[FairfieldLife] Re: "The Big Nothing"
Interesting but makes sense, thanks Judy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Quote from a book review in Boston.com: > > "Since time immemorial, curious people have asked where the universe came from. Nowadays we have a secular answer: the Big Bang. And yet that answer, incredible as it may be, is only partially satisfying. After all, we can still ask where the Big Bang came from; and we can still wonder, sensibly enough, how something (the universe) could come from nothing (whatever came before it). > > "In his new book, On Being, Peter Atkins, a British chemist and science writer, offers an intriguing answer to those questions. To understand how something can come out of nothing, he writes, you have to appreciate the fact that 'there probably isn't anything here anyway.'... > > "...The Big Bang doesn't mark, necessarily, the creation of something out of nothingInstead, it marks the emergence of texture, differentiation, and particularity out of even, unchanging featurelessness. It's not something out of nothing, but interestingness out of boredom." > > > Read more: > > http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2011/06/the_big_nothing\ .html > > http://tinyurl.com/43gjwv8 >
[FairfieldLife] What's happening down stream?
"Explosives blew apart a levee in Pottawattamie County, Iowa July 1, Friday morning. According to a news release, a group of private citizens representing the Vanman #30 levee intentionally breached a half-mile stretch of levee from river mile marker 637 to 637.5 around 10 a.mso that floodwater on the farm ground could go back to the [Missouri] river." "These levees are saturated. We have the most water on them for the longest period of time we've ever had. This levee gets blown and we saw a several inch rise in the river shortly thereafter, so even a three or four inch pulse coming down the river when we're looking at every half inch as being significant is a fairly big event." http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/124871614.html Arnie Gundersen on CNN: "Sandbags and nuclear power shouldn't be put in the same sentence." He's concerned about the emergency service pumps at Fort Calhoun taking on more water but since the Cooper plant is still operating, it would take longer to cool in an emergency and should shut down to get ahead of the problem. http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/gundersen-june-29-2011-video
[FairfieldLife] Re: "The Big Nothing"
HA! Busted. Loved this; thank you, Judy! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Quote from a book review in Boston.com: > > "Since time immemorial, curious people have asked where the universe came > from. Nowadays we have a secular answer: the Big Bang. And yet that answer, > incredible as it may be, is only partially satisfying. After all, we can > still ask where the Big Bang came from; and we can still wonder, sensibly > enough, how something (the universe) could come from nothing (whatever came > before it). > > "In his new book, On Being, Peter Atkins, a British chemist and science > writer, offers an intriguing answer to those questions. To understand how > something can come out of nothing, he writes, you have to appreciate the fact > that 'there probably isn't anything here anyway.'... > > "...The Big Bang doesn't mark, necessarily, the creation of something out of > nothingInstead, it marks the emergence of texture, differentiation, and > particularity out of even, unchanging featurelessness. It's not something out > of nothing, but interestingness out of boredom." > > > Read more: > > http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2011/06/the_big_nothing.html > > http://tinyurl.com/43gjwv8 >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Record Corporate Profits and the Rich -vs- Everybody Else
In the Bay Area we are used to boom and bust cycles. When it is booming, work for corporate. When it slows down, pull a contract. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016" wrote: > > > No. > Perhaps you were thinking, "if Corporate Profits were LOWER, the deficit > would have been 'worse'. > -Mainstream > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Record Corporate Profits, the GOP's Wet Dream - But where's the ' > > > Trickle-Down ' ? > > > > > > > Hey, if taxes had been higher, the deficit would have been *worse*!!! > > > > Isn't that self-evident? > > > > > > L. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Record Corporate Profits and the Rich -vs- Everybody Else
No. Perhaps you were thinking, "if Corporate Profits were LOWER, the deficit would have been 'worse'. -Mainstream --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > > > > > > > > Record Corporate Profits, the GOP's Wet Dream - But where's the ' > > Trickle-Down ' ? > > > > Hey, if taxes had been higher, the deficit would have been *worse*!!! > > Isn't that self-evident? > > > L. >
[FairfieldLife] "The Big Nothing"
Quote from a book review in Boston.com: "Since time immemorial, curious people have asked where the universe came from. Nowadays we have a secular answer: the Big Bang. And yet that answer, incredible as it may be, is only partially satisfying. After all, we can still ask where the Big Bang came from; and we can still wonder, sensibly enough, how something (the universe) could come from nothing (whatever came before it). "In his new book, On Being, Peter Atkins, a British chemist and science writer, offers an intriguing answer to those questions. To understand how something can come out of nothing, he writes, you have to appreciate the fact that 'there probably isn't anything here anyway.'... "...The Big Bang doesn't mark, necessarily, the creation of something out of nothingInstead, it marks the emergence of texture, differentiation, and particularity out of even, unchanging featurelessness. It's not something out of nothing, but interestingness out of boredom." Read more: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2011/06/the_big_nothing.html http://tinyurl.com/43gjwv8
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Gulf of Mexico continues to Heat Up...'
Excuse me. Aren't you the one who's surrounded by flames? Perhaps you might suck your own concoction. Of course wishing death on someone is not "life supporting", and neither is the prospect of another right-wing Texas governor as President. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > Oh my, the *hate*! Mainline, a little skullcap tea, daily, might cool that > raging pitta. BTW, is wishing death on someone *life supporting* thought? > > > > From: mainstream20016 > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sun, July 3, 2011 1:51:53 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Gulf of Mexico continues to Heat Up...' > > Â > > > If all tropical storms and hurricanes would be guaranteed to refrain from > hitting neighboring states, and only hit Texas instead, then I'd support your > wish. However, the risk of devastation to neighboring states is too great to > wish for tropical storms and hurricanes. > > > That is not saying that Nature's fury cannot bring beneficent results. While > you > wish for the drenching effect of tropical storms and hurricanes to douse the > extreme pitta planet of Texas, perhaps nature's heat wave in Texas has a > different plan that would be welcomed to bring good to all - such as the > spontaneous combustion of Texas Governor Rick Perry on an outdoor public > stage > during his announcement that he will be a candidate for President. > > -Mainstream > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > > > Texas could use a couple or three direct hits from hurricanes or tropical > >storms > > > > over the next few months. Even the pine trees are starting to turn brown > > and > > we've already lost the Capitol of the Age of Enlightenment in Navasota Tx > > due > >to > > > > wildfires. The rice fields will be bone dry, no ducks! > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Robert > > To: fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sun, July 3, 2011 3:45:59 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] 'Gulf of Mexico continues to Heat Up...' > > > > ÃÂ > > Hurricaine season is underway, as the gulf heats up with heat waves across > > Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California... > > Fires in Arizona and Texas this season, have been historical... > > Stay tuned. > > > > Agni and Indra > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Monk Levitates Discovery Channel, The Supernaturalist
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays wrote: > > My brother told me about the below three-minute excerpt from the July > 1st episode of The Discovery Channel's "The Supernaturalist." Enjoy. > > http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/the-supernaturalist-levitation.html > This is pure trickery and obvious staging. Loved all the candles. Dick, I hope a patchwork quilt hiding a levitation lift, odd jumpy camera angles and spooky music didn't fool you into believing the video is real. Well, did it? Fess up.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Monk Levitates Discovery Channel, The Supernaturalist
I was curious too when the "floater" wanted to get closer to the curtains, and aside from one quick side shot of the space between the monk's back and curtains, that was it, everything else shot from the front. The film also stops before he settles back to earth. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > "Excuse me, but if I don't move near the fabric screen that hides the lift > device, my magic doesn't work. Ah good, the lift can now engage like every > levitation done in vaudeville routines in front of a curtain. Please shoot > from the front to maintain the magic vibe." > > > This "magician" host blurs the lines of ethics of his profession. He is over > the line I respect in practicers of his art, who in the tradition of Harry > Houdini, helped people see through flim-flam, while amazing them at the same > time with skilful acts of theatrical "magic". Using it to promote bullshit > seems like a violation of that tradition. The public should be able to look > to magicians to help us determine frauds, not to give them false credibility. > > Damn, I almost fell. When did they make soap boxes this high? > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays wrote: > > > > My brother told me about the below three-minute excerpt from the July > > 1st episode of The Discovery Channel's "The Supernaturalist." Enjoy. > > > > http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/the-supernaturalist-levitation.html > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Monk Levitates Discovery Channel, The Supernaturalist
"Excuse me, but if I don't move near the fabric screen that hides the lift device, my magic doesn't work. Ah good, the lift can now engage like every levitation done in vaudeville routines in front of a curtain. Please shoot from the front to maintain the magic vibe." This "magician" host blurs the lines of ethics of his profession. He is over the line I respect in practicers of his art, who in the tradition of Harry Houdini, helped people see through flim-flam, while amazing them at the same time with skilful acts of theatrical "magic". Using it to promote bullshit seems like a violation of that tradition. The public should be able to look to magicians to help us determine frauds, not to give them false credibility. Damn, I almost fell. When did they make soap boxes this high? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays wrote: > > My brother told me about the below three-minute excerpt from the July > 1st episode of The Discovery Channel's "The Supernaturalist." Enjoy. > > http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/the-supernaturalist-levitation.html >
[FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > So let's get this straight, a business owner risks his > > > > > > time and capital and now that he's Rich you want to go > > > > > > in there, take his money, and tell him where he must > > > > > > spend it? > > > > > > > > > > FYI, the government is currently taking a *record > > > > > low* percentage of the income of the wealthiest in > > > > > this country. > > > > > > > > > > > What gives you the right to do such a thing? > > > > > > > > > > The same thing that gives the business owner the right > > > > > to take advantage of what the government supplies for > > > > > the common good in order to make his money. > > > > > > > > > > The business owner also needs to recognize that for his > > > > > business to be successful, he needs a *market*, people > > > > > who can afford to buy the products he makes or the > > > > > services he supplies. If a huge percentage of the money > > > > > in the country is flowing to the wealthy while the income > > > > > of the rest of the population is increasingly squeezed > > > > > just to pay for shelter and food, where is the business > > > > > owner going to sell his products or services? > > > > > > > > > > The kind of economy in which the wealthy business owner > > > > > can continue to prosper is dependent on the financial > > > > > well-being of everybody else. > > > > > > > > > > It's in the business owner's *self-interest* to pay taxes > > > > > so the government can fund the services he depends on to > > > > > run his business (e.g., highways). It's in his *self- > > > > > interest* to pay taxes so the government can fund social > > > > > programs that enable people to maintain a decent standard > > > > > of living. > > > > > > > > > > Are you familiar with the story about killing the goose > > > > > that laid the golden egg? > > > > > > > > Sorry Judy, I wouldn't know where to begin to unravel that, > > > > we'll just have to agree to disagree, (any takers?) > > > > > > You mean, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the > > > facts"? Sure, your choice. > > > > > > > wgm4u probably believes these "facts" as well: > > 1. Obama is a socialist. > > 2. The economic collapse of 2008 was brought about by too much regulation. > > 3. The New Deal caused the Depression. > > 4. Hitler was a left-winger. > > 5. Stalin killed more people than Hitler did. > > 6. Joe McCarthy was right. > > 7. In 1970, most returning Vietnam veterans supported Nixon and detested > > the hippies who spat on them. They especially despised Jane Fonda. > > 8. Free trade helped America to prosper in the 19th century. > > 9. A great company like Toyota can grow only if a government follows strict > > laissez-faire policies. > > 10. Lower taxes on the rich increase government revenues. > > 11. A left-wing conspiracy controls the media. > > 12. Milton Friedman and the libertarian Chicago school economists improved > > the quality of life in Latin America. > > > > "Those converted to the twelve points listed above will never revise their > > opinions, no matter how persuasive the counter-evidence. People believe > > what they want to believe. They will accept any argument, however absurd, > > from those who flatter their preconceptions." > > http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2011/07/moo-moo-moo.html > > You guys (and gals) are just too smart for me, hey did you notice that Gov. > Walker saved a school district in Wisconsin by eliminating the Unions > collective bargaining rights? > http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/06/union-curbs-rescue-wisconsin-school-district > Jon Stewart interviewed historian and author Diane Ravitch on "The Daily Show" to discuss education reform. Ravitch says Finland has 100% unionized public schools and leads the world in education. American education reform is on the wrong track. Our preoccupation with standardized testing, teacher bashing, charter schools and union busting cannot remedy an education crisis as long as poverty and racial inequality continue to plague schools. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-3-2011/diane-ravitch Privatized schools are a scam. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xe36qr_grittv-diane-ravitch-charter-school_news
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Jul 02 00:00:00 2011 End Date (UTC): Sat Jul 09 00:00:00 2011 192 messages as of (UTC) Mon Jul 04 00:05:28 2011 18 whynotnow7 15 Yifu 13 authfriend 12 seventhray1 11 turquoiseb 11 Bhairitu 10 sparaig 9 RoryGoff 8 raunchydog 8 cardemaister 7 Buck 6 wgm4u 6 Robert 6 Rick Archer 6 Denise Evans 5 maskedzebra 5 Mike Dixon 4 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 3 nablusoss1008 3 emptybill 3 Tom Pall 3 Sal Sunshine 3 "do.rflex" 2 feste37 2 Vaj 2 Ravi Yogi 2 John 2 Bob Price 1 wayback71 1 richardjwilliamstexas 1 merlin 1 mainstream20016 1 curtisdeltablues 1 wle...@aol.com 1 Dick Mays Posters: 35 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Monk Levitates Discovery Channel, The Supernaturalist
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Jul 3, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Dick Mays wrote: > > > My brother told me about the below three-minute excerpt from the July 1st > > episode of The Discovery Channel's "The Supernaturalist." Enjoy. > > > > http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/the-supernaturalist-levitation.html > > There have been legitimate flying groups in the Kathmandu valley for many > years now. > HErbert Benson was introduced to some buddhist monks by the Dalai Lama who were to show him levitation. All he saw were guys who could stand up and manage to sit in lotus position while falling (variation of "sitting in the air?"). One of the monks explained to Benson that his grandfather was much better at it than he was. Lawson.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Record Corporate Profits and the Rich -vs- Everybody Else
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > > > > Record Corporate Profits, the GOP's Wet Dream - But where's the ' > Trickle-Down ' ? > Hey, if taxes had been higher, the deficit would have been *worse*!!! Isn't that self-evident? L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Monk Levitates Discovery Channel, The Supernaturalist
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > On Jul 3, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Dick Mays wrote: > > > My brother told me about the below three-minute excerpt from the July 1st > > episode of The Discovery Channel's "The Supernaturalist." Enjoy. > > > > http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/the-supernaturalist-levitation.html Nice trick well done :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Monk Levitates Discovery Channel, The Supernaturalist
But this guy looks like many of the charlatans... On Jul 3, 2011, at 6:18 PM, Vaj wrote: > On Jul 3, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Dick Mays wrote: > >> My brother told me about the below three-minute excerpt from the July 1st >> episode of The Discovery Channel's "The Supernaturalist." Enjoy. >> >> http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/the-supernaturalist-levitation.html > > There have been legitimate flying groups in the Kathmandu valley for many > years now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
Yep, nice set of questions and assertions. However, it is even more convoluted than that because Aquinas was an Aristotelian. He depended upon that particular type of externalized thinking and could therefore declare everything else to be a matter of subjective experiences of a natural order. or Aquinas anything outside of such a natural order could never be discovered by humans but only revealed by a "supernatural god", in this case the interventionist God of Jewish-Christian mythic history. For someone to declare, with a straight face, that this is anything other than a mythologized belief system (i.e. "it is the reality of things") is only possible if they have fooled themselves into forgoing all self-reflection. . --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > My grandfather was a fascinating guy, started as a professional violinist, became a scientist and help develop the gasses that killed the Germans in the trenches in WWI,(cough, cough, ouch) became a successful enough businessman to have a wing of the Albany NY hospital named for him for his philanthropy. He smoked a Meerschaum pipe and used to discuss Darwin's theories with me at age 10. > > He was driving with his son-in-law, my Dad, one day when they passed a sign for a Church named the Church of the Assumption. > > "Aren't they all" he quipped. > > Perhaps a discussion about how MZ (do we still need to continue this name? Are you trying to keep your real name off the list for search engines which is understandable. Let me know if I can use your name which seems a bit more connected at this point in our discussions.) > > Looong digression sorry, I was wondering if it is possible to have a discussion about the source of your confidence in the Summa as a statement of ultimate reality with a person like myself whose interest will never rise above a superficial, dilettante level. > > But even in a cursory reading at the beginning some of the tenants it is based on become obvious. One of his answers in Article 8 (I am snipping like crazy because this can get out of hand so fast with so much material. > > "Reply to Objection 2. This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been made. Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest." > > Unless I have taken this wildly out of context or have misunderstood his intent completely, it appears that DJ T to the A (little hip hop rename to lighten the discussion but avoiding the more obvious T AND A abbreviation which was of course the first one to cross my mind) is revealing the epistemological ground he is standing on. And no matter how rigorously he makes his case from this point forward, I am always left with my finger in the air going: > > "Excuse me but let's go back to that fist principle thing again. The one you are basing on faith." > > So my issues will have to come out in a jumble and perhaps MZ or anyone else interested might find something of interest to correct of discuss. > > We know how the Bible was created, chosen out of a bunch of optional accounts. We know the scanty info in the scriptures that blossomed through the Church through the centuries into the fully articulated details of theology of the church Aquinas uses as the foundation for his work. So we are not dealing with Aquinas as the source of information from divine revelation if we have confidence in the doctrine. We are relying on many many hidden contributors to the theology whose opinions (dare I?) have become an indisputable basis for people's faith in this take on the ultimate reality. > > It seems as if we are putting a lot of faith in a lot of unknown people. I guess in the Catholic church it has to do with the papal infallibility with regard to, matters of doctrine but that seems a bit out of place for our modern confidence knowing what we do about these guys through history. > > Needless to say, I am not inclined to take any article of faith as a firm basis for knowledge. I have seen to many instances of people being so confidently full of it. In particular I have had plenty of interaction with churchy types in and out of the Catholic tradition and I am left with a total lack of confidence that their surety is based on anything I respect. They are sure because they are sure. > > Been there, done that, rejected that. > > So I'd better make a concise point quickly. > > In TM our state WAS the self evident knowledge. Catch the universal buzz, feel the oneness, it seems to match the scriptural poetry shoved at us as authoritative about reality, and you gained surety. Pat on the back from the enlightened one himself and it is a done deal, you KNOW. If
[FairfieldLife] Re: What kind of meditation did the Buddha teach?
"While they may in fact require no more strenuous practice than TM'ers re-introducing their mantra to their mind." Yep, we're getting so old that it's no longer good enough that we were "introduced" to our meditation mantra way back when. Yep, we can't be practicing correctly if we simply remember it as originally given. Now we are declared to have "Alzheimer mantra syndrome" where the mantra needs to be "re-introduced" to our mind because we have forgotten it. Must just be like reintroducing our spouse and children to us again at a cousin's funeral when the family gathers to pay their respects. Looking puzzled: "You say you're who? "So you really are?" "Well I'll be damned!" "Do I have any more?" "Golly, I thought I must've given that one up for good." . --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > Here is the large TM assertion recycled, that buddhistic practices necesarily require 'strenuous practice' and therefore are no good. While they may in fact require no more strenuous practice than TM'ers re-introducing their mantra to their mind. This TM paper has a large assumption that is quintessential TM think. That TM is the best and only. It's the argument of the TM 'preparatory' lecture received prior to learning TM. It is marketing. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" rick@ wrote: > > > > Scholarly article on Buddhist meditation, contemporary mindfulness > > practices, and the Transcendental Meditation technique by Dr. Evan > > Finkelstein. > > > > http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/07/the-buddhas-meditation--dr-evan-f\ inke > > lstein/ > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Monk Levitates Discovery Channel, The Supernaturalist
On Jul 3, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Dick Mays wrote: > My brother told me about the below three-minute excerpt from the July 1st > episode of The Discovery Channel's "The Supernaturalist." Enjoy. > > http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/the-supernaturalist-levitation.html There have been legitimate flying groups in the Kathmandu valley for many years now.
[FairfieldLife] Monk Levitates Discovery Channel, The Supernaturalist
My brother told me about the below three-minute excerpt from the July 1st episode of The Discovery Channel's "The Supernaturalist." Enjoy. http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/the-supernaturalist-levitation.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Gulf of Mexico continues to Heat Up...'
Oh my, the *hate*! Mainline, a little skullcap tea, daily, might cool that raging pitta. BTW, is wishing death on someone *life supporting* thought? From: mainstream20016 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, July 3, 2011 1:51:53 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Gulf of Mexico continues to Heat Up...' If all tropical storms and hurricanes would be guaranteed to refrain from hitting neighboring states, and only hit Texas instead, then I'd support your wish. However, the risk of devastation to neighboring states is too great to wish for tropical storms and hurricanes. That is not saying that Nature's fury cannot bring beneficent results. While you wish for the drenching effect of tropical storms and hurricanes to douse the extreme pitta planet of Texas, perhaps nature's heat wave in Texas has a different plan that would be welcomed to bring good to all - such as the spontaneous combustion of Texas Governor Rick Perry on an outdoor public stage during his announcement that he will be a candidate for President. -Mainstream --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > Texas could use a couple or three direct hits from hurricanes or tropical >storms > > over the next few months. Even the pine trees are starting to turn brown and > we've already lost the Capitol of the Age of Enlightenment in Navasota Tx due >to > > wildfires. The rice fields will be bone dry, no ducks! > > > > > > From: Robert > To: fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sun, July 3, 2011 3:45:59 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] 'Gulf of Mexico continues to Heat Up...' > > Â > Hurricaine season is underway, as the gulf heats up with heat waves across > Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California... > Fires in Arizona and Texas this season, have been historical... > Stay tuned. > > Agni and Indra >
[FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > So let's get this straight, a business owner risks his > > > > > time and capital and now that he's Rich you want to go > > > > > in there, take his money, and tell him where he must > > > > > spend it? > > > > > > > > FYI, the government is currently taking a *record > > > > low* percentage of the income of the wealthiest in > > > > this country. > > > > > > > > > What gives you the right to do such a thing? > > > > > > > > The same thing that gives the business owner the right > > > > to take advantage of what the government supplies for > > > > the common good in order to make his money. > > > > > > > > The business owner also needs to recognize that for his > > > > business to be successful, he needs a *market*, people > > > > who can afford to buy the products he makes or the > > > > services he supplies. If a huge percentage of the money > > > > in the country is flowing to the wealthy while the income > > > > of the rest of the population is increasingly squeezed > > > > just to pay for shelter and food, where is the business > > > > owner going to sell his products or services? > > > > > > > > The kind of economy in which the wealthy business owner > > > > can continue to prosper is dependent on the financial > > > > well-being of everybody else. > > > > > > > > It's in the business owner's *self-interest* to pay taxes > > > > so the government can fund the services he depends on to > > > > run his business (e.g., highways). It's in his *self- > > > > interest* to pay taxes so the government can fund social > > > > programs that enable people to maintain a decent standard > > > > of living. > > > > > > > > Are you familiar with the story about killing the goose > > > > that laid the golden egg? > > > > > > Sorry Judy, I wouldn't know where to begin to unravel that, > > > we'll just have to agree to disagree, (any takers?) > > > > You mean, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the > > facts"? Sure, your choice. > > > > wgm4u probably believes these "facts" as well: > 1. Obama is a socialist. > 2. The economic collapse of 2008 was brought about by too much regulation. > 3. The New Deal caused the Depression. > 4. Hitler was a left-winger. > 5. Stalin killed more people than Hitler did. > 6. Joe McCarthy was right. > 7. In 1970, most returning Vietnam veterans supported Nixon and detested the > hippies who spat on them. They especially despised Jane Fonda. > 8. Free trade helped America to prosper in the 19th century. > 9. A great company like Toyota can grow only if a government follows strict > laissez-faire policies. > 10. Lower taxes on the rich increase government revenues. > 11. A left-wing conspiracy controls the media. > 12. Milton Friedman and the libertarian Chicago school economists improved > the quality of life in Latin America. > > "Those converted to the twelve points listed above will never revise their > opinions, no matter how persuasive the counter-evidence. People believe what > they want to believe. They will accept any argument, however absurd, from > those who flatter their preconceptions." > http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2011/07/moo-moo-moo.html You guys (and gals) are just too smart for me, hey did you notice that Gov. Walker saved a school district in Wisconsin by eliminating the Unions collective bargaining rights? http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/06/union-curbs-rescue-wisconsin-school-district
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Gulf of Mexico continues to Heat Up...'
If all tropical storms and hurricanes would be guaranteed to refrain from hitting neighboring states, and only hit Texas instead, then I'd support your wish. However, the risk of devastation to neighboring states is too great to wish for tropical storms and hurricanes. That is not saying that Nature's fury cannot bring beneficent results. While you wish for the drenching effect of tropical storms and hurricanes to douse the extreme pitta planet of Texas, perhaps nature's heat wave in Texas has a different plan that would be welcomed to bring good to all - such as the spontaneous combustion of Texas Governor Rick Perry on an outdoor public stage during his announcement that he will be a candidate for President. -Mainstream --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon wrote: > > Texas could use a couple or three direct hits from hurricanes or tropical > storms > over the next few months. Even the pine trees are starting to turn brown and > we've already lost the Capitol of the Age of Enlightenment in Navasota Tx due > to > wildfires. The rice fields will be bone dry, no ducks! > > > > > > From: Robert > To: fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sun, July 3, 2011 3:45:59 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] 'Gulf of Mexico continues to Heat Up...' > > Â > Hurricaine season is underway, as the gulf heats up with heat waves across > Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California... > Fires in Arizona and Texas this season, have been historical... > Stay tuned. > > Agni and Indra >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America
On 07/03/2011 01:07 PM, raunchydog wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u" wrote: >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: >> > So let's get this straight, a business owner risks his > time and capital and now that he's Rich you want to go > in there, take his money, and tell him where he must > spend it? FYI, the government is currently taking a *record low* percentage of the income of the wealthiest in this country. > What gives you the right to do such a thing? The same thing that gives the business owner the right to take advantage of what the government supplies for the common good in order to make his money. The business owner also needs to recognize that for his business to be successful, he needs a *market*, people who can afford to buy the products he makes or the services he supplies. If a huge percentage of the money in the country is flowing to the wealthy while the income of the rest of the population is increasingly squeezed just to pay for shelter and food, where is the business owner going to sell his products or services? The kind of economy in which the wealthy business owner can continue to prosper is dependent on the financial well-being of everybody else. It's in the business owner's *self-interest* to pay taxes so the government can fund the services he depends on to run his business (e.g., highways). It's in his *self- interest* to pay taxes so the government can fund social programs that enable people to maintain a decent standard of living. Are you familiar with the story about killing the goose that laid the golden egg? >>> Sorry Judy, I wouldn't know where to begin to unravel that, >>> we'll just have to agree to disagree, (any takers?) >> You mean, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the >> facts"? Sure, your choice. >> > wgm4u probably believes these "facts" as well: > 1. Obama is a socialist. > 2. The economic collapse of 2008 was brought about by too much regulation. > 3. The New Deal caused the Depression. > 4. Hitler was a left-winger. > 5. Stalin killed more people than Hitler did. > 6. Joe McCarthy was right. > 7. In 1970, most returning Vietnam veterans supported Nixon and detested the > hippies who spat on them. They especially despised Jane Fonda. > 8. Free trade helped America to prosper in the 19th century. > 9. A great company like Toyota can grow only if a government follows strict > laissez-faire policies. > 10. Lower taxes on the rich increase government revenues. > 11. A left-wing conspiracy controls the media. > 12. Milton Friedman and the libertarian Chicago school economists improved > the quality of life in Latin America. > > "Those converted to the twelve points listed above will never revise their > opinions, no matter how persuasive the counter-evidence. People believe what > they want to believe. They will accept any argument, however absurd, from > those who flatter their preconceptions." > > http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2011/07/moo-moo-moo.html Not to mention that if wgm4u were a business owner would also not hesitate to offshore his manufacturing to make more profit for himself. Yeh, so much for the "hard working American" he so embraces.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > So let's get this straight, a business owner risks his > > > > time and capital and now that he's Rich you want to go > > > > in there, take his money, and tell him where he must > > > > spend it? > > > > > > FYI, the government is currently taking a *record > > > low* percentage of the income of the wealthiest in > > > this country. > > > > > > > What gives you the right to do such a thing? > > > > > > The same thing that gives the business owner the right > > > to take advantage of what the government supplies for > > > the common good in order to make his money. > > > > > > The business owner also needs to recognize that for his > > > business to be successful, he needs a *market*, people > > > who can afford to buy the products he makes or the > > > services he supplies. If a huge percentage of the money > > > in the country is flowing to the wealthy while the income > > > of the rest of the population is increasingly squeezed > > > just to pay for shelter and food, where is the business > > > owner going to sell his products or services? > > > > > > The kind of economy in which the wealthy business owner > > > can continue to prosper is dependent on the financial > > > well-being of everybody else. > > > > > > It's in the business owner's *self-interest* to pay taxes > > > so the government can fund the services he depends on to > > > run his business (e.g., highways). It's in his *self- > > > interest* to pay taxes so the government can fund social > > > programs that enable people to maintain a decent standard > > > of living. > > > > > > Are you familiar with the story about killing the goose > > > that laid the golden egg? > > > > Sorry Judy, I wouldn't know where to begin to unravel that, > > we'll just have to agree to disagree, (any takers?) > > You mean, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the > facts"? Sure, your choice. > wgm4u probably believes these "facts" as well: 1. Obama is a socialist. 2. The economic collapse of 2008 was brought about by too much regulation. 3. The New Deal caused the Depression. 4. Hitler was a left-winger. 5. Stalin killed more people than Hitler did. 6. Joe McCarthy was right. 7. In 1970, most returning Vietnam veterans supported Nixon and detested the hippies who spat on them. They especially despised Jane Fonda. 8. Free trade helped America to prosper in the 19th century. 9. A great company like Toyota can grow only if a government follows strict laissez-faire policies. 10. Lower taxes on the rich increase government revenues. 11. A left-wing conspiracy controls the media. 12. Milton Friedman and the libertarian Chicago school economists improved the quality of life in Latin America. "Those converted to the twelve points listed above will never revise their opinions, no matter how persuasive the counter-evidence. People believe what they want to believe. They will accept any argument, however absurd, from those who flatter their preconceptions." http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2011/07/moo-moo-moo.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America
Did you lose your reading specs, Mike? I already wrote that I run a business. I just don't want others fall through the cracks nor to be unfairly challenged by companies that have "pulled the ladder up" and actually gamed the government you hate so much to block any competition. But I'm sure you raise your can of Coors in salute to the robber barons. Smörgåsbord? Well I pay gas taxes. I want that money to go to keeping the roads up, not just for me but everybody. I pay property taxes (and so do renters as part of rent) so the fire department can come and put out a fire if I have one or as they did a couple years ago block the street when a tree fell on a power pole and knocked the high tension line into the street. Or the police to come and arrest some burglar breaking into my house. But you don't want to pay taxes and probably live in a Road Warrior society. To each his own I guess. On 07/03/2011 11:53 AM, Mike Dixon wrote: > Why would he bother when all he has to do is act dumb and pathetic and find > someone else to organize the social welfare program smorgasbord for him to > feed off of. Why use you own talents (might be a strain) when you can use > somebody else's? This is the real greed that destroys America, not innovation > > > > > > From: wgm4u > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sat, July 2, 2011 6:39:05 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: >> For our FFL billionaires who have worked so hard by the sweat of their >> brow (apparently at near light speed) to earn their huge fortune here is >> a great article: >> http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/28/how-greed-destroys-america/ > So Bhairitu, why don't you start your own business and get Rich? Is there > something wrong with that? > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Republicans protect Millionaires - Minnesota government shuts down
> > Activism is the answer - I see civil war in this > > country in the future, if the Republican's get > > their way. > Sal: > We keep hearing that, but so far I haven't seen > any evidence that we are anywhere near. We never > are, it's always, "Next time we'll do something." > But then next time never seems to come. > You could at least get out and vote.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America
On 07/03/2011 10:31 AM, wgm4u wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > >> Oh so you are not going answer my question? You're going to deflect >> instead and paint me as something I'm not. Then we can assume you're >> only an "armchair" businessman? And I bet you've never even seen >> anything above a 5 figure salary. > Never claimed to be anything other than my opinion! You strike me as the > classic "I'm a victim" sort of person... Yeah, I'm a victim alright of a tech company IPO back in the 1990s. See I DO know what it is to have money and a six figure income. You obviously don't. You just champion the status quo and are still waiting for the "trickle down". The status quo will "trickle down" alright, they'll just pee all over you. That's the thanks you'll get. The rich don't give a shit about you. I don't want to be a wealthy person in a poor country. I don't want to try to figure out if the person begging on the street has real needs or is going to take the quarter I give them along with the ones they've been collecting all morning and dodge into the convenience store and buy a can of malt liquor. This weekend we celebrate something. No, it's that Walmart, Home Depot and tons of other stores are having a "Fourth of July" sale that you can raise your can of Coors in salute. No, there were these group of people who you would have called "victims" who were victims of a large multinational company known as the British East India Company. Their principal stockholder was the King of England and by your logic apparently "worked very hard by the sweat of his brow" to amass such wealth. This group of "victims" never again wanted the wealthy to rule (and ruin) their lives so they created this document known as "The Declaration of Independence." They also after they formed a nation had a law that did not allow corporations to stay in existence any longer than 40 years and had to server the public good as part of their charter. Sadly after the Civil War that law went away through a supreme court decision. And then the nation began to be run by robber barons like the Koch brothers. You must be a member of their gang.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
Aquinas was an intellectual guy. His method and approach to faith and religion do not necessarily appeal to all people. When he himself experienced divine rapture, or samadhi, he realized that his previous works were worthless compared to the revelations that he received. In other words, we have to follow our own path to reach full realization. We ourselves can find the answers to questions that trouble our minds. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > My grandfather was a fascinating guy, started as a professional violinist, > became a scientist and help develop the gasses that killed the Germans in the > trenches in WWI,(cough, cough, ouch) became a successful enough businessman > to have a wing of the Albany NY hospital named for him for his philanthropy. > He smoked a Meerschaum pipe and used to discuss Darwin's theories with me at > age 10. > > He was driving with his son-in-law, my Dad, one day when they passed a sign > for a Church named the Church of the Assumption. > > "Aren't they all" he quipped. > > Perhaps a discussion about how MZ (do we still need to continue this name? > Are you trying to keep your real name off the list for search engines which > is understandable. Let me know if I can use your name which seems a bit more > connected at this point in our discussions.) > > Looong digression sorry, I was wondering if it is possible to have a > discussion about the source of your confidence in the Summa as a statement of > ultimate reality with a person like myself whose interest will never rise > above a superficial, dilettante level. > > But even in a cursory reading at the beginning some of the tenants it is > based on become obvious. One of his answers in Article 8 (I am snipping like > crazy because this can get out of hand so fast with so much material. > > "Reply to Objection 2. This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from > authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus we > ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been > made. Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although > the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the > argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest." > > Unless I have taken this wildly out of context or have misunderstood his > intent completely, it appears that DJ T to the A (little hip hop rename to > lighten the discussion but avoiding the more obvious T AND A abbreviation > which was of course the first one to cross my mind) is revealing the > epistemological ground he is standing on. And no matter how rigorously he > makes his case from this point forward, I am always left with my finger in > the air going: > > "Excuse me but let's go back to that fist principle thing again. The one you > are basing on faith." > > So my issues will have to come out in a jumble and perhaps MZ or anyone else > interested might find something of interest to correct of discuss. > > We know how the Bible was created, chosen out of a bunch of optional > accounts. We know the scanty info in the scriptures that blossomed through > the Church through the centuries into the fully articulated details of > theology of the church Aquinas uses as the foundation for his work. So we > are not dealing with Aquinas as the source of information from divine > revelation if we have confidence in the doctrine. We are relying on many > many hidden contributors to the theology whose opinions (dare I?) have become > an indisputable basis for people's faith in this take on the ultimate reality. > > It seems as if we are putting a lot of faith in a lot of unknown people. I > guess in the Catholic church it has to do with the papal infallibility with > regard to, matters of doctrine but that seems a bit out of place for our > modern confidence knowing what we do about these guys through history. > > Needless to say, I am not inclined to take any article of faith as a firm > basis for knowledge. I have seen to many instances of people being so > confidently full of it. In particular I have had plenty of interaction with > churchy types in and out of the Catholic tradition and I am left with a total > lack of confidence that their surety is based on anything I respect. They > are sure because they are sure. > > Been there, done that, rejected that. > > So I'd better make a concise point quickly. > > In TM our state WAS the self evident knowledge. Catch the universal buzz, > feel the oneness, it seems to match the scriptural poetry shoved at us as > authoritative about reality, and you gained surety. Pat on the back from the > enlightened one himself and it is a done deal, you KNOW. If you decided they > were not authoritative (both Maharishi and the scripture) or that the > experience might be better described in a different way, the house
Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Gulf of Mexico continues to Heat Up...'
Texas could use a couple or three direct hits from hurricanes or tropical storms over the next few months. Even the pine trees are starting to turn brown and we've already lost the Capitol of the Age of Enlightenment in Navasota Tx due to wildfires. The rice fields will be bone dry, no ducks! From: Robert To: fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, July 3, 2011 3:45:59 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] 'Gulf of Mexico continues to Heat Up...' Hurricaine season is underway, as the gulf heats up with heat waves across Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California... Fires in Arizona and Texas this season, have been historical... Stay tuned. Agni and Indra
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America
Why would he bother when all he has to do is act dumb and pathetic and find someone else to organize the social welfare program smorgasbord for him to feed off of. Why use you own talents (might be a strain) when you can use somebody else's? This is the real greed that destroys America, not innovation From: wgm4u To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, July 2, 2011 6:39:05 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > For our FFL billionaires who have worked so hard by the sweat of their > brow (apparently at near light speed) to earn their huge fortune here is > a great article: > http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/28/how-greed-destroys-america/ So Bhairitu, why don't you start your own business and get Rich? Is there something wrong with that?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > That's not exactly true. I have decided that many posters > on this forum are not *worth* reading. I may check them out > occasionally just as a kind of guilty pleasure, in the same > way that people who like to present themselves as intellect- > uals watch "The Jersey Shore" every so often. > Thanks for clarifaction. (-:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > Anyway, that's why I'm enjoying this other forum. Everybody knows > > this, and puts some impeccability into what they write. Not > > because they're trying to impress anyone, or gain strokes from > > anyone, but because it's writing, and writing matters. > > > That sounds great, and I am truly happy for you. And maybe > you will find more posts to read there since you have declared > so many here on your, "do not read" list. That's not exactly true. I have decided that many posters on this forum are not *worth* reading. I may check them out occasionally just as a kind of guilty pleasure, in the same way that people who like to present themselves as intellect- uals watch "The Jersey Shore" every so often.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
Excellent rap, Curtis. Earlier I tried to shorten MZ's post in which he laid out the steps that led him to his current path, and got it (I thought) down to a few short sentences. In retrospect, and having read your insightful rap, I now think I can do it in one sentence. "So you're saying that instead of basing your whole life and your idea of what you need to do in that life on what one guy (M to the M to the Y) told you, now you're basing it on what another guy (T to the A) told you." :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > My grandfather was a fascinating guy, started as a professional violinist, became a scientist and help develop the gasses that killed the Germans in the trenches in WWI,(cough, cough, ouch) became a successful enough businessman to have a wing of the Albany NY hospital named for him for his philanthropy. He smoked a Meerschaum pipe and used to discuss Darwin's theories with me at age 10. > > He was driving with his son-in-law, my Dad, one day when they passed a sign for a Church named the Church of the Assumption. > > "Aren't they all" he quipped. > > Perhaps a discussion about how MZ (do we still need to continue this name? Are you trying to keep your real name off the list for search engines which is understandable. Let me know if I can use your name which seems a bit more connected at this point in our discussions.) > > Looong digression sorry, I was wondering if it is possible to have a discussion about the source of your confidence in the Summa as a statement of ultimate reality with a person like myself whose interest will never rise above a superficial, dilettante level. > > But even in a cursory reading at the beginning some of the tenants it is based on become obvious. One of his answers in Article 8 (I am snipping like crazy because this can get out of hand so fast with so much material. > > "Reply to Objection 2. This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been made. Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest." > > Unless I have taken this wildly out of context or have misunderstood his intent completely, it appears that DJ T to the A (little hip hop rename to lighten the discussion but avoiding the more obvious T AND A abbreviation which was of course the first one to cross my mind) is revealing the epistemological ground he is standing on. And no matter how rigorously he makes his case from this point forward, I am always left with my finger in the air going: > > "Excuse me but let's go back to that fist principle thing again. The one you are basing on faith." > > So my issues will have to come out in a jumble and perhaps MZ or anyone else interested might find something of interest to correct of discuss. > > We know how the Bible was created, chosen out of a bunch of optional accounts. We know the scanty info in the scriptures that blossomed through the Church through the centuries into the fully articulated details of theology of the church Aquinas uses as the foundation for his work. So we are not dealing with Aquinas as the source of information from divine revelation if we have confidence in the doctrine. We are relying on many many hidden contributors to the theology whose opinions (dare I?) have become an indisputable basis for people's faith in this take on the ultimate reality. > > It seems as if we are putting a lot of faith in a lot of unknown people. I guess in the Catholic church it has to do with the papal infallibility with regard to, matters of doctrine but that seems a bit out of place for our modern confidence knowing what we do about these guys through history. > > Needless to say, I am not inclined to take any article of faith as a firm basis for knowledge. I have seen to many instances of people being so confidently full of it. In particular I have had plenty of interaction with churchy types in and out of the Catholic tradition and I am left with a total lack of confidence that their surety is based on anything I respect. They are sure because they are sure. > > Been there, done that, rejected that. > > So I'd better make a concise point quickly. > > In TM our state WAS the self evident knowledge. Catch the universal buzz, feel the oneness, it seems to match the scriptural poetry shoved at us as authoritative about reality, and you gained surety. Pat on the back from the enlightened one himself and it is a done deal, you KNOW. If you decided they were not authoritative (both Maharishi and the scripture) or that the experience might be better described in a different way, the house of cards falls. (me) > > The Catholic doctrine articulated by Aquinas seems to require an assumpti
[FairfieldLife] Re: another question for MZ, and maybe William of Occam
Bob, thanks for a peek behind the curtain. Short comment below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: . One of the reasons I left the movement was that I > just couldn't keep mustering the "cognitive dissonance" required to give the > "improved social behaviour" part of the intro and be honest with myself about my > own behaviour and the behaviour of the many initiators I knew. Not exactly related, but my "moment" came at Livingston Manor around 1977 or 78 when I got interviewed by Reed Martin for going on a "mission" to Zambia. I was rejected, for relating what was a pretty good experience, but one which I guess scared him. And at that moment I realized I had to leave. I went to NYC with no money. My parents wired me some money but for some reason it was too late for the Western Union office to get it. There was a women there who saw that I was "homeless" for the moment and offered to let me stay in her apartment. It was tiny and terribly cluttered, and she had what I recall was a big dog. I found a place to bed down on a large chair. I left early in the morning, and traveled back home. And yes, I have come to realize that it is only by rigorous (and unflinching) self examination that one can make progress on the spirtiual path. But I have also found that the practice of meditation has helped lubricate that process. I don't feel bitterness towards my time in TMO, partly becasuse I don't think that I ever bought into that notion that "meditate and everything would fall into place". But like you I found the eastern schools of thought and POVs fascinating, (and still do for that matter), but I have ceased following a teacher, or ascribing to a particular "teaching". Net, Net, my experience in TMO is one I wouldn't trade. I could elaborate more, but think I'll stop here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
A good, thoughtful post, Curtis. In general I find myself at a loss for words -- and patience, unfortunately -- when I encounter what appear to me to be densely-packed strata of beliefs and assumptions (by which I suppose I mean, beliefs and assumptions I do not personally ascribe to), and I appreciate your taking the time and energy and thought to get to the heart of your own beef with the Church. (Uncle Curtis's beef-hearts! Sounds like a gastronomic winner to me; I can already see it on the deli shelves.) Like Ravi, I tend to see beliefs as dirty underwear (perhaps a twist on your famous "poopy-pants"), and my general approach has been, Less is More: The fewer beliefs I have, the easier I find it is to surrender gracefully into Reality or what IS. (Though that too may justly be labeled a belief, and here we are again cruising the Mobius Strip to find ourselves already sipping stale ale at the Paradox Cafe.) Personally, I have been finding that faith has become not a virtue or a prescription for me to follow, but is rather already a description of my I-particles, or "children", or devatas, or internal programs, or seemingly-autonomous streams of thought (SASOT?). "They" already have faith, in that "they" believe everything "I" -- the emptiful nothing, the ordinary Joe -- consciously or subconsciously tell them. After all, I'm their programmer, their parent. By believing in me as they do, they manifest that belief, from the feeling-level on into the physical world, if needed, and depending on the consensus or harmony of all of my thoughtstreams: if they are harmonized they automatically make whatever "I" tell "them" come to pass. (If other thought-streams have been programmed with opposing aims that are not reconciled with each other, they tend to cancel each other out.) And as they manifest those thoughts, so my body experiences the effects of those thoughts, for these "children" actually are my body. The more I play with this tension between self-as-creator (the ordinary emptiful Joe) and self-as-creature (the faithful child), the more the sayings of Christianity come alive for me. "Suffer (i.e. "allow") the little children to come to Me" and "As you treat the smallest of these, you treat Me" means, we are always experiencing (through our "children") the effects of our own thought. As we treat these little thought-streams, so we treat ourself. I have particularly found that if I feel (say) alienated, separated, distanced from "God", it is because I had been (unconsciously) alienating, pushing away, and distancing my "children" -- and then experiencing their response to that rejection in my own body... "Judge not, lest ye be judged." And conversely, as I love and embrace these (sometimes, at first, horrifying) reflections of Me, so I in turn and loved and embraced by "God"... ...because it is all a Mobius Strip to the Paradox Cafe... :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > My grandfather was a fascinating guy, started as a professional violinist, > became a scientist and help develop the gasses that killed the Germans in the > trenches in WWI,(cough, cough, ouch) became a successful enough businessman > to have a wing of the Albany NY hospital named for him for his philanthropy. > He smoked a Meerschaum pipe and used to discuss Darwin's theories with me at > age 10. > > He was driving with his son-in-law, my Dad, one day when they passed a sign > for a Church named the Church of the Assumption. > > "Aren't they all" he quipped. > > Perhaps a discussion about how MZ (do we still need to continue this name? > Are you trying to keep your real name off the list for search engines which > is understandable. Let me know if I can use your name which seems a bit more > connected at this point in our discussions.) > > Looong digression sorry, I was wondering if it is possible to have a > discussion about the source of your confidence in the Summa as a statement of > ultimate reality with a person like myself whose interest will never rise > above a superficial, dilettante level. > > But even in a cursory reading at the beginning some of the tenants it is > based on become obvious. One of his answers in Article 8 (I am snipping like > crazy because this can get out of hand so fast with so much material. > > "Reply to Objection 2. This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from > authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus we > ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been > made. Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although > the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the > argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest." > > Unless I have taken this wildly out of context or have misunderstood his > intent completely, it appears that DJ T to the A (little hip h
[FairfieldLife] Record Corporate Profits and the Rich -vs- Everybody Else
Record Corporate Profits, the GOP's Wet Dream - But where's the ' Trickle-Down ' ? CARTOON: http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/sites/default/files/images/stei101130_cmyk-1.jpg Two-thirds of the nation's total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of U.S. households, and that top 1 percent held a larger share of income in 2007 than at any time since 1928 http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2908 Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/30/258388/corporate-profits-recovery/ The richest 1% of Americans -- those making $380,000 or more -- have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust. http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm The Rise of the SUPER RICH - See Chart: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/chart-rise-of-super-rich-2.top.gif
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > Anyway, that's why I'm enjoying this other forum. Everybody knows > this, > > and puts some impeccability into what they write. Not because they're > > trying to impress anyone, or gain strokes from anyone, but because > it's > > writing, and writing matters. > > > That sounds great, and I am truly happy for you. And maybe you will > find more posts to read there since you have declared so many here on > your, "do not read" list. > On the other hand I can see why a forum where people aren't trying to stroke him would be appealing to Turq. After all he already spends most of his time stroking himself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Summa Wrestling
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > My grandfather was a fascinating guy, started as a professional violinist, > became a scientist and help develop the gasses that killed the Germans in the > trenches in WWI,(cough, cough, ouch) became a successful enough businessman > to have a wing of the Albany NY hospital named for him for his philanthropy. > He smoked a Meerschaum pipe and used to discuss Darwin's theories with me at > age 10. > > He was driving with his son-in-law, my Dad, one day when they passed a sign > for a Church named the Church of the Assumption. > > "Aren't they all" he quipped. ** Laugh of the day! > Perhaps a discussion about how MZ (do we still need to continue this name? > Are you trying to keep your real name off the list for search engines which > is understandable. Let me know if I can use your name which seems a bit more > connected at this point in our discussions.) > > Looong digression sorry, I was wondering if it is possible to have a > discussion about the source of your confidence in the Summa as a statement of > ultimate reality with a person like myself whose interest will never rise > above a superficial, dilettante level. > > But even in a cursory reading at the beginning some of the tenants it is > based on become obvious. One of his answers in Article 8 (I am snipping like > crazy because this can get out of hand so fast with so much material. > > "Reply to Objection 2. This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from > authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus we > ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been > made. Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although > the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the > argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest." > > Unless I have taken this wildly out of context or have misunderstood his > intent completely, it appears that DJ T to the A (little hip hop rename to > lighten the discussion but avoiding the more obvious T AND A abbreviation > which was of course the first one to cross my mind) is revealing the > epistemological ground he is standing on. And no matter how rigorously he > makes his case from this point forward, I am always left with my finger in > the air going: > > "Excuse me but let's go back to that fist principle thing again. The one you > are basing on faith." > > So my issues will have to come out in a jumble and perhaps MZ or anyone else > interested might find something of interest to correct of discuss. > > We know how the Bible was created, chosen out of a bunch of optional > accounts. We know the scanty info in the scriptures that blossomed through > the Church through the centuries into the fully articulated details of > theology of the church Aquinas uses as the foundation for his work. So we > are not dealing with Aquinas as the source of information from divine > revelation if we have confidence in the doctrine. We are relying on many > many hidden contributors to the theology whose opinions (dare I?) have become > an indisputable basis for people's faith in this take on the ultimate reality. > > It seems as if we are putting a lot of faith in a lot of unknown people. I > guess in the Catholic church it has to do with the papal infallibility with > regard to, matters of doctrine but that seems a bit out of place for our > modern confidence knowing what we do about these guys through history. > > Needless to say, I am not inclined to take any article of faith as a firm > basis for knowledge. I have seen to many instances of people being so > confidently full of it. In particular I have had plenty of interaction with > churchy types in and out of the Catholic tradition and I am left with a total > lack of confidence that their surety is based on anything I respect. They > are sure because they are sure. > > Been there, done that, rejected that. > > So I'd better make a concise point quickly. > > In TM our state WAS the self evident knowledge. Catch the universal buzz, > feel the oneness, it seems to match the scriptural poetry shoved at us as > authoritative about reality, and you gained surety. Pat on the back from the > enlightened one himself and it is a done deal, you KNOW. If you decided they > were not authoritative (both Maharishi and the scripture) or that the > experience might be better described in a different way, the house of cards > falls. (me) > > The Catholic doctrine articulated by Aquinas seems to require an assumptive > army to hold it together before we even arrive at square one in the > discussion. > > So where did the confidence come from, the surety that this view was so > superior to the one you had held for years, that you were willing to take the > long road of transforming your consciousness out of what
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
Honeymoons are great aren't they? Those first few days of bliss. Have to see how things look in about a month. How those folks you are so pleased with now, look after a month, and you to them. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: > > Anyway, that's why I'm enjoying this other forum. Everybody knows > this, > > and puts some impeccability into what they write. Not because they're > > trying to impress anyone, or gain strokes from anyone, but because > it's > > writing, and writing matters. > > > That sounds great, and I am truly happy for you. And maybe you will > find more posts to read there since you have declared so many here on > your, "do not read" list. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Writing As Spiritual Practice
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > Anyway, that's why I'm enjoying this other forum. Everybody knows this, > and puts some impeccability into what they write. Not because they're > trying to impress anyone, or gain strokes from anyone, but because it's > writing, and writing matters. > That sounds great, and I am truly happy for you. And maybe you will find more posts to read there since you have declared so many here on your, "do not read" list.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Laughing Girl Enlightenment'..
Nice post Bob. I think we all could use a break from another "Imagine" --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert wrote: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4PZL7wg_g4 >
[FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > Oh so you are not going answer my question? You're going to deflect > instead and paint me as something I'm not. Then we can assume you're > only an "armchair" businessman? And I bet you've never even seen > anything above a 5 figure salary. Never claimed to be anything other than my opinion! You strike me as the classic "I'm a victim" sort of person...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America
On 07/03/2011 09:13 AM, wgm4u wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: >> On 07/03/2011 06:59 AM, wgm4u wrote: >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: On 07/02/2011 06:39 PM, wgm4u wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairituwrote: >> For our FFL billionaires who have worked so hard by the sweat of their >> brow (apparently at near light speed) to earn their huge fortune here is >> a great article: >> http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/28/how-greed-destroys-america/ > So Bhairitu, why don't you start your own business and get Rich? Is there > something wrong with that? Is this the voice of experience? Are you one of the FFL billionaires? Just starting a business won't make you rich. It has to be the right business at the right time with the right idea. And you also need to be a business freak and not everyone is. >>> So let's get this straight, a business owner risks his time and capital and >>> now that he's Rich you want to go in there, take his money, and tell him >>> where he must spend it? >>> >>> What gives you the right to do such a thing? And you claim to be 'holier >>> than thou' with such a philosophy? What a hypocrite; rich people give >>> plenty to the charities *they* choose, please don't pat yourself on the >>> back with such an idea. >>> >>> It's merely taking money you haven't earned and forcing Rich people to give >>> it to whom you (and your liberal cronies) decide is most worthy. YOU accrue >>> no personal merit in such a transaction other than smug self-righteousness! >>> and end up punishing the very people who create wealth and creative ideas, >>> you'd better take a long look in the mirror, why such disdain for the Rich? >> Are you even or have ever been a business owner? You seem to be another >> spectator theorizing how business works. I have a business and have run >> and managed other ones. It's not really my cup of tea but sometimes you >> have to do it. > Perhaps you see yourself as a 'victim' in life, you may feel life hasn't > treated you fairly so, like a child you want to up end the game board and > start over, and this time YOU, (in your Godly wisdom) will distribute the > game pieces according to YOUR will...yes? A little *class envy* there huh, > Bhairitu? Oh so you are not going answer my question? You're going to deflect instead and paint me as something I'm not. Then we can assume you're only an "armchair" businessman? And I bet you've never even seen anything above a 5 figure salary.
[FairfieldLife] Summa Wrestling
My grandfather was a fascinating guy, started as a professional violinist, became a scientist and help develop the gasses that killed the Germans in the trenches in WWI,(cough, cough, ouch) became a successful enough businessman to have a wing of the Albany NY hospital named for him for his philanthropy. He smoked a Meerschaum pipe and used to discuss Darwin's theories with me at age 10. He was driving with his son-in-law, my Dad, one day when they passed a sign for a Church named the Church of the Assumption. "Aren't they all" he quipped. Perhaps a discussion about how MZ (do we still need to continue this name? Are you trying to keep your real name off the list for search engines which is understandable. Let me know if I can use your name which seems a bit more connected at this point in our discussions.) Looong digression sorry, I was wondering if it is possible to have a discussion about the source of your confidence in the Summa as a statement of ultimate reality with a person like myself whose interest will never rise above a superficial, dilettante level. But even in a cursory reading at the beginning some of the tenants it is based on become obvious. One of his answers in Article 8 (I am snipping like crazy because this can get out of hand so fast with so much material. "Reply to Objection 2. This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been made. Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest." Unless I have taken this wildly out of context or have misunderstood his intent completely, it appears that DJ T to the A (little hip hop rename to lighten the discussion but avoiding the more obvious T AND A abbreviation which was of course the first one to cross my mind) is revealing the epistemological ground he is standing on. And no matter how rigorously he makes his case from this point forward, I am always left with my finger in the air going: "Excuse me but let's go back to that fist principle thing again. The one you are basing on faith." So my issues will have to come out in a jumble and perhaps MZ or anyone else interested might find something of interest to correct of discuss. We know how the Bible was created, chosen out of a bunch of optional accounts. We know the scanty info in the scriptures that blossomed through the Church through the centuries into the fully articulated details of theology of the church Aquinas uses as the foundation for his work. So we are not dealing with Aquinas as the source of information from divine revelation if we have confidence in the doctrine. We are relying on many many hidden contributors to the theology whose opinions (dare I?) have become an indisputable basis for people's faith in this take on the ultimate reality. It seems as if we are putting a lot of faith in a lot of unknown people. I guess in the Catholic church it has to do with the papal infallibility with regard to, matters of doctrine but that seems a bit out of place for our modern confidence knowing what we do about these guys through history. Needless to say, I am not inclined to take any article of faith as a firm basis for knowledge. I have seen to many instances of people being so confidently full of it. In particular I have had plenty of interaction with churchy types in and out of the Catholic tradition and I am left with a total lack of confidence that their surety is based on anything I respect. They are sure because they are sure. Been there, done that, rejected that. So I'd better make a concise point quickly. In TM our state WAS the self evident knowledge. Catch the universal buzz, feel the oneness, it seems to match the scriptural poetry shoved at us as authoritative about reality, and you gained surety. Pat on the back from the enlightened one himself and it is a done deal, you KNOW. If you decided they were not authoritative (both Maharishi and the scripture) or that the experience might be better described in a different way, the house of cards falls. (me) The Catholic doctrine articulated by Aquinas seems to require an assumptive army to hold it together before we even arrive at square one in the discussion. So where did the confidence come from, the surety that this view was so superior to the one you had held for years, that you were willing to take the long road of transforming your consciousness out of what must have been a pretty sweet cushy interior ride of Unity? What distinguishes Thomas Aquinas from any other super religious guy like Guru Dev, who accepts the party line of his tradition and decides to start from there as an assumptive basis? As a student of phi
[FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > On 07/03/2011 06:59 AM, wgm4u wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > >> On 07/02/2011 06:39 PM, wgm4u wrote: > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > For our FFL billionaires who have worked so hard by the sweat of their > brow (apparently at near light speed) to earn their huge fortune here is > a great article: > http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/28/how-greed-destroys-america/ > >>> So Bhairitu, why don't you start your own business and get Rich? Is there > >>> something wrong with that? > >> Is this the voice of experience? Are you one of the FFL billionaires? > >> > >> Just starting a business won't make you rich. It has to be the right > >> business at the right time with the right idea. And you also need to be > >> a business freak and not everyone is. > > So let's get this straight, a business owner risks his time and capital and > > now that he's Rich you want to go in there, take his money, and tell him > > where he must spend it? > > > > What gives you the right to do such a thing? And you claim to be 'holier > > than thou' with such a philosophy? What a hypocrite; rich people give > > plenty to the charities *they* choose, please don't pat yourself on the > > back with such an idea. > > > > It's merely taking money you haven't earned and forcing Rich people to give > > it to whom you (and your liberal cronies) decide is most worthy. YOU accrue > > no personal merit in such a transaction other than smug self-righteousness! > > and end up punishing the very people who create wealth and creative ideas, > > you'd better take a long look in the mirror, why such disdain for the Rich? > > Are you even or have ever been a business owner? You seem to be another > spectator theorizing how business works. I have a business and have run > and managed other ones. It's not really my cup of tea but sometimes you > have to do it. Perhaps you see yourself as a 'victim' in life, you may feel life hasn't treated you fairly so, like a child you want to up end the game board and start over, and this time YOU, (in your Godly wisdom) will distribute the game pieces according to YOUR will...yes? A little *class envy* there huh, Bhairitu?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America
On 07/03/2011 06:59 AM, wgm4u wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: >> On 07/02/2011 06:39 PM, wgm4u wrote: >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: For our FFL billionaires who have worked so hard by the sweat of their brow (apparently at near light speed) to earn their huge fortune here is a great article: http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/28/how-greed-destroys-america/ >>> So Bhairitu, why don't you start your own business and get Rich? Is there >>> something wrong with that? >> Is this the voice of experience? Are you one of the FFL billionaires? >> >> Just starting a business won't make you rich. It has to be the right >> business at the right time with the right idea. And you also need to be >> a business freak and not everyone is. > So let's get this straight, a business owner risks his time and capital and > now that he's Rich you want to go in there, take his money, and tell him > where he must spend it? > > What gives you the right to do such a thing? And you claim to be 'holier than > thou' with such a philosophy? What a hypocrite; rich people give plenty to > the charities *they* choose, please don't pat yourself on the back with such > an idea. > > It's merely taking money you haven't earned and forcing Rich people to give > it to whom you (and your liberal cronies) decide is most worthy. YOU accrue > no personal merit in such a transaction other than smug self-righteousness! > and end up punishing the very people who create wealth and creative ideas, > you'd better take a long look in the mirror, why such disdain for the Rich? Are you even or have ever been a business owner? You seem to be another spectator theorizing how business works. I have a business and have run and managed other ones. It's not really my cup of tea but sometimes you have to do it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > So let's get this straight, a business owner risks his > > > time and capital and now that he's Rich you want to go > > > in there, take his money, and tell him where he must > > > spend it? > > > > FYI, the government is currently taking a *record > > low* percentage of the income of the wealthiest in > > this country. > > > > > What gives you the right to do such a thing? > > > > The same thing that gives the business owner the right > > to take advantage of what the government supplies for > > the common good in order to make his money. > > > > The business owner also needs to recognize that for his > > business to be successful, he needs a *market*, people > > who can afford to buy the products he makes or the > > services he supplies. If a huge percentage of the money > > in the country is flowing to the wealthy while the income > > of the rest of the population is increasingly squeezed > > just to pay for shelter and food, where is the business > > owner going to sell his products or services? > > > > The kind of economy in which the wealthy business owner > > can continue to prosper is dependent on the financial > > well-being of everybody else. > > > > It's in the business owner's *self-interest* to pay taxes > > so the government can fund the services he depends on to > > run his business (e.g., highways). It's in his *self- > > interest* to pay taxes so the government can fund social > > programs that enable people to maintain a decent standard > > of living. > > > > Are you familiar with the story about killing the goose > > that laid the golden egg? > > Sorry Judy, I wouldn't know where to begin to unravel that, > we'll just have to agree to disagree, (any takers?) You mean, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts"? Sure, your choice.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > > > On 07/02/2011 06:39 PM, wgm4u wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > >> For our FFL billionaires who have worked so hard by the sweat of their > > > >> brow (apparently at near light speed) to earn their huge fortune here > > > >> is > > > >> a great article: > > > >> http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/28/how-greed-destroys-america/ > > > > So Bhairitu, why don't you start your own business and get Rich? Is > > > > there something wrong with that? > > > > > > Is this the voice of experience? Are you one of the FFL billionaires? > > > > > > Just starting a business won't make you rich. It has to be the right > > > business at the right time with the right idea. And you also need to be > > > a business freak and not everyone is. > > > > So let's get this straight, a business owner risks his > > time and capital and now that he's Rich you want to go > > in there, take his money, and tell him where he must > > spend it? > > FYI, the government is currently taking a *record > low* percentage of the income of the wealthiest in > this country. > > > What gives you the right to do such a thing? > > The same thing that gives the business owner the right > to take advantage of what the government supplies for > the common good in order to make his money. > > The business owner also needs to recognize that for his > business to be successful, he needs a *market*, people > who can afford to buy the products he makes or the > services he supplies. If a huge percentage of the money > in the country is flowing to the wealthy while the income > of the rest of the population is increasingly squeezed > just to pay for shelter and food, where is the business > owner going to sell his products or services? > > The kind of economy in which the wealthy business owner > can continue to prosper is dependent on the financial > well-being of everybody else. > > It's in the business owner's *self-interest* to pay taxes > so the government can fund the services he depends on to > run his business (e.g., highways). It's in his *self- > interest* to pay taxes so the government can fund social > programs that enable people to maintain a decent standard > of living. > > Are you familiar with the story about killing the goose > that laid the golden egg? Sorry Judy, I wouldn't know where to begin to unravel that, we'll just have to agree to disagree, (any takers?)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: another question for MZ, and maybe William of Occam
Finally, a Socratic dialogue! I now may be able to make some posters happy and go away. I want to thank both feste37 and MZ. for teaching me something. Comment below. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" wrote: > This struck a chord with me because my own experience seems to have followed > at >least something of the path you outline, but without the feeling that one >perspective must be right and the other wrong. By that I do not mean that I >have >ever experienced unity consciousness, but I have all my adult life (I started >TM >when I was 17) imbibed the Indian philosophy of "unity is all there is." And >thanks to spiritual teachers who showed me how simple it is, I do experience >myself, whenever I choose, it seems, as existing within a vast Nothing that is >also myself (there seems to be no other way of describing it)-- although I do >not experience that Nothing as God. That's not the word that comes to mind at >all. > > > My experience of God -- and it is an unmistakable and quite recent > experience, >unlike anything else I've ever had -- is of a being who is quite Other than >me, >completely separate from me, and yet who knows me intimately, and has infinite >compassion and a complete lack of judgement about me (neither of which >qualities >have I ever been able to muster by myself to apply to myself), and all without >making a big deal out of it -- it's very gentle and quiet and simple and >practical. I find it rather humbling to have such experiences, the most recent >of which came at a time of crisis, and I don't think I am fooling myself about >it. I was being guided at that time by a Being who, one would have to say, >even >though it feels rather awkward, is worthy of the name Lord or Heavenly Father, >just as the Christians say. I did not in any way at that time feel that I was >being guided by my "higher self," an overused New Age term which is probably >due >for retirement. feste37 I relate a lot to your experience and insights. Like you, it's always seemed to me that my experience and understanding of the east and the west enrich me and each other. You and I started meditating around the same age and by my early 20's I had consumed a lot of the east and developed a thirst for enlightenment. But it was through crisis, much later, as you described, that I came to experience and understand God. The Other, that I think you and MZ are describing. There was no white light, complete awareness of nothing that I found thorough psychedelics or intense Kundalini, arrival, and complete liquid consciousness I experienced through Maharishi's technique. None of that. My experience of God or the Other was much more fundamental and in many ways real. About 23 years ago, the year after Maharishi decided to change the goal posts on RC, I realized I was going to die. More precisely I realized that I was killing myself. And I was doing it in the most humiliating manner. At some point, for whatever reason, I admitted to myself that I was afraid to die and I asked God to help me. There was nothing heroic or poetic about the way I asked, just a child's cry to its parent. Nothing really dramatic happened, no burning bush, I just seemed to have a moment of clarity and I realized I did not have to do what I had be doing to myself anymore. What happened after that was more to the point. I met people who helped me understand my experience and taught me a very profound, for me, lesson. What they taught me was that if I wanted to stay sane I had to change my behaviour. That I couldn't wish or meditate my way into life supporting behaviour, I had to behave my way there. It was not easy, I don't think there is any more committed narcissist than me on FFL. But these people taught me if I wanted a meaningful life I had to live by the Golden Rule, scrutinize myself closely and behave as well as I could. For a all-in Peter Pan adolescent who has to be the centre of attention and thinks 80% of the oxygen in the room must be his, it's work. I'm sure many have noticed I'm more comfortable with spitballs than Socrates. I have no evidence for this, but I believe there is a God and I know its not me and the only thing that explains her/him to me is love. And hard as I try, I expect to continue to be a royal pain but as long as I try to be a better person that's OK too. Unfortunately if Maharishi was teaching this I missed it. When I was an initiator I understood that if I meditated everything else would take care of itself. Any frankly it didn't. One of the reasons I left the movement was that I just couldn't keep mustering the "cognitive dissonance" required to give the "improved social behaviour" part of the intro and be honest with myself about my own behaviour and the behaviour of the many initiators I knew. I see improvement in energy and many other things from meditation, heck I'll
[FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > On 07/02/2011 06:39 PM, wgm4u wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > >> For our FFL billionaires who have worked so hard by the sweat of their > > >> brow (apparently at near light speed) to earn their huge fortune here is > > >> a great article: > > >> http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/28/how-greed-destroys-america/ > > > So Bhairitu, why don't you start your own business and get Rich? Is there > > > something wrong with that? > > > > Is this the voice of experience? Are you one of the FFL billionaires? > > > > Just starting a business won't make you rich. It has to be the right > > business at the right time with the right idea. And you also need to be > > a business freak and not everyone is. > > So let's get this straight, a business owner risks his > time and capital and now that he's Rich you want to go > in there, take his money, and tell him where he must > spend it? FYI, the government is currently taking a *record low* percentage of the income of the wealthiest in this country. > What gives you the right to do such a thing? The same thing that gives the business owner the right to take advantage of what the government supplies for the common good in order to make his money. The business owner also needs to recognize that for his business to be successful, he needs a *market*, people who can afford to buy the products he makes or the services he supplies. If a huge percentage of the money in the country is flowing to the wealthy while the income of the rest of the population is increasingly squeezed just to pay for shelter and food, where is the business owner going to sell his products or services? The kind of economy in which the wealthy business owner can continue to prosper is dependent on the financial well-being of everybody else. It's in the business owner's *self-interest* to pay taxes so the government can fund the services he depends on to run his business (e.g., highways). It's in his *self- interest* to pay taxes so the government can fund social programs that enable people to maintain a decent standard of living. Are you familiar with the story about killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Republicans protect Millionaires - Minnesota government shuts down
On Jul 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Denise Evans wrote: > The link below has some interesting info on the influence of the Koch > brothers in taking down the government, etc. We don't need no stinkin' government... > What I don't understand is...what is the end game of the Republican > philosophy...if the working class go down, so does the country...we already > are going down...what is the purpose...what is the gain? The U.S. definitely > won't be able to retain the facade of "most powerful country." Great question, Denise. I see the Republican plan to bankrupt the country motivated by their never-satisfied desire for more military build-up, so that they can use any excuse they get to launch more wars. Why? In order to understand that, you'd have to be far more knowledgable about psychology than I am. But I'm pretty sure it has to do with control, using up scant resources, and ultimately imposing fascism. Once there's no more $$ to spend domestically, and everyone is at each other's throats, well. say hello to martial law. > Activism is the answer - I see civil war in this country in the future, if > the Republican's get their way. We keep hearing that, but so far I haven't seen any evidence that we are anywhere near. We never are, it's always, "Next time we'll do something." But then next time never seems to come. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Brain, Spirituality, Science, Metaphysics, Enlightenment, Aquinas, MZ
On Jul 2, 2011, at 10:30 PM, sparaig wrote: > My son is a pretty good writer BTW: > > http://www.gaiaonline.com/arena/event/holiday-poem-contest/vote/?entry_id=100769115#title Wow~~that was great. One of my kids loves that website, now I can see why. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Tom, MZ and The I Ching
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Bob Price wrote:
>
>
> Tom,
>
> I don't think you know me and I hope I don't upset you, heaven forbid. But
> I've been pondering most of the night about how I could do something
> positive to help Tom and MZ's relationship. More specifically, how I might
> convince you to make amends to MZ.
>
>
>
Bob, why is it so important for MZ and I to kiss an make up, Indeed for me
to buy chocolates, buy flowers, some jewelry and made reservations at MZ's
favorite expensive restaurant so that I can get down on my knees and make
amends to MZ? Why can't I just call it as I see it move on. He'll be
moving on in a week or two, I assure you.
What rankles me about MZ? Why do I say he speaks shit? Read this:
"
Just for the record, Tom: all that I have written here (that isn't
deliberately ironic) is utterly sincere—sincere here means, my motives are
honourable (at least as far as I can consciously know them). As for your
condemnation of my writing: style and form of argumentation, I must admit I
don't follow you here. Of course I grant that sometimes my style becomes
convoluted and dense, but I am only trying to track the deepest feelings,
the deepest experiences, and the most complex ideas.
When someone is harshly critical of oneself, there is always the thought: Is
this person right about me—or at least partially right? Then, if one poses
this question and tries to be as honest and fearless as one can, one steps
outside of oneself and says: "Are you sure this person hasn't got a hold of
an important truth about you, as painful and traumatizing as it is to
contemplate it?"
And there are (at least as far as I can tell) only four outcomes to this
self-interrogation: 1. denial but silence (a sort of turn the other cheek
response) 2. denial and retaliation (and here there has to be SOME truth in
the negative judgment of oneself) 3. acceptance and regret (wishing what was
said was NOT true, but getting down about it, because of the irresistible
sense that it IS true) 4. acceptance and humility (one learns from the
criticism, and amends one's ways—to the extent to which this is possible).
Depending of course on HOW MUCH ACTUAL TRUTH IS GETTING SAID AND THROUGH TO
ONE.
The real question, then, becomes, Tom: If I were a third person observing
this point counterpoint (that is, while still being aware that one is in
fact the object of a blanket dismissal of the worth of anything and
everything one has written), where would I come down in terms of my
assessment of where the truth lies?
Mostly on Tom Pall's side? or mostly on Masked Zebra's side? Or a
combination of both (i.e. there is SOME truth in what Tom Pall is saying,
but at the same time the criticism is not entirely justified)?
I will just say to you outright, Tom, that however sincere and passionate
you are in judging my contributions here on FFL to be "shit", I am unable to
make this judgment fit the reality of my experience. And therefore I am
left—I hope not in any defensive or self-serving way—with the overwhelming
impression that you yourself have no notion of where your bitterness or
anger or hatred comes from.
Now I don't mean this necessarily as a personal criticism of you. I only
mean to say that, without sparing myself in my determination to get at where
the truth lies, I find myself unable to arrive at any other conclusion—than
that, in some mysterious way, you have—for a considerable time now—found
yourself in the act of hating someone (or something) without being able to
consciously stay aware of WHY IT IS YOU ARE DOING THIS.
And on what basis do I reach this conclusion?
Your judgment of me (in the terms at least that you have made it) just does
not apply to the objective truth of the situation. You have missed your man,
Tom. You have got me wrong.
Because (I am repeating myself here) there is not a single subjective
response inside of myself which would suggest I am avoiding taking on this
challenge—and mounting a counter-offensive to protect my self-esteem.
I must conclude, therefore, that you are mistaken about me, Tom. And that
therefore you lack any meaningful rationale for the perpetuation of this
antipathy.
You see—I AM COMING TO THE END OF THIS, TOM!—If there were the slightest
truth in what you have said about me (I mean in the main: you are full of
shit and your writing is shit, MZ) then, believe it or not, in reading this
[what I am writing here in this very post], at some level at least, YOU
WOULD EXPERIENCE YOURSELF AS A MARTYR. A martyr? Yes, a martyr for the
truth.
Because MZ has just tried to pull a fast one here, seeking a kind of false
exoneration. I (Tom Pall) know in my soul: Hey, here is deceit and
corruption ('shit') in the service of the ego.: Do you need any more proof
than this very attempt to overthrow my (TP/s) TRUE judgment of this guy?
Yes, if you would go into your death with this conviction, Tom, then somehow
I have 1. misconstrued reality 2. misconstrued you 3. misconstrue
[FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > For our FFL billionaires who have worked so hard by the sweat of their > brow (apparently at near light speed) to earn their huge fortune here is > a great article: > http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/28/how-greed-destroys-america/ > If the Democrats were honest about the GOP plan to sabotage the economy they would say that it has nothing to do with Obama. It has to do with a grand libertarian plan to bankrupt the country. Reagan started it, Clinton helped it along, then George W. Bush put it into hyper-drive with tax cuts for the rich, preemptive wars, military spending, bailouts, outsourced jobs, trade imbalance and dismantling of American manufacturing, all of which Obama continues, by the way. Why do Libertarians want to wreck the economy? So they can privatize the commons and sell our assets to the oligarchs for pennies on the dollar, of course, then shit-can democracy. The party is over. It doesn't matter if Obama gets reelected or not, whoever it is, will be just another bought and paid for corporate tool. Attacks on pensions in the United States is also happening in Europe, Greece, Briton and "throughout the industrialized world and increasingly people are feeling that the workers are being made to pay for the deficits created by the bankers." "Hundreds of Thousands of Greek and British Workers Stage Strikes As Governments Push Austerity Cuts" http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/1/hundreds_of_thousands_of_greek_and "In recent weeks, there's been some question as to how far Dems are willing to go in making the explosive charge that Republicans are deliberately trying to sabotage the economy in order to improve their chances of defeating President Obama in 2012. On a conference call just now with reporters, Senator Chuck Schumer made the most aggressive case we've heard yet along these lines, leaving little doubt that Dems are locking in behind this message as the deficit talks hit crunch time and as the 2012 campaign looms. "Do they simply want the economy to go down the drain to further their political gain?" Schumer asked. "They seem to be against anything that may create jobs, because they view a weak economy as key to their political chances in 2012." http://tinyurl.com/44vqxjt
[FairfieldLife] Neat fund-raising idea
Party down for charity. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/constantin-bjerke/the-global-party_b_885953.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: How Greed Destroys America
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > On 07/02/2011 06:39 PM, wgm4u wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > >> For our FFL billionaires who have worked so hard by the sweat of their > >> brow (apparently at near light speed) to earn their huge fortune here is > >> a great article: > >> http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/28/how-greed-destroys-america/ > > So Bhairitu, why don't you start your own business and get Rich? Is there > > something wrong with that? > > Is this the voice of experience? Are you one of the FFL billionaires? > > Just starting a business won't make you rich. It has to be the right > business at the right time with the right idea. And you also need to be > a business freak and not everyone is. So let's get this straight, a business owner risks his time and capital and now that he's Rich you want to go in there, take his money, and tell him where he must spend it? What gives you the right to do such a thing? And you claim to be 'holier than thou' with such a philosophy? What a hypocrite; rich people give plenty to the charities *they* choose, please don't pat yourself on the back with such an idea. It's merely taking money you haven't earned and forcing Rich people to give it to whom you (and your liberal cronies) decide is most worthy. YOU accrue no personal merit in such a transaction other than smug self-righteousness! and end up punishing the very people who create wealth and creative ideas, you'd better take a long look in the mirror, why such disdain for the Rich?
[FairfieldLife] Calvinball
One of the reasons I like Internet chat forums is that they're like playing Calvinball. If you aren't a Calvin and Hobbes fan, this reference may be lost on you. Every so often the kid (Calvin) and his talking tiger doll buddy (Hobbes) would play a game of Calvinball. What made it such a fun game is that they made up the rules as they played. Just when Calvin thought he was winning, Hobbes would make up a new rule that changed everything and made them even again. I think I mentioned in a previous post that I see Internet chat forums as a kind of demonstration of interdependent origination. They are rarely anyone's sole creation; instead they are an ever-evolving group creation, created by each of the posters in equal measure. Or at least that's how I see them. The "moderators" of some forums clearly have other ideas about this. They get very proprietary indeed about "their" forums, and make up rules and regs to make sure that "their" forum turns out just the way they expected it to. In my experience such forums rarely last very long, or if they do they turn into "echo chambers," inhabited by people who all believe the same things and say them the same way. The forums that last allow their participants to play Calvinball. If someone, "losing" in an argument that they somehow feel they need to "win," declares, "You can't say that! That's against the rules," the other party is free to say, "Whose rules? We don't have to show you no steeenkin' badges, or follow your rules." The folks trying to impose rules don't tend to like this very much; they're not big Calvinball fans. I get the feeling many of them would prefer Johannes Calvin. He was big on rules. :-) I like Calvinball. It's more fun, more like working without a net.
[FairfieldLife] Writing As Spiritual Practice
As I've mentioned a couple of times, I've recently gotten to share cyberconversations with a group of former Rama students. It's interesting for many reasons, but one of them is that we all studied with a guy who was a former English professor. One of his one-liners was that "Writers write to figure things out." Rama not only expected us to do this -- everyone was encouraged to keep a Journal in which you recorded your spiritual experiences and thoughts -- he required us to do it. We had writing assignments. We wrote stories about our experiences with him, or essays on some aspect of Buddhist thought. As an example, we were once asked to write a 20-page paper on the Four Noble Truths. I still have that one, because I had so much fun writing it. He read all of these stories and papers, but he never "graded" them or really much commented on them. The point was getting his students to experience the writing process itself, not what they wound up writing. At any rate, the point I'm trying to make is that we got used to figuring things out through our writing. Writing was just as fundamental a part of our spiritual path as meditation was. Not everyone on a spiritual path has that kind of relationship with the writing process, and is able to see it as a form of sadhana. On this forum, I think Curtis has come closest to explaining this idea, and the benefit that writing on Fairfield Life has for him. It's a way of working through ideas, pulling them out of the abstract and making them concrete, to see if they hold up in the relative world. I think Internet chat forums provide a very powerful sadhana for the spiritual seeker, if they just take advantage of it. The ability to write about one's spiritual experiences or beliefs is IMO a powerful way of *integrating* those experiences or beliefs into daily life. The experiences may be subjective, but writing about them is anything but; it's very objective. And in my experience the writing process is very occult -- it has the effect of drawing the power or the shakti or the transcendence or whatever you want to call it out of the world of subjectivity and integrating it into your objective life. Writing about one's spiritual experiences is very grounding. It's the opposite of spacing out. Anyway, that's why I'm enjoying this other forum. Everybody knows this, and puts some impeccability into what they write. Not because they're trying to impress anyone, or gain strokes from anyone, but because it's writing, and writing matters.
[FairfieldLife] A Good Conversation
Since the subject has come up, I got to thinking about what I consider a good conversation. The one that follows was the first one that came to mind. It's fiction, written by the brilliant Joss Whedon, but I think it captures the essence of a truly good conversation. It's from the first episode of the TV series "Firefly," and requires a bit of a setup for those who might not have seen the series. It's the first private conversation between a man of God and a whore. Shepherd Book is a Shepherd, a 60-ish Christian holy man on a walkabout, on leave from his Abbey, just walking the universe like Caine in Kung-fu. On a whim, he has booked passage on Serenity, the spaceship home (unbeknownst to him) to a band of outlaws. In the scene just before this conversation takes place, Shepherd Book was being introduced to the members of the crew and other passengers by Mal, the Captain. Someone asks, "Will the Ambassador be joining us?" Enter Inara. The camera pans up to reveal one of the most beautiful women in the universe, dressed in an elegant gown. She walks down the stairs with a grace that defies description and extends her hand to Book. He stammers, stunned by both her beauty and her grace, "I didn't expect to be meeting royalty." Inara doesn't get it, and someone has to explain to her that she was referred to earlier as the Ambassador. Mal says, "She's a whore, Shepherd." Others explain that she's a Companion, which in this future world is the counterpart of a highly-trained geisha. She is their 'Ambassador' because many planets wouldn't let them dock there unless they had a Companion on board to ply her trade on that world while they're there doing their outlaw business. Mal and Inara trade a few witty barbs, and the awkward moment is mainly forgotten as Inara leaves. In the next scene, we see Inara in her shuttle, kneeling topless before a basin of water, bathing herself. Shepherd Book knocks, and then enters, carrying a tray. Inara: Sinjin. [something Chinese, probably 'Enter'] Book: [seeing her topless] If I'm intruding... Inara: [not embarrassed in the least, gracefully pulling up the top of her gown and standing up to greet him] Not at all. I expected you. Book: Couldn't really say the same. Inara: So. Would you like to lecture me on the wickedness of my ways? Book: I brought you some supper, but...if you'd prefer a lecture, I have a few catchy ones prepped. Sin, and hell-fire. One has lepers. Inara: [laughing] I think I'll pass. [takes the tray] Thank you for that. Book: The captain said you might like it. I was surprised at his concern. Inara: For a lowly whore. Book: It was unjust of him to say that. Inara: Believe me, I've called him worse. I expect he was was more interested in making you uncomfortable than me. Book: He isn't wildly interested in ingratiating himself to anyone. Yet he is very protective of his crew. It's odd. Inara: Why are you so fascinated by him? Book: Because he's something of a mystery. Why are you? Inara: Because so few men are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brain, Spirituality, Science, Metaphysics, Enlightenment, Aquinas, MZ
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > wrote: > > > > Barry is intelligent too, but he does not seem > > conversational as in interaction with others. > > His writing style is conversational, but does > > not seem to extend beyond that. > > In all honesty, a lot of people here strike me > as incredibly NEEDY in this respect. They only > seem happy when they can find someone who will > either argue with them about their ideas, or > give them strokes for having them. If that's > your idea of what "conversation" is, you are > probably correct that I'm not much interested. Note also that Barry's reacting not just to Xeno's remarks about him, but to Xeno's remarks about me that precede what Barry quotes, in which Xeno observed that, unlike Barry, I have intelligent conversations with others. Barry's above paragraph is intended as a characterization of me in particular (he's said the same thing about me many times). It's designed to demean both me and Xeno by implying that arguing or stroke-giving is our idea of what conversation is. Trouble is... > My idea of a good conversation is where some- > one throws out an idea, the next person riffs > on that idea and takes it further or in another > direction, and then the next person takes it > even further. ...what Barry says is his idea of a good conversation describes to a T the kinds of conversations I (and others) have been having with Xeno. Ooopsie. Barry shoots himself in the foot again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: another question for MZ, and maybe William of Occam
As far as experiencing oneself as the Great Vast Nothing: Gangaji first, in about 1996-98, and then Arjuna, who taught a workshop here in 1999. They showed me what I had overlooked all those years, and I just laughed the first time I got it. How could I have missed it? And yet in TM we were always taught we had to go somewhere to get pure consciousness, and then we brought a little of it back with us each time. The other teachers showed me that you could experience it anytime, anywhere, without meditating, and once explained it seemed so obvious. As for the God bits, I figure those out for myself as I go along, drawing on the Christian tradition that I was raised in. Thanks for asking. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > Feste, nice writing. Who were the spiritual teachers that you allude to who > helped you come to this? > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > , but I have all my adult life (I started TM when I was 17) imbibed the > > Indian philosophy of "unity is all there is." And thanks to spiritual > > teachers who showed me how simple it is, I do experience myself, whenever I > > choose, it seems, as existing within a vast Nothing that is also myself > > (there seems to be no other way of describing it)-- although I do not > > experience that Nothing as God. That's not the word that comes to mind at > > all. > > > > My experience of God -- and it is an unmistakable and quite recent > > experience, unlike anything else I've ever had -- is of a being who is > > quite Other than me, completely separate from me, and yet who knows me > > intimately, and has infinite compassion and a complete lack of judgment > > about me (neither of which qualities have I ever been able to muster by > > myself to apply to myself), and all without making a big deal out of it -- > > it's very gentle and quiet and simple and practical. I find it rather > > humbling to have such experiences, the most recent of which came at a time > > of crisis, and I don't think I am fooling myself about it. I was being > > guided at that time by a Being who, one would have to say, even though it > > feels rather awkward, is worthy of the name Lord or Heavenly Father, just > > as the Christians say. I did not in any way at that time feel that I was > > being guided by my "higher self," an overused New Age term which is > > probably due for retirement. > > > > Mind you, I'm not convinced that there is a dichotomy between these two > > perspectives. They are just different viewpoints. > > > > After all, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna early on that the > > eternal is within him. He is, in essence, a part of the one reality and can > > therefore never cease to exist. (I take that to be close to the "Nothing" > > that I seem to be able to experience at will.) > > > > But when Krishna reveals himself to Arjuna in Chapter 11 in his full glory, > > he is a Being who stands wholly apart from Arjuna, superior to him and > > infinitely more vast than he, in every way imaginable. > > > > Arjuna, then, in addition to receiving the knowledge that he is eternal -- > > he is the vastness of the absolute that cannot, in the nature of things, > > ever pass out of existence -- also has an experience of God as Other, as > > Not Myself. > > > > I would like to continue to live with both perspectives. I can feel the > > presence of the Nothing as the Self, but I don't feel that that invalidates > > an I-Thou relationship between the individual person and the all-knowing > > and all-seeing God who knows even when a sparrow falls to the ground. It's > > a paradox in which the individual self may at once know a Unity that brings > > peace and a sense of the vastness of Being, but also an Otherness that is > > beyond anything that the individual self can merge or be at one with. It is > > just too vast to be comprehended. > > > > Such are my puny musings on a hot humid Saturday night in Fairfield, IA. > > > > Once again, I have enjoyed your posts, MZ, which are written with such > > grace and conviction and ruthless honesty. I think you are on an amazing > > journey. > > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brain, Spirituality, Science, Metaphysics, Enlightenment, Aquinas, MZ
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > wrote: > > > > Barry is intelligent too, but he does not seem > > conversational as in interaction with others. > > His writing style is conversational, but does > > not seem to extend beyond that. > > "Beyond that" to WHAT? :-) To interaction with others, obviously. > I speak my piece about a subject and then allow > others to do the same. I see no need to defend > my stance or my ideas, or to argue them with > anyone. And yet on those occasions when you do interact, it's frequently on the basis of tearing into someone whose ideas you don't like and *demanding* that they defend their ideas against your attacks. > In all honesty, a lot of people here strike me > as incredibly NEEDY in this respect. They only > seem happy when they can find someone who will > either argue with them about their ideas, or > give them strokes for having them. If that's > your idea of what "conversation" is, you are > probably correct that I'm not much interested. There are plenty of conversations here that don't involve either arguing or stroking. Ironically, this appears to be exactly Xeno's idea of what conversation is. He's tried to get you to interact with him along these lines a number of times, with little success. > My idea of a good conversation is where some- > one throws out an idea, the next person riffs > on that idea and takes it further or in another > direction, and then the next person takes it > even further. See above. Plenty of this goes on here. But very rarely with you. No one is trying to "win" or be > "right" or prove someone else "wrong." Only > egos try to do that stuff. Let them play their > "win" games with other egos. I'm just here to > have fun. As has been pointed out before, in many cases people argue with a view toward refining their thinking, to see if it stands up to challenge. That's not an ego game. In fact, it's a tacit acknowledgment that one's thinking may be flawed. And for some of us, that very process is fun. Obviously it's not fun for you. You like to challenge the ideas of others, but you don't enjoy having your own challenged. Some might think there's quite a bit of ego involved in that behavior.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Check out Activist Post: The Perfect (Radiation) Storm is Brewing
In Nebraska: "The facility is a storage site for 20 years worth of nuclear waste material; specifically, spent fuel rods from different plants in the state as well as its own. Then there is the disturbing news that the spent fuel rod pool was so full that they store the surplus fuel rods in a dry storage area outside the safety of the pool. How long will that area stay dry and what happens if it gets wet? One reporter claims the dry storage bunker is now half-submerged. One of the intake structures is prone to flooding that could affect the water pumps. Non-functional water pumps? Does that sound familiar?" --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > Yep, and its too bad that we don't have an Iowa Governor who would defend our > interests against those god-damned Nebraskans. Those fucking spent-fuel rods > should be removed from our borders. Pronto. > > -Buck in FF > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > The Guardian newspaper has revealed British government officials approached > > nuclear companies to draw up a coordinated public relations strategy to > > play down the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. In emails sent just two > > days after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, British officials wrote > > that they wanted to ensure the accident did not derail their plans for a > > new generation of nuclear stations in Britain. One official wrote: "We need > > to quash any stories trying to compare this to Chernobyl." > > > > http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/1/headlines/uk_govt_worked_with_nuke_firms_to_downplay_fukushima_disaster > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WLeed3@ wrote: > > > > > > _Activist Post: The Perfect (Radiation) Storm is Brewing_ > > > (http://www.activistpost.com/2011/06/perfect-radiation-storm-is-brewing.html) > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Archetypes, Music and Magritte (was: A question for MZ...)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" wrote: > > > Rather hot and humid here in Fairfield today, with a sweet, faint, > > musky floral scent > > > > Sounds just like a '94 Beaurdoiux > > * * Better than a '94 Buick, perhaps? I am not much of a wine conoisseur... > The tall grass blazes in the hot sun... The smell of russian sage, burns, smoke rises up. Two birds soar catching the updrafts of the hot day's rising air currents... The feeling of shakit in the air, is unmistakable... It clicks and clacks like the train coming down the tracks... Feelings of floating, the earth vibrating, benineeth our feet... Floating feelings of ariving at the station, wiping the sweat from my eyes, the burn of the salt, the sting of the hot summer sun...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Check out Activist Post: The Perfect (Radiation) Storm is Brewing
Yep, and its too bad that we don't have an Iowa Governor who would defend our interests against those god-damned Nebraskans. Those fucking spent-fuel rods should be removed from our borders. Pronto. -Buck in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > The Guardian newspaper has revealed British government officials approached > nuclear companies to draw up a coordinated public relations strategy to play > down the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. In emails sent just two days > after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, British officials wrote that they > wanted to ensure the accident did not derail their plans for a new generation > of nuclear stations in Britain. One official wrote: "We need to quash any > stories trying to compare this to Chernobyl." > > http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/1/headlines/uk_govt_worked_with_nuke_firms_to_downplay_fukushima_disaster > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WLeed3@ wrote: > > > > _Activist Post: The Perfect (Radiation) Storm is Brewing_ > > (http://www.activistpost.com/2011/06/perfect-radiation-storm-is-brewing.html) > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: What kind of meditation did the Buddha teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > Scholarly article on Buddhist meditation, contemporary mindfulness > > practices, and the Transcendental Meditation technique by Dr. Evan > > Finkelstein. > > > > http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/07/the-buddhas-meditation--dr-evan-finkelstein/ > > Just another attempt to impose TM ideas on a system > he neither understands nor respects, and clearly has > never tried. > TM uses a mantra to transend thought. Mindfulness is the process of practicing transending thought, by watchin thoughts in a non-attatched way... TM teaches to watch thougthts in a non-attatched way, also. TM also allows the mind to experience more subtle levels of the mind, when the mantra is experienced on finer and finer levels... TM teaches one to become familiar with the inward and outward strokes of meditation... Mindfulness generally does not have the ability of refinement of the senses, nor the ability to understand the inward and outward strokes of one's normal awareness Buddha was cool in his day, no doubt in my mind...
[FairfieldLife] Re: another question for MZ, and maybe William of Occam
Feste, nice writing. Who were the spiritual teachers that you allude to who helped you come to this? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" wrote: > > > > > > , but I have all my adult life (I started TM when I was 17) imbibed the > Indian philosophy of "unity is all there is." And thanks to spiritual > teachers who showed me how simple it is, I do experience myself, whenever I > choose, it seems, as existing within a vast Nothing that is also myself > (there seems to be no other way of describing it)-- although I do not > experience that Nothing as God. That's not the word that comes to mind at > all. > > My experience of God -- and it is an unmistakable and quite recent > experience, unlike anything else I've ever had -- is of a being who is quite > Other than me, completely separate from me, and yet who knows me intimately, > and has infinite compassion and a complete lack of judgment about me (neither > of which qualities have I ever been able to muster by myself to apply to > myself), and all without making a big deal out of it -- it's very gentle and > quiet and simple and practical. I find it rather humbling to have such > experiences, the most recent of which came at a time of crisis, and I don't > think I am fooling myself about it. I was being guided at that time by a > Being who, one would have to say, even though it feels rather awkward, is > worthy of the name Lord or Heavenly Father, just as the Christians say. I did > not in any way at that time feel that I was being guided by my "higher self," > an overused New Age term which is probably due for retirement. > > Mind you, I'm not convinced that there is a dichotomy between these two > perspectives. They are just different viewpoints. > > After all, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna early on that the > eternal is within him. He is, in essence, a part of the one reality and can > therefore never cease to exist. (I take that to be close to the "Nothing" > that I seem to be able to experience at will.) > > But when Krishna reveals himself to Arjuna in Chapter 11 in his full glory, > he is a Being who stands wholly apart from Arjuna, superior to him and > infinitely more vast than he, in every way imaginable. > > Arjuna, then, in addition to receiving the knowledge that he is eternal -- he > is the vastness of the absolute that cannot, in the nature of things, ever > pass out of existence -- also has an experience of God as Other, as Not > Myself. > > I would like to continue to live with both perspectives. I can feel the > presence of the Nothing as the Self, but I don't feel that that invalidates > an I-Thou relationship between the individual person and the all-knowing and > all-seeing God who knows even when a sparrow falls to the ground. It's a > paradox in which the individual self may at once know a Unity that brings > peace and a sense of the vastness of Being, but also an Otherness that is > beyond anything that the individual self can merge or be at one with. It is > just too vast to be comprehended. > > Such are my puny musings on a hot humid Saturday night in Fairfield, IA. > > Once again, I have enjoyed your posts, MZ, which are written with such grace > and conviction and ruthless honesty. I think you are on an amazing journey. > > >
[FairfieldLife] 'Gulf of Mexico continues to Heat Up...'
Hurricaine season is underway, as the gulf heats up with heat waves across Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California... Fires in Arizona and Texas this season, have been historical... Stay tuned. Agni and Indra
[FairfieldLife] 'Gangaji's Enlightened Moment'...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cjX7RDgqmQ
[FairfieldLife] Re: What kind of meditation did the Buddha teach?
Here is the large TM assertion recycled, that buddhistic practices necesarily require 'strenuous practice' and therefore are no good. While they may in fact require no more strenuous practice than TM'ers re-introducing their mantra to their mind. This TM paper has a large assumption that is quintessential TM think. That TM is the best and only. It's the argument of the TM 'preparatory' lecture received prior to learning TM. It is marketing. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > Scholarly article on Buddhist meditation, contemporary mindfulness > practices, and the Transcendental Meditation technique by Dr. Evan > Finkelstein. > > http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/07/the-buddhas-meditation--dr-evan-finke > lstein/ >
[FairfieldLife] 'Laughing Girl Enlightenment'..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4PZL7wg_g4
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ayahuasca Toxicology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > Yes, in contrast to dropping hallucinogens hoping for a bio-chemical > > opening, 'Being' forced through an immature energy system ( a system not > > ready or properly prepared, even of long term TM'ers) can cause its own > > problems. It certainly can cause physical movement like you're talking or > > physical problems manifesting otherwise. Jammed or forcing kundalini > > shakti through blocked or poorly functioning chakras like a log-jam it may > > blow through alright but could manifest physical problems and even disease > > otherwise simply because the system is not clear or functioning properly. > > Evidently is rooted in lack of proper yoga (Eight limbs, not just > > transcending).> > > Hmm... in TM aasanam is sthira-sukham. > > tasmin (there) sati (being) > shvaasa-prashvaasayor gati-vicchedaH, aka praaNaayaamaH. > > As a result of repeating the mantra as instructed by > Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, pratyaahaara (*sva-vishaya-asaMprayoge* > citta-svaruupa-anukaara iva indriyaaNaam) follows, > > and so on. Only yama and niyama are "lacking"? :o > That is fine, you've got the TM-yoga catechism down. However, things in the body subtle evidently are not necessarily dealt with in just TM as it is taught. Had real yoga been done it would be much less likely that problems folks are experiencing in the meditating community would not be there. Yes there are the eight limbs of yoga and practicing TM is not entirely that system in itself, as in there may well be more work to do than just TM.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Brain, Spirituality, Science, Metaphysics, Enlightenment, Aquinas, MZ
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > Barry is intelligent too, but he does not seem > conversational as in interaction with others. > His writing style is conversational, but does > not seem to extend beyond that. "Beyond that" to WHAT? :-) I speak my piece about a subject and then allow others to do the same. I see no need to defend my stance or my ideas, or to argue them with anyone. In all honesty, a lot of people here strike me as incredibly NEEDY in this respect. They only seem happy when they can find someone who will either argue with them about their ideas, or give them strokes for having them. If that's your idea of what "conversation" is, you are probably correct that I'm not much interested. My idea of a good conversation is where some- one throws out an idea, the next person riffs on that idea and takes it further or in another direction, and then the next person takes it even further. No one is trying to "win" or be "right" or prove someone else "wrong." Only egos try to do that stuff. Let them play their "win" games with other egos. I'm just here to have fun.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What kind of meditation did the Buddha teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > Scholarly article on Buddhist meditation, contemporary mindfulness > practices, and the Transcendental Meditation technique by Dr. Evan > Finkelstein. > > http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/07/the-buddhas-meditation--dr-evan-finkelstein/ Just another attempt to impose TM ideas on a system he neither understands nor respects, and clearly has never tried.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What kind of meditation did the Buddha teach?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > Scholarly article on Buddhist meditation, contemporary mindfulness > practices, and the Transcendental Meditation technique by Dr. Evan > Finkelstein. > > http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/07/the-buddhas-meditation--dr-evan-finke > lstein/ > "Since Buddha explained that only the right method would bring the fruit, it would be valuable to explore whether Samatha meditation, as it's understood and practiced today, is the right method to bring tranquility to the mind. The term Samatha actually means calmness or tranquility: an integrated state where the mind is not in any way excited or active. *It is directly related to the term Samadhi*, the state in which the mind is completely settled and unwavering and is effortlessly held in a fully concentrated state." If he means those two words are linguistically related, I don't think I can agree with him. It seems to me especially people in Southern, Dravidian, parts of India tend to ignore the difference between the dental sibilant (s) and the palatal sibilant (sh; in HK transliteration 'z'). For instance, they tend to write, at least in Roman transliteration, 'siva' for 'shiva' and 'sankara' for 'shankara'. According to Monier-Williams, the word above written as 'samatha' is actually 'shamatha' (zamatha), so, at least from the purely linguistic POV, it seems to have nothing to do with 'samaadhi' (sam-aa-dhi). Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: Search Results 1 zamaTha m. (cf. Un2. i , 102 Sch.) N. of a Brahman MBh. 2 zamatha m. quiet , tranquillity , absence of passion Lalit. ; a counsellor , minister L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ayahuasca Toxicology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > Yes, in contrast to dropping hallucinogens hoping for a bio-chemical opening, > 'Being' forced through an immature energy system ( a system not ready or > properly prepared, even of long term TM'ers) can cause its own problems. It > certainly can cause physical movement like you're talking or physical > problems manifesting otherwise. Jammed or forcing kundalini shakti through > blocked or poorly functioning chakras like a log-jam it may blow through > alright but could manifest physical problems and even disease otherwise > simply because the system is not clear or functioning properly. Evidently is > rooted in lack of proper yoga (Eight limbs, not just transcending).> Hmm... in TM aasanam is sthira-sukham. tasmin (there) sati (being) shvaasa-prashvaasayor gati-vicchedaH, aka praaNaayaamaH. As a result of repeating the mantra as instructed by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, pratyaahaara (*sva-vishaya-asaMprayoge* citta-svaruupa-anukaara iva indriyaaNaam) follows, and so on. Only yama and niyama are "lacking"? :o
[FairfieldLife] Re: another question for MZ, and maybe William of Occam
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra wrote: > > > > Dear Feste36, > > I didn't miss seeing this, and as you will understand, it (and because of > > where it seemed to come from) was consoling to me. Indeed at the point that > > I read it, I was seriously considering suspending operations (for at least > > a week: the proper sentence for having abused my privileges here on FFL). I > > was not enjoying the persecution, and thought: Do I need this? Your few > > words restored my spirits somewhat, and I have renewed posting here. So > > thanks, Feste36. > > MZ > > > > I've been enjoying your posts because of the intense intellectual, spiritual, > and emotional drama they reveal going on at what sounds like a very exalted > level of experience. I find these accounts quite remarkable, worthy of a > Nietzsche or a William Blake, both of whom lived vast inner lives, and very > dramatic ones, too, where few could follow. It cannot be easy. > > I also found it very interesting, indeed unique from what I know of, to read > of someone who consciously removed himself from unity consciousness and > reestablished his identity as a personal, individual self that stands in a > subordinate relationship to a divine Other. > > This struck a chord with me because my own experience seems to have followed > at least something of the path you outline, but without the feeling that one > perspective must be right and the other wrong. By that I do not mean that I > have ever experienced unity consciousness, but I have all my adult life (I > started TM when I was 17) imbibed the Indian philosophy of "unity is all > there is." And thanks to spiritual teachers who showed me how simple it is, I > do experience myself, whenever I choose, it seems, as existing within a vast > Nothing that is also myself (there seems to be no other way of describing > it)-- although I do not experience that Nothing as God. That's not the word > that comes to mind at all. > > My experience of God -- and it is an unmistakable and quite recent > experience, unlike anything else I've ever had -- is of a being who is quite > Other than me, completely separate from me, and yet who knows me intimately, > and has infinite compassion and a complete lack of judgment about me (neither > of which qualities have I ever been able to muster by myself to apply to > myself), and all without making a big deal out of it -- it's very gentle and > quiet and simple and practical. I find it rather humbling to have such > experiences, the most recent of which came at a time of crisis, and I don't > think I am fooling myself about it. I was being guided at that time by a > Being who, one would have to say, even though it feels rather awkward, is > worthy of the name Lord or Heavenly Father, just as the Christians say. I did > not in any way at that time feel that I was being guided by my "higher self," > an overused New Age term which is probably due for retirement. > > Mind you, I'm not convinced that there is a dichotomy between these two > perspectives. They are just different viewpoints. > > After all, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna early on that the > eternal is within him. He is, in essence, a part of the one reality and can > therefore never cease to exist. (I take that to be close to the "Nothing" > that I seem to be able to experience at will.) > > But when Krishna reveals himself to Arjuna in Chapter 11 in his full glory, > he is a Being who stands wholly apart from Arjuna, superior to him and > infinitely more vast than he, in every way imaginable. > > Arjuna, then, in addition to receiving the knowledge that he is eternal -- he > is the vastness of the absolute that cannot, in the nature of things, ever > pass out of existence -- also has an experience of God as Other, as Not > Myself. > > I would like to continue to live with both perspectives. I can feel the > presence of the Nothing as the Self, but I don't feel that that invalidates > an I-Thou relationship between the individual person and the all-knowing and > all-seeing God who knows even when a sparrow falls to the ground. It's a > paradox in which the individual self may at once know a Unity that brings > peace and a sense of the vastness of Being, but also an Otherness that is > beyond anything that the individual self can merge or be at one with. It is > just too vast to be comprehended. > > Such are my puny musings on a hot humid Saturday night in Fairfield, IA. > > Once again, I have enjoyed your posts, MZ, which are written with such grace > and conviction and ruthless honesty. I think you are on an amazing journey. > > > Dear Feste36, > I didn't miss seeing this, and as you will understand, it (and because of where it seemed to come from) was consoling to me. Indeed at the point that I read it, I was seriously considering suspending
