Brazil contradicts his hero Obama!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip 1) During the campaign, Barack Obama supported the idea of going after Osamb Bin Laden in SOVEREIGN Pakistani territory...WITHOUT the permission of Pakistan! 2) Just today, the above statement came back to haunt Obama when he was asked at a press conference whether India had that same right to invade a sovereign nation like Pakistan without their permission (BTW, that's the definition of invasion, going into a country without its permission.) vis a vis the recent terrorist attacks in India. Obama reiterated his campaign statement by saying: I think sovereign nations have the right to defend themselves...and I'll limit my comment to that. Wow. Did Obama just give India the green light to invade Pakistan? Or at least bomb terrorist targets within the borders of Pakistan? H You nitwit. Nobody believes sovereign nations don't have the right to defend themselves. That light is always green. He was making a minimalist generic statement, not addressing the India/Pakistan situation (or his earlier campaign statement, for that matter).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Solid Proof of Re-Imcarnation.
So now I am one of you guys and only Curtis is left with no afterlife. No wonder he sings the blues. I'm not sweating it because I'm counting on being invited to join someone else's afterlife party. There is always room for a guy who can bang the devil's sting box! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: [Margovan wrote:] Curtis, Joerg's sanctimonious tone is certainly irritating but comparing him to the Mumbai terrorists is a little harsh. Boy, I'll say. The notion of reincarnation seems to really upset the skeptics for some reason. I'm not upset. I was mostly reacting to a thread that used the words solid proof. WTF? Since discussing this I am will to revise my life after death fantasy. In the middle ages xtians were afraid of being hit by lightening because they knew that they would die instantly and would not have time for proper contrition with a priest. This meant purgatory for eternity. It was this experience that led Luther to react against the church. I have decided I am going with this delusion. Seems as reasonable as the versions of reincarnation. So now I am one of you guys and only Curtis is left with no afterlife. No wonder he sings the blues. s. How can a person who meditates twice a day along with a regular yoga practice be upset at anything? I pretty much go with the flow.
