[FairfieldLife] Re: CFS, or how words manipulate what we see

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> And a modern P.T. Barnum exploitation of the same phenomenon. See the
> lion?
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/15/china-zoo-under-fire-for-disguis\
> ing-dog-as-lion/
>  sing-dog-as-lion/>

LOL, I'd like to see them get away with that at London zoo, I'll
lend them my Jack Russell for the Hyena cage.

> 
> "I'm sure this is a common experience. How many have experienced this?"
> [ Three hands in a room containing hundreds go up. ]
> "See? Almost everyone."
> 
> :-)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > First, the test, riffing off the mention lately of the number of
> > different senses required to appreciate music:
> >
> >   [Spot the dogs (Image: Gandee Vasan/Getty)]
> >
> > For most people, just a swirl of black blotches on a white background,
> > right? But what if I asked you to tell me about your dog Spot?
> Suddenly
> > it's "See Spot run."
> >
> > Now think of all those "Jesus visions" found in pieces of toast and
> > offered for sale on eBay. Or Maharishi declaring that the icicle
> forming
> > on his balcony was a manifestation of Shiva. Almost certainly, to
> > everyone who saw it before then, it was merely an icicle. But after
> he'd
> > put a name to it, people went around claiming they'd witnessed a
> > "miracle."
> >
> > Or think about those interminable boat rides, on which everyone was
> > standing around shivering in the cold, waiting for something --
> anything
> > -- to happen. They're just staring out at a lake, bored shitless, and
> > then Maharishi says something about the Vedas describing soma as
> having
> > the quality of "the full moon on water," and suddenly everyone is
> oohing
> > and aahing and the whole boatride becomes Soma Chanting Evening.  :-)
> >
> > Just a reminder to folks to stop and consider whether you really see
> > what you think you see, or whether you're just seeing what you were
> told
> > to see...
> > Words prompt us to notice what our subconscious sees
> > It's a case of hear no object, see no object. Hearing  the name of an
> > object appears to influence whether or not we see it,  suggesting that
> > hearing and vision might be even more intertwined than  previously
> > thought.
> >
> > Studies of how the brain files away concepts
> > > he-brains-filing-cabinet.html>  suggest that words and images are
> > tightly coupled. What is not clear, says Gary Lupyan
> >of the University of Wisconsin in
> > Madison, is whether language and  vision work together to help you
> > interpret what you're seeing, or  whether words can actually change
> what
> > you see.
> >
> > Lupyan and Emily Wardof Yale
> > University used a technique called continuous flash suppression  (CFS)
> > on 20 volunteers to test whether a spoken prompt could make them 
> detect
> > an image that they were not consciously aware they were seeing.
> >
> > CFS works by displaying different images  to the right and left eyes:
> > one eye might be shown a simple shape or an  animal, for example,
> while
> > the other is shown visual "noise" in the form  of bright, randomly
> > flickering shapes. The noise monopolises the brain,  leaving so little
> > processing power for the other image that the person  does not
> > consciously register it, making it effectively invisible.
> > Wheels of perception
> > In a series of CFS experiments, the  researchers asked volunteers
> > whether or not they could see a specific  object, such as a dog.
> > Sometimes it was displayed, sometimes not. When  it was not displayed
> or
> > when the image was of another animal such as a  zebra or kangaroo, the
> > volunteers typically reported seeing nothing. But  when a dog was
> > displayed and the question mentioned a dog, the  volunteers were
> > significantly more likely to become aware of it. "If you  hear a word,
> > that greases the wheels of perception," says Lupyan: the  visual
> system
> > becomes primed for anything to do with dogs.
> >
> > In a similar experiment, the team found  that volunteers were more
> > likely to detect specific shapes if asked  about them. For example,
> > asking "Do you see a square?" made it more  likely than that they
> would
> > see a hidden square but not a hidden circle.
> >
> > James McClellandof Stanford
> > University in California, who was not involved in the work,  thinks it
> > is an important study. It suggests that sight and language  are
> > intertwined, he says.
> >
> > Lupyan now wants to study how the language  we speak influences the
> > ability of certain terms to help us spot  images. For instance, breeds
> > might be categorised differently in  different languages and might not
> > all become visible when volunteers  hear their language's word for
> > "dog". He also thinks textures or smells  linked to an image might
> have
> > a similar effect on whether we perceive it  as words

[FairfieldLife] Re: CFS, or how words manipulate what we see

[turquoiseb]

Another example?

  [trina merry body art]

S. Don't tell Alex about this one.  :-)


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> First, the test, riffing off the mention lately of the number of
> different senses required to appreciate music:
>
>   [Spot the dogs (Image: Gandee Vasan/Getty)]
>
> For most people, just a swirl of black blotches on a white background,
> right? But what if I asked you to tell me about your dog Spot?
Suddenly
> it's "See Spot run."
>
> Now think of all those "Jesus visions" found in pieces of toast and
> offered for sale on eBay. Or Maharishi declaring that the icicle
forming
> on his balcony was a manifestation of Shiva. Almost certainly, to
> everyone who saw it before then, it was merely an icicle. But after
he'd
> put a name to it, people went around claiming they'd witnessed a
> "miracle."
>
> Or think about those interminable boat rides, on which everyone was
> standing around shivering in the cold, waiting for something --
anything
> -- to happen. They're just staring out at a lake, bored shitless, and
> then Maharishi says something about the Vedas describing soma as
having
> the quality of "the full moon on water," and suddenly everyone is
oohing
> and aahing and the whole boatride becomes Soma Chanting Evening.  :-)
>
> Just a reminder to folks to stop and consider whether you really see
> what you think you see, or whether you're just seeing what you were
told
> to see...
> Words prompt us to notice what our subconscious sees
> It's a case of hear no object, see no object. Hearing  the name of an
> object appears to influence whether or not we see it,  suggesting that
> hearing and vision might be even more intertwined than  previously
> thought.
>
> Studies of how the brain files away concepts
> > he-brains-filing-cabinet.html>  suggest that words and images are
> tightly coupled. What is not clear, says Gary Lupyan
>of the University of Wisconsin in
> Madison, is whether language and  vision work together to help you
> interpret what you're seeing, or  whether words can actually change
what
> you see.
>
> Lupyan and Emily Wardof Yale
> University used a technique called continuous flash suppression  (CFS)
> on 20 volunteers to test whether a spoken prompt could make them 
detect
> an image that they were not consciously aware they were seeing.
>
> CFS works by displaying different images  to the right and left eyes:
> one eye might be shown a simple shape or an  animal, for example,
while
> the other is shown visual "noise" in the form  of bright, randomly
> flickering shapes. The noise monopolises the brain,  leaving so little
> processing power for the other image that the person  does not
> consciously register it, making it effectively invisible.
> Wheels of perception
> In a series of CFS experiments, the  researchers asked volunteers
> whether or not they could see a specific  object, such as a dog.
> Sometimes it was displayed, sometimes not. When  it was not displayed
or
> when the image was of another animal such as a  zebra or kangaroo, the
> volunteers typically reported seeing nothing. But  when a dog was
> displayed and the question mentioned a dog, the  volunteers were
> significantly more likely to become aware of it. "If you  hear a word,
> that greases the wheels of perception," says Lupyan: the  visual
system
> becomes primed for anything to do with dogs.
>
> In a similar experiment, the team found  that volunteers were more
> likely to detect specific shapes if asked  about them. For example,
> asking "Do you see a square?" made it more  likely than that they
would
> see a hidden square but not a hidden circle.
>
> James McClellandof Stanford
> University in California, who was not involved in the work,  thinks it
> is an important study. It suggests that sight and language  are
> intertwined, he says.
>
> Lupyan now wants to study how the language  we speak influences the
> ability of certain terms to help us spot  images. For instance, breeds
> might be categorised differently in  different languages and might not
> all become visible when volunteers  hear their language's word for
> "dog". He also thinks textures or smells  linked to an image might
have
> a similar effect on whether we perceive it  as words.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  
> > > wrote:
> (snip)
> > I'm much more interested in whether the materialists are 
> > content that they have successfully seen off the incursion.
> > Maybe - like we were with the so called "intelligent design"
> > BS - they react strongly to the ignorance of the argument
> > to slap it down straight away lest tubthumpers use it as an
> > excuse.
> 
> Doubt it, at least with regard to the "ignorance of the
> argument." Nagel is a *very* highly respected senior
> philosopher, not some dork from the Discovery Institute.
> (He's the author of the celebrated essay "What Is It
> Like to Be a Bat?" of which I'm sure you've heard.)

I hope that's not an argument from authority, probably
the least convincing way of winning an argument. All
of the ID crowd were "highly respected" PHDs, just not 
any more, chortle.
 
> That hasn't stopped them from *accusing* him of
> ignorance in some aspects of his argument, but his
> defenders (some of whom are equally as prominent as his
> critics) have pointed out that the critics have
> significantly misconstrued him--in at least a few
> cases, apparently deliberately.
> 
> Anyway, yes, they're concerned about the potential use
> of his book by creationist types--giving aid and
> comfort to the enemy and all that. They especially 
> don't like the book's subtitle--"Why the Materialist
> Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly
> False." Strong statement. However, as I noted, Nagel
> doesn't suggest--indeed, opposes--a theistic
> alternative. And IMHO, that the book's thesis might
> be misused is a poor reason to attack it.
> 
> > It took me 20 minutes to dismiss the ID case, and that included
> > a bike ride to the library for the relevant high school text book.
> > Simples. But they were a bunch of tubthumpers on a mission to
> > get creationism taught in schools as we now know.
> > 
> > No one knows of anything that couldn't have got here under it's
> > own steam, baffling and stunning though it all is whenever someone
> > comes a major natural mystery it almost always turns out to be
> > something that came pre-adapted to do something else and got co-
> > opted into helping out another part of the organism.
> > 
> > The mind is a case in point, like I said about music the other
> > day, it takes many parts of the brain to give us the subjective
> > experience but none of them evolved to do that, I think it's
> > that we join things up and our minds just enlarge and link up
> > emotions and memories or maybe the earliest music played a
> > different part in our social lives and has just got "out of
> > hand" as far as whatever it's original intention or use was.
> > 
> > But it isn't all explained by any means, I get sceptical because
> > the method of explanation used so far (materialist science) has
> > done a pretty damn good job so far.
> 
> Well, if you don't analyze the explanation philosophically
> to see whether it's logically coherent, it may seem like it
> does a good job.

Why the use of the term philosophically? Scientifically does
the job just as well as it also stands and falls on how 
coherent - and more importantly - testable it is.

 
> (snip)
> > > He suggests one potential (nontheistic) solution to fill
> > > the explanatory gap, but he offers it only as a
> > > possibility, not as a firm conclusion. His main focus is
> > > on why there *is* a gap.
> > 
> > So, it's one of those irreducible structure things then. If
> > something like the mind can't evolve without help then it's
> > being helped. Don't keep me in suspense, what is his theory.
> > Sum it up, we know the brain evolved, you can even watch it
> > evolve embryonically, so if what the brain does *didn't*
> > evolve or needed a helping hand from something else then
> > I'm all ears.
> 
> I'm going to refer you to the book. It's a detailed and
> tightly reasoned argument (but only 128 pages). I'm not
> good at boiling that kind of thing down, and I wouldn't
> be able to do justice to it. If Robin were here, he surely
> could, but he ain't.
> 
> And as I said, Nagel's suggestion as to an alternative
> mechanism is tentative and incompletely developed. It's
> just one possible way to approach the problem. The much
> more important aspect of the book has to do with the
> explanatory gap. There's no point talking about 
> alternative mechanisms until you see why neo-Darwinism
> doesn't--can't--fill the gap; otherwise you can't tell
> what might be successful in filling it.

Well, as I say most of these "gaps" turn out to be the result of inadequate 
research. I suppose I can manage 128 pages to satisfy 
my curiosity. If it's in the library...

> 
> > > > Or maybe Nagel has done just that and provided science with
> > > > an ar

[FairfieldLife] Re: CFS, or how words manipulate what we see

[turquoiseb]

And a modern P.T. Barnum exploitation of the same phenomenon. See the
lion?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/15/china-zoo-under-fire-for-disguis\
ing-dog-as-lion/


"I'm sure this is a common experience. How many have experienced this?"
[ Three hands in a room containing hundreds go up. ]
"See? Almost everyone."

:-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> First, the test, riffing off the mention lately of the number of
> different senses required to appreciate music:
>
>   [Spot the dogs (Image: Gandee Vasan/Getty)]
>
> For most people, just a swirl of black blotches on a white background,
> right? But what if I asked you to tell me about your dog Spot?
Suddenly
> it's "See Spot run."
>
> Now think of all those "Jesus visions" found in pieces of toast and
> offered for sale on eBay. Or Maharishi declaring that the icicle
forming
> on his balcony was a manifestation of Shiva. Almost certainly, to
> everyone who saw it before then, it was merely an icicle. But after
he'd
> put a name to it, people went around claiming they'd witnessed a
> "miracle."
>
> Or think about those interminable boat rides, on which everyone was
> standing around shivering in the cold, waiting for something --
anything
> -- to happen. They're just staring out at a lake, bored shitless, and
> then Maharishi says something about the Vedas describing soma as
having
> the quality of "the full moon on water," and suddenly everyone is
oohing
> and aahing and the whole boatride becomes Soma Chanting Evening.  :-)
>
> Just a reminder to folks to stop and consider whether you really see
> what you think you see, or whether you're just seeing what you were
told
> to see...
> Words prompt us to notice what our subconscious sees
> It's a case of hear no object, see no object. Hearing  the name of an
> object appears to influence whether or not we see it,  suggesting that
> hearing and vision might be even more intertwined than  previously
> thought.
>
> Studies of how the brain files away concepts
> > he-brains-filing-cabinet.html>  suggest that words and images are
> tightly coupled. What is not clear, says Gary Lupyan
>of the University of Wisconsin in
> Madison, is whether language and  vision work together to help you
> interpret what you're seeing, or  whether words can actually change
what
> you see.
>
> Lupyan and Emily Wardof Yale
> University used a technique called continuous flash suppression  (CFS)
> on 20 volunteers to test whether a spoken prompt could make them 
detect
> an image that they were not consciously aware they were seeing.
>
> CFS works by displaying different images  to the right and left eyes:
> one eye might be shown a simple shape or an  animal, for example,
while
> the other is shown visual "noise" in the form  of bright, randomly
> flickering shapes. The noise monopolises the brain,  leaving so little
> processing power for the other image that the person  does not
> consciously register it, making it effectively invisible.
> Wheels of perception
> In a series of CFS experiments, the  researchers asked volunteers
> whether or not they could see a specific  object, such as a dog.
> Sometimes it was displayed, sometimes not. When  it was not displayed
or
> when the image was of another animal such as a  zebra or kangaroo, the
> volunteers typically reported seeing nothing. But  when a dog was
> displayed and the question mentioned a dog, the  volunteers were
> significantly more likely to become aware of it. "If you  hear a word,
> that greases the wheels of perception," says Lupyan: the  visual
system
> becomes primed for anything to do with dogs.
>
> In a similar experiment, the team found  that volunteers were more
> likely to detect specific shapes if asked  about them. For example,
> asking "Do you see a square?" made it more  likely than that they
would
> see a hidden square but not a hidden circle.
>
> James McClellandof Stanford
> University in California, who was not involved in the work,  thinks it
> is an important study. It suggests that sight and language  are
> intertwined, he says.
>
> Lupyan now wants to study how the language  we speak influences the
> ability of certain terms to help us spot  images. For instance, breeds
> might be categorised differently in  different languages and might not
> all become visible when volunteers  hear their language's word for
> "dog". He also thinks textures or smells  linked to an image might
have
> a similar effect on whether we perceive it  as words.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Ahhh, there we must disagree again, I did read all the Lord of the Rings 
> books, beginning when I was 12 years old, and over the years I must have read 
> them and the Hobbit 25 or 30 times. I despised the movies for many reasons. 

I thought the Hobbit was a great book actually, but couldn't
get into LotR. But I refused to go see the Hobbit movie because
they stretched it out into 3 - 3 hour movies when it wasn't a
very long book to start with. Blatant profiteering.

I thought the 3rd LotR movie was pitiful which was a shame after
the brilliance of the second one. I couldn't believe they went 
through all that just to get rescued by giant eagles that no one
mentioned earlier, cheap escape. And it turned out that the dullest
one of the good guys was the king all along. And that battle scene
seemed to go on for most of my life! And the ending was appallingly
done. And we didn't even see the baddie, apparently they saved
that for the DVD - more blatant profiteering. Much to dislike but
Legoland remained cool throughout, they should have made him king...

__
>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:01 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
>  
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > I liked the books quite a bit, having never had any problem with wizards 
> > myself, I like her style of writing too. 
> 
> I don't like the insto-get-out clause that magic gives you.
> I saw the Lord of the Rings movies and almost really enjoyed 
> them - part 2 was sublime actually - Trouble was the magic, in
> the first episode the main hobbit gets a spear the size of a 
> telegraph pole right through his chest pinning him to a concrete pillar!
> 
> I thought that must be the end and got up to leave but no! He
> was wearing a magic waistcoat. How it might work I don't know,
> maybe some sort of quantum superposition? I guess you're supposed
> to suspend your disbelief at that point but I can't, I have to have
> a consistent metaphysics or I think the writer is just being lazy.
> 
> Iain Banks does it in some of his sci-fi, one of his characters
> will be in an impossible situation with no possible escape and
> suddenly we find out that he's a shape shifter, which never got mentioned 
> before, and he slides out of an air vent or something.
> Lazy, lazy...
> 
> I think if you are going to have spells then they have to be 
> consistently used, if Harry Potter could kill the bad guy with
> a wave of his wand, why doesn't he do it from a safe distance
> rather than waiting till he's hanging upside down in a cellar?
> 
> Sorry. It's a pet peeve.
> 
> > 
> >  From: salyavin808 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 1:07 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh my lord! That means you can't abide that English woman, Jo Rowling!
> > 
> > Deary me no, Harry Potter and the Gob of Shite. Admittedly I 
> > haven't read any of the books and why my (female) friends used 
> > to recommend them to me I don't know, but I sat through one of the movies 
> > and wanted to gnaw my legs off after 5 minutes.
> > 
> > I think I'm a bit too old for Voldemort being past puberty as I 
> > am...
> > 
> > > 
> > >  From: salyavin808 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:41 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Awww, Come on Sal, why you don't like Deepak?
> > > 
> > > I don't like any of these guru types who make a fortune out
> > > of seekers, even if it is their own choice. I don't like the
> > > reliance on quantum physics as a prop for woolly thinking 
> > > and undeliverable promises or pushing untested folk medicine. 
> > > I don't like the whole "veda is truth" thing. Basically my 
> > > same reasons for disliking the TMO.
> > > 
> > > I am interested in his split from the TMO though, in our old
> > > tape cupboard at the academy we had a huge box of videos
> > > featuring Deepak with a "not to be played" sign on them. I
> > > gather he went from quite the darling to public enemy number one
> > > very swiftly but I never managed to get a straight answer about
> > > why from anybody. 
> > > 
> > > Usually it was that he changed Marshy's teaching (I thought it 
> > > was him teaching Marshy about AV) or that he made some personal 
> > > money out of it which TM bigwigs saw as some sort of ultimate 
> > > crime. Bizarrely, as they still sell no end of courses in vedic #wisdom 
> 

[FairfieldLife] CFS, or how words manipulate what we see

[turquoiseb]

First, the test, riffing off the mention lately of the number of
different senses required to appreciate music:

  [Spot the dogs (Image: Gandee Vasan/Getty)]

For most people, just a swirl of black blotches on a white background,
right? But what if I asked you to tell me about your dog Spot? Suddenly
it's "See Spot run."

Now think of all those "Jesus visions" found in pieces of toast and
offered for sale on eBay. Or Maharishi declaring that the icicle forming
on his balcony was a manifestation of Shiva. Almost certainly, to
everyone who saw it before then, it was merely an icicle. But after he'd
put a name to it, people went around claiming they'd witnessed a
"miracle."

Or think about those interminable boat rides, on which everyone was
standing around shivering in the cold, waiting for something -- anything
-- to happen. They're just staring out at a lake, bored shitless, and
then Maharishi says something about the Vedas describing soma as having
the quality of "the full moon on water," and suddenly everyone is oohing
and aahing and the whole boatride becomes Soma Chanting Evening.  :-)

Just a reminder to folks to stop and consider whether you really see
what you think you see, or whether you're just seeing what you were told
to see...
Words prompt us to notice what our subconscious sees
It's a case of hear no object, see no object. Hearing  the name of an
object appears to influence whether or not we see it,  suggesting that
hearing and vision might be even more intertwined than  previously
thought.

Studies of how the brain files away concepts
  suggest that words and images are
tightly coupled. What is not clear, says Gary Lupyan
   of the University of Wisconsin in
Madison, is whether language and  vision work together to help you
interpret what you're seeing, or  whether words can actually change what
you see.

Lupyan and Emily Ward    of Yale
University used a technique called continuous flash suppression  (CFS)
on 20 volunteers to test whether a spoken prompt could make them  detect
an image that they were not consciously aware they were seeing.

CFS works by displaying different images  to the right and left eyes:
one eye might be shown a simple shape or an  animal, for example, while
the other is shown visual "noise" in the form  of bright, randomly
flickering shapes. The noise monopolises the brain,  leaving so little
processing power for the other image that the person  does not
consciously register it, making it effectively invisible.
Wheels of perception
In a series of CFS experiments, the  researchers asked volunteers
whether or not they could see a specific  object, such as a dog.
Sometimes it was displayed, sometimes not. When  it was not displayed or
when the image was of another animal such as a  zebra or kangaroo, the
volunteers typically reported seeing nothing. But  when a dog was
displayed and the question mentioned a dog, the  volunteers were
significantly more likely to become aware of it. "If you  hear a word,
that greases the wheels of perception," says Lupyan: the  visual system
becomes primed for anything to do with dogs.

In a similar experiment, the team found  that volunteers were more
likely to detect specific shapes if asked  about them. For example,
asking "Do you see a square?" made it more  likely than that they would
see a hidden square but not a hidden circle.

James McClelland    of Stanford
University in California, who was not involved in the work,  thinks it
is an important study. It suggests that sight and language  are
intertwined, he says.

Lupyan now wants to study how the language  we speak influences the
ability of certain terms to help us spot  images. For instance, breeds
might be categorised differently in  different languages and might not
all become visible when volunteers  hear their language's word for
"dog". He also thinks textures or smells  linked to an image might have
a similar effect on whether we perceive it  as words.

[FairfieldLife] Tired of paying rent? Why not build your own tiny solar-powered palace?

[Ravi Chivukula]

Chris and Malissa Tack's home in Snohomish, Washington is smaller
than a studio apartment. But, its 140 square feet boasts all the modern
conveniences that they need to live and work. Its 140 square feet comes
complete with a sleeping loft, wine barrel shower, kitchen, and two
collapsable workspaces. What it doesn't come with is extra room
– Chris took seven carloads of stuff to Goodwill prior to their move
from apartment to house-on-wheels.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2013/08/13/tired-of-payin\
g-rent-why-not-build-your-own-tiny-solar-powered-palace/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[doctordumbass]

"Rendezvous With Rama", by Arthur C. Clarke is excellent. Rama is a massive 
space ship, and the story has no definitive ending, which I like. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy 
> > > > > novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
> > > > > sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.
> > > > 
> > > > Just as a question, did you ever read any of 
> > > > Roger Zelazny's Chronicles Of Amber series? 
> > > > 
> > > > That's got Woo, and the existence of wizards 
> > > > of a sort, but it's also got a lot of phwam!
> > > > in my opinion. 
> > > > 
> > > > The series started as an act of will. Roger
> > > > had caught a bad case of writer's block, and
> > > > couldn't get a damned thing to come out. So,
> > > > being a martial artists and a warrior type
> > > > himself, he set himself a task to help him
> > > > snap out of it. 
> > > > 
> > > > He would write a whole novel in one month.
> > > > (It usually took him six months to a year.)
> > > > The novel was to be a throw-away. He didn't
> > > > plan to do anything with it. He was using
> > > > it to inspire him to write more serious 
> > > > books. 
> > > > 
> > > > The result was "Nine Princes In Amber," a 
> > > > novel that went on to be the first of a 
> > > > series of ten novels that, collectively,
> > > > are Zelazny's biggest sellers. Go figure.
> > > 
> > > Something to be said for spontaneity perhaps?
> > > 
> > > I have got one book of his but it has yet to be
> > > read. It came out as part of a Masters of Sci-Fi 
> > > selection. Chosen by contemporary writers, it has
> > > everyone from HG Wells and John Wyndham through what
> > > I consider the golden age, people like Bob Silverberg
> > > and Brian Aldiss, to Iain Banks and KW Jetter.
> > > 
> > > They released a book a month for ages and I discovered
> > > some real gems, people I never would have heard of.
> > > I don't know why but new sci-fi does nothing for me -
> > > or the local library have a very poor buyer - but it seems
> > > like I pick up and put down an awful lot of books after
> > > one chapter. But something like 'Flowers for Algernon'
> > > 'The Earth Abides' or 'Ringworld' and I'm hooked to the 
> > > last page.
> > > 
> > > 'Lords of Light' will get a look in sometime and I shall
> > > take a look at the Amber series just in case I'm missing
> > > something.
> > > 
> > > Here's a list of them so far:
> > > 
> > > http://www.gollancz.co.uk/2013/02/the-sf-masterworks/
> > 
> > That's quite a list. I've read many of them, 
> > but not all. Interesting that Philip K. Dick
> > has 14 entries on the list.
> 
> I wish I had the time to read more! But I haven't been
> disappointed yet, except when they changed the cover of
> one and I bought it twice.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote:
> I don't like the insto-get-out clause that magic gives you.

That was also what I liked so much about the C.S. Lewis series.  The
fact that the Penvensie children die in a train wreck.  Or at least
three that continued to believe in Narnia.


> I saw the Lord of the Rings movies and almost really enjoyed
> them - part 2 was sublime actually - Trouble was the magic, in
> the first episode the main hobbit gets a spear the size of a
> telegraph pole right through his chest pinning him to a concrete
pillar!
>
> I thought that must be the end and got up to leave but no! He
> was wearing a magic waistcoat. How it might work I don't know,
> maybe some sort of quantum superposition? I guess you're supposed
> to suspend your disbelief at that point but I can't, I have to have
> a consistent metaphysics or I think the writer is just being lazy.
>
> Iain Banks does it in some of his sci-fi, one of his characters
> will be in an impossible situation with no possible escape and
> suddenly we find out that he's a shape shifter, which never got
mentioned before, and he slides out of an air vent or something.
> Lazy, lazy...
>
> I think if you are going to have spells then they have to be
> consistently used, if Harry Potter could kill the bad guy with
> a wave of his wand, why doesn't he do it from a safe distance
> rather than waiting till he's hanging upside down in a cellar?
>
> Sorry. It's a pet peeve.
>
>
> > 
> > From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 1:07 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh my lord! That means you can't abide that English woman, Jo
Rowling!
> >
> > Deary me no, Harry Potter and the Gob of Shite. Admittedly I
> > haven't read any of the books and why my (female) friends used
> > to recommend them to me I don't know, but I sat through one of the
movies and wanted to gnaw my legs off after 5 minutes.
> >
> > I think I'm a bit too old for Voldemort being past puberty as I
> > am...
> >
> > > 
> > > From: salyavin808
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:41 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Awww, Come on Sal, why you don't like Deepak?
> > >
> > > I don't like any of these guru types who make a fortune out
> > > of seekers, even if it is their own choice. I don't like the
> > > reliance on quantum physics as a prop for woolly thinking
> > > and undeliverable promises or pushing untested folk medicine.
> > > I don't like the whole "veda is truth" thing. Basically my
> > > same reasons for disliking the TMO.
> > >
> > > I am interested in his split from the TMO though, in our old
> > > tape cupboard at the academy we had a huge box of videos
> > > featuring Deepak with a "not to be played" sign on them. I
> > > gather he went from quite the darling to public enemy number one
> > > very swiftly but I never managed to get a straight answer about
> > > why from anybody.
> > >
> > > Usually it was that he changed Marshy's teaching (I thought it
> > > was him teaching Marshy about AV) or that he made some personal
> > > money out of it which TM bigwigs saw as some sort of ultimate
> > > crime. Bizarrely, as they still sell no end of courses in vedic
#wisdom promising a fruitful career. Maybe they were annoyed as
> > > he was the only one who ever did make a buck out of the TMO.
> > > I know precious few who ever got any "nature" support from that
direction.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I know I have enjoyed his writing - especially his first fiction
novel, Return of Merlin which he supposedly wrote the bulk of during the
year when he was looking after the Big M subsequent to his being
poisoned. I loved that novel.
> > >
> > > Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy
> > > novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
> > > sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.
> > >
> > > 
> > > > From: salyavin808
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:22 AM
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Seraphita" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If you're interested in the debate with materialists, you
> > > > > could do a lot better than Chopra. He's not what I would
> > > > > call a rigorous thinker.
> > > >
> > > > He's an asshole.
> > > >
> > > > > You might try Thomas Nagel's "Min

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote:

  I don't like the insto-get-out clause that magic gives you.

Then you might enjoy the Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson books starting
with Peter and Star Catchers.  That was what I liked about them.  No
easy outs.  I mean, even the use of the dolphins who could communicate
and the treacherous mermaids were pretty consistent in what they could
and could not do.  We had them as audio books and remained pretty
riveted on some long drives.

http://www.davebarry.com/books-by-type.php?type=Young
  Adult






> I saw the Lord of the Rings movies and almost really enjoyed
> them - part 2 was sublime actually - Trouble was the magic, in
> the first episode the main hobbit gets a spear the size of a
> telegraph pole right through his chest pinning him to a concrete
pillar!
>
> I thought that must be the end and got up to leave but no! He
> was wearing a magic waistcoat. How it might work I don't know,
> maybe some sort of quantum superposition? I guess you're supposed
> to suspend your disbelief at that point but I can't, I have to have
> a consistent metaphysics or I think the writer is just being lazy.
>
> Iain Banks does it in some of his sci-fi, one of his characters
> will be in an impossible situation with no possible escape and
> suddenly we find out that he's a shape shifter, which never got
mentioned before, and he slides out of an air vent or something.
> Lazy, lazy...
>
> I think if you are going to have spells then they have to be
> consistently used, if Harry Potter could kill the bad guy with
> a wave of his wand, why doesn't he do it from a safe distance
> rather than waiting till he's hanging upside down in a cellar?
>
> Sorry. It's a pet peeve.
>
>
> > 
> > From: salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 1:07 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh my lord! That means you can't abide that English woman, Jo
Rowling!
> >
> > Deary me no, Harry Potter and the Gob of Shite. Admittedly I
> > haven't read any of the books and why my (female) friends used
> > to recommend them to me I don't know, but I sat through one of the
movies and wanted to gnaw my legs off after 5 minutes.
> >
> > I think I'm a bit too old for Voldemort being past puberty as I
> > am...
> >
> > > 
> > > From: salyavin808
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:41 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Awww, Come on Sal, why you don't like Deepak?
> > >
> > > I don't like any of these guru types who make a fortune out
> > > of seekers, even if it is their own choice. I don't like the
> > > reliance on quantum physics as a prop for woolly thinking
> > > and undeliverable promises or pushing untested folk medicine.
> > > I don't like the whole "veda is truth" thing. Basically my
> > > same reasons for disliking the TMO.
> > >
> > > I am interested in his split from the TMO though, in our old
> > > tape cupboard at the academy we had a huge box of videos
> > > featuring Deepak with a "not to be played" sign on them. I
> > > gather he went from quite the darling to public enemy number one
> > > very swiftly but I never managed to get a straight answer about
> > > why from anybody.
> > >
> > > Usually it was that he changed Marshy's teaching (I thought it
> > > was him teaching Marshy about AV) or that he made some personal
> > > money out of it which TM bigwigs saw as some sort of ultimate
> > > crime. Bizarrely, as they still sell no end of courses in vedic
#wisdom promising a fruitful career. Maybe they were annoyed as
> > > he was the only one who ever did make a buck out of the TMO.
> > > I know precious few who ever got any "nature" support from that
direction.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I know I have enjoyed his writing - especially his first fiction
novel, Return of Merlin which he supposedly wrote the bulk of during the
year when he was looking after the Big M subsequent to his being
poisoned. I loved that novel.
> > >
> > > Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy
> > > novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
> > > sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.
> > >
> > > 
> > > > From: salyavin808
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:22 AM
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  
> > wrote:
(snip)
> I'm much more interested in whether the materialists are 
> content that they have successfully seen off the incursion.
> Maybe - like we were with the so called "intelligent design"
> BS - they react strongly to the ignorance of the argument
> to slap it down straight away lest tubthumpers use it as an
> excuse.

Doubt it, at least with regard to the "ignorance of the
argument." Nagel is a *very* highly respected senior
philosopher, not some dork from the Discovery Institute.
(He's the author of the celebrated essay "What Is It
Like to Be a Bat?" of which I'm sure you've heard.)

That hasn't stopped them from *accusing* him of
ignorance in some aspects of his argument, but his
defenders (some of whom are equally as prominent as his
critics) have pointed out that the critics have
significantly misconstrued him--in at least a few
cases, apparently deliberately.

Anyway, yes, they're concerned about the potential use
of his book by creationist types--giving aid and
comfort to the enemy and all that. They especially 
don't like the book's subtitle--"Why the Materialist
Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly
False." Strong statement. However, as I noted, Nagel
doesn't suggest--indeed, opposes--a theistic
alternative. And IMHO, that the book's thesis might
be misused is a poor reason to attack it.

> It took me 20 minutes to dismiss the ID case, and that included
> a bike ride to the library for the relevant high school text book.
> Simples. But they were a bunch of tubthumpers on a mission to
> get creationism taught in schools as we now know.
> 
> No one knows of anything that couldn't have got here under it's
> own steam, baffling and stunning though it all is whenever someone
> comes a major natural mystery it almost always turns out to be
> something that came pre-adapted to do something else and got co-
> opted into helping out another part of the organism.
> 
> The mind is a case in point, like I said about music the other
> day, it takes many parts of the brain to give us the subjective
> experience but none of them evolved to do that, I think it's
> that we join things up and our minds just enlarge and link up
> emotions and memories or maybe the earliest music played a
> different part in our social lives and has just got "out of
> hand" as far as whatever it's original intention or use was.
> 
> But it isn't all explained by any means, I get sceptical because
> the method of explanation used so far (materialist science) has
> done a pretty damn good job so far.

Well, if you don't analyze the explanation philosophically
to see whether it's logically coherent, it may seem like it
does a good job.
 
(snip)
> > He suggests one potential (nontheistic) solution to fill
> > the explanatory gap, but he offers it only as a
> > possibility, not as a firm conclusion. His main focus is
> > on why there *is* a gap.
> 
> So, it's one of those irreducible structure things then. If
> something like the mind can't evolve without help then it's
> being helped. Don't keep me in suspense, what is his theory.
> Sum it up, we know the brain evolved, you can even watch it
> evolve embryonically, so if what the brain does *didn't*
> evolve or needed a helping hand from something else then
> I'm all ears.

I'm going to refer you to the book. It's a detailed and
tightly reasoned argument (but only 128 pages). I'm not
good at boiling that kind of thing down, and I wouldn't
be able to do justice to it. If Robin were here, he surely
could, but he ain't.

And as I said, Nagel's suggestion as to an alternative
mechanism is tentative and incompletely developed. It's
just one possible way to approach the problem. The much
more important aspect of the book has to do with the
explanatory gap. There's no point talking about 
alternative mechanisms until you see why neo-Darwinism
doesn't--can't--fill the gap; otherwise you can't tell
what might be successful in filling it.

> > > Or maybe Nagel has done just that and provided science with
> > > an argument it can't explain. Until one of us reads the book
> > > we won't know. LOL.
> > 
> > Well, *you* won't know until *you* read the book, that's
> > for sure. LOL.
> 
> I only want to know one thing about it. Do tell all.

All I'll say is that it isn't theistic. Nagel goes to some
trouble to explain why he would reject any supernatural
solution. He's basically a naturalist; he just thinks the
current naturalist view is incomplete and inadequate and
needs revision and extension in order to encompass what
it needs to explain.

[FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 16-Aug-13 00:15:06 UTC

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): 08/10/13 00:00:00
End Date (UTC): 08/17/13 00:00:00
1242 messages as of (UTC) 08/15/13 21:59:00

153 Share Long 
146 authfriend 
136 doctordumbass
102 obbajeeba 
 76 RoryGoff 
 72 Ravi Chivukula 
 70 Ann 
 59 turquoiseb 
 53 nablusoss1008 
 40 card 
 40 Bhairitu 
 39 Michael Jackson 
 34 salyavin808 
 31 Alex Stanley 
 24 seventhray27 
 24 raunchydog 
 17 Seraphita 
 16 emilymae.reyn 
 15 iranitea 
 15 Emily Reyn 
 14 sparaig 
  8 Mike Dixon 
  8 John 
  7 sharelong60 
  5 Duveyoung 
  4 curtisdeltablues 
  4 PaliGap 
  3 zarzari_786 
  3 wgm4u 
  3 merudanda 
  3 emptybill 
  3 Rick Archer 
  2 srijau
  2 mjackson74 
  2 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
  2 Susan 
  1 wleed3 
  1 nemodomi 
  1 feste37 
  1 azgrey 
  1 Paulo Barbosa 
  1 Jason 
  1 Dick Mays 
Posters: 43
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: Crop Circles 2009

[obbajeeba]

Thank you, Earthling. 

Take me to your master, because I don't trust you humans to go alone. You WILL 
join me. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote:
> >
> > Pretty!
> >
> > Oh Nabby, I believe those were done by my flight troupe from
> > Glosodomonicongaricalfleetica.
> >
> > Yeah, I got telepathic word back just now, it was done my own
> planetary
> > Glosodomonicongaricalfleetica team!
> > The Earthy Owl "crop circle," (This one is special because we don't
> > have this Owl creature on Glosodomonicongaricalfleetica. ) we kinda
> > sorta copied from some artwork we saw at a Minnesota Lakes Souvenir
> > Shop, made by local crystal manufacturers.
> > Please tell the photographer he recorded nice pictures of our work,
> but
> > it is still our work and the copyright holds by design and he may owe
> > some earthy royalties for photo shots of our planets (Actually our
> > planet is not of organic matter such as yours, but it is the perfect
> > place to try out our equipment imaging processes.)
> >
> > It was our mission, and holding you to that position is our
> speciality.
> >
> > Please remind the photographer our earthy attorney's will get a hold
> of
> > his for the royalty exchange rate and process.
> > Looking forward to our first check.
> >
> > -Obba One Can Know Be
> 
> Yes please go and collect your fee, it's in here:
> 
> 
>   Marlborough (Savernake Forest), Wiltshire, UK. 2004
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[Michael Jackson]

Ahhh, there we must disagree again, I did read all the Lord of the Rings books, 
beginning when I was 12 years old, and over the years I must have read them and 
the Hobbit 25 or 30 times. I despised the movies for many reasons. 





 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:01 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
 


  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> I liked the books quite a bit, having never had any problem with wizards 
> myself, I like her style of writing too. 

I don't like the insto-get-out clause that magic gives you.
I saw the Lord of the Rings movies and almost really enjoyed 
them - part 2 was sublime actually - Trouble was the magic, in
the first episode the main hobbit gets a spear the size of a 
telegraph pole right through his chest pinning him to a concrete pillar!

I thought that must be the end and got up to leave but no! He
was wearing a magic waistcoat. How it might work I don't know,
maybe some sort of quantum superposition? I guess you're supposed
to suspend your disbelief at that point but I can't, I have to have
a consistent metaphysics or I think the writer is just being lazy.

Iain Banks does it in some of his sci-fi, one of his characters
will be in an impossible situation with no possible escape and
suddenly we find out that he's a shape shifter, which never got mentioned 
before, and he slides out of an air vent or something.
Lazy, lazy...

I think if you are going to have spells then they have to be 
consistently used, if Harry Potter could kill the bad guy with
a wave of his wand, why doesn't he do it from a safe distance
rather than waiting till he's hanging upside down in a cellar?

Sorry. It's a pet peeve.

> 
>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 1:07 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > Oh my lord! That means you can't abide that English woman, Jo Rowling!
> 
> Deary me no, Harry Potter and the Gob of Shite. Admittedly I 
> haven't read any of the books and why my (female) friends used 
> to recommend them to me I don't know, but I sat through one of the movies and 
> wanted to gnaw my legs off after 5 minutes.
> 
> I think I'm a bit too old for Voldemort being past puberty as I 
> am...
> 
> > 
> >  From: salyavin808 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:41 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > Awww, Come on Sal, why you don't like Deepak?
> > 
> > I don't like any of these guru types who make a fortune out
> > of seekers, even if it is their own choice. I don't like the
> > reliance on quantum physics as a prop for woolly thinking 
> > and undeliverable promises or pushing untested folk medicine. 
> > I don't like the whole "veda is truth" thing. Basically my 
> > same reasons for disliking the TMO.
> > 
> > I am interested in his split from the TMO though, in our old
> > tape cupboard at the academy we had a huge box of videos
> > featuring Deepak with a "not to be played" sign on them. I
> > gather he went from quite the darling to public enemy number one
> > very swiftly but I never managed to get a straight answer about
> > why from anybody. 
> > 
> > Usually it was that he changed Marshy's teaching (I thought it 
> > was him teaching Marshy about AV) or that he made some personal 
> > money out of it which TM bigwigs saw as some sort of ultimate 
> > crime. Bizarrely, as they still sell no end of courses in vedic #wisdom 
> > promising a fruitful career. Maybe they were annoyed as 
> > he was the only one who ever did make a buck out of the TMO. 
> > I know precious few who ever got any "nature" support from that direction.
> > 
> > > 
> > > I know I have enjoyed his writing - especially his first fiction novel, 
> > > Return of Merlin which he supposedly wrote the bulk of during the year 
> > > when he was looking after the Big M subsequent to his being poisoned. I 
> > > loved that novel.
> > 
> > Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy 
> > novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
> > sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.
> > 
> > 
> > >  From: salyavin808 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:22 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Seraphita"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > If 

[FairfieldLife] A lesson on analytical thinking for Amma devotees

[Ravi Chivukula]

A funny post I had to make on the Amma Yahoo group. Probably relevant to
lot of posters here as well - such as salyavin, Nabby, Buck.

Important study materials for you and other clueless, illogical, irrational
Amma devotees who wish to enter into a discussion here.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion

Before you start reading on Cognitive Biases you need to understand two
types of thinking - Intuitive thinking and Analytical thinking.

Intuitive thinking - is quick, effortless - such as the answer to 2 x 2
(4), or to the capital of France (Paris). It let's us enjoy music while
driving a car, run away when confronted by a wild animal.

Analytical thinking - what is 345 x 654? Not so easy huh? Analytical
thinking requires more effort and is slower.

Though intuitive thinking has lot of advantages - the major disadvantage is
we quickly jump to conclusions, intuitive thinking is where all the
cognitive biases come in, such as

If it takes 5 men 5 minutes to make 5 widgets - how long does it take 100
men to make 100 widgets?

Did you say 100 minutes? The correct answer is 5 minutes but 100 seems very
intuitive doesn't it?

So... "Oh wow Amma is sitting whole day hugging people, she seems so
simple, loving, humble so surely all the money must be going to charity, to
poor people"

Right?

That would be intuitive thinking.

Rational thinking would require more effort, show me the books as Joan said
one millionaire who wanted to donate to Amma asked - that was analytical
thinking.

Intuitive thinking leads us to believe Amma is a Mahatma, a saint

But Analytical thinking has shown me that she is a charlatan.

[FairfieldLife] Crop Circles, 2004 and 2007

[nablusoss1008]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Crop Circles 2009

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote:
>
> Pretty!
>
> Oh Nabby, I believe those were done by my flight troupe from
> Glosodomonicongaricalfleetica.
>
> Yeah, I got telepathic word back just now, it was done my own
planetary
> Glosodomonicongaricalfleetica team!
> The Earthy Owl "crop circle," (This one is special because we don't
> have this Owl creature on Glosodomonicongaricalfleetica. ) we kinda
> sorta copied from some artwork we saw at a Minnesota Lakes Souvenir
> Shop, made by local crystal manufacturers.
> Please tell the photographer he recorded nice pictures of our work,
but
> it is still our work and the copyright holds by design and he may owe
> some earthy royalties for photo shots of our planets (Actually our
> planet is not of organic matter such as yours, but it is the perfect
> place to try out our equipment imaging processes.)
>
> It was our mission, and holding you to that position is our
speciality.
>
> Please remind the photographer our earthy attorney's will get a hold
of
> his for the royalty exchange rate and process.
> Looking forward to our first check.
>
> -Obba One Can Know Be

Yes please go and collect your fee, it's in here:


  Marlborough (Savernake Forest), Wiltshire, UK. 2004

[FairfieldLife] Re: Too Hot for Iranian Politics

[obbajeeba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcn-n_FIGA8


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> She won the election fair and square.  But her opponents ruled she's
too pretty to wield power in politics.
>
>
http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/iranian-politician-deemed-too-pretty-t\
o-hold-office-181459345.html
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Crop Circles 2009

[obbajeeba]

Pretty!

Oh Nabby,  I believe those were done by my flight troupe  from
Glosodomonicongaricalfleetica.

Yeah, I got telepathic word back just now, it was done my own planetary 
Glosodomonicongaricalfleetica team!
The Earthy Owl  "crop circle,"  (This one is special because we don't
have this Owl creature on Glosodomonicongaricalfleetica. ) we kinda
sorta copied from some artwork we saw at a Minnesota Lakes Souvenir
Shop, made by local crystal manufacturers.
Please tell the photographer he recorded nice pictures of our work, but
it is still our work and the copyright holds by design and he may owe
some earthy royalties for photo shots of our planets (Actually our
planet is not of organic matter such as yours, but it is the perfect
place to try out our equipment imaging processes.)

It was our mission, and holding you to that position is our speciality.

Please remind the photographer our earthy attorney's will get a hold of
his for the royalty exchange rate and process.
Looking forward to our first check.

-Obba One Can Know Be






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> No mud or footprints were found in any of the Crop Circles. No straws
> broken, all bent at exactly the same place.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Entire Countries Are Banning GMO's. Still think they are safe?

[card]

Based on a docu just sawn by me, e.g. KFC, McDonalds and SubWay
are a much huger problem in India than GMO, or stuff...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_India


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> So you still think they are safe? 
>  SU/s1600/601437_354075761367768_1975146906_n.jpg>
> Entire countries are banning the stuff... Why do you think that is? You
> think they are stupid? You think GMO is safe? You might want to start
> researching. Here is a good start:
> What countries have banned GMO crops?
> http://www.examiner.com/article/what-countries-have-banned-gmo-crops
>  
> Hungary Destorys all Monsanto GMO corn fields! WIN.
> http://www.trueactivist.com/hungary-destroys-all-monsanto-gmo-corn-field\
> s/
>  ds/>
> The GMO take over is most likely the most important topic of our decade.
> We beg you to share and investigate this information as well as petition
> to change these dangerous practices before it's too late.
> Read more at
> http://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine.com/2013/03/entire-countries-are-bann\
> ing-gmos-still.html#B28EjIpbQWLDS6Ck.99
>  ning-gmos-still.html#B28EjIpbQWLDS6Ck.99>
>

[FairfieldLife] Too Hot for Iranian Politics

[John]

She won the election fair and square.  But her opponents ruled she's too pretty 
to wield power in politics.

http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/iranian-politician-deemed-too-pretty-to-hold-office-181459345.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: A selection of Crop Circles from 2008

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
>
> Thanks, Nabby, these are some of the most beautiful I've ever seen, a
splendid collection.

Glad you enjoyed them Share. For some time Crop Circles were made with
intricate "weavings" of the straws. This is one of them:




>
>
>
>
> 
> From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 4:00 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] A selection of Crop Circles from 2008
>
>
>
> Â
> Â
> No straws broken in any of these Crop Circles, all bent. No mud or
footprints
>
> Â
> Â
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[Share Long]

One thing for sure about FFL, it's made me more sensitive to writing simply 
because there is such a great variety of writing voices here. Of course people 
vary in their writing skills and in what they enjoy writing about. But the 
biggest contrast from me is more about the tone of the writing, which is super 
easy to discern and a bit difficult to explain. Actually at this moment I'm 
thinking that tone might be the co creative aspect of reading writing. Meaning 
that tone is created by the silent interaction of reader and writer. Just a 
thought at this moment.





 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:50 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment
 


  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Barry is not a hack writer.
> 
> He introduces us all to new concepts on a DAILY basis.  He creates wonderful 
> phrases that nail down his nuances.  He communicates!
> 
> He knows his own mind.
> 
> He is brave.
> 
> He's in fucking Europe and taking its pulse -- how many others in your life 
> do you have as an on-the-spot reporter?

I agree, Barry brings a lot of energy and ideas to this place and I always 
enjoy his writings.

What the hell would everyone talk about if he left? We'd get away
with a five post a week maximum if nobody had him to kick against.

To use Judy's argument from earlier, is this aggression towards him
a sign that he's on the right track?*

> 

> So keep on writing you bastard! 

And you, Edg.

> Edg

*May I predict 20,000 posts by sundown.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[Share Long]

It's a shame about the Maharishi and Deepak videos. One of my favorites of all 
time is called simply Rasayana. Two Maharishi gems from that tape: that as we 
meditate we more and more become a rasayana for the world; and as we meditate 
we're able more and more to extract the rasayana value from any experience.





 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:41 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
 


  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Awww, Come on Sal, why you don't like Deepak?

I don't like any of these guru types who make a fortune out
of seekers, even if it is their own choice. I don't like the
reliance on quantum physics as a prop for woolly thinking 
and undeliverable promises or pushing untested folk medicine. 
I don't like the whole "veda is truth" thing. Basically my 
same reasons for disliking the TMO.

I am interested in his split from the TMO though, in our old
tape cupboard at the academy we had a huge box of videos
featuring Deepak with a "not to be played" sign on them. I
gather he went from quite the darling to public enemy number one
very swiftly but I never managed to get a straight answer about
why from anybody. 

Usually it was that he changed Marshy's teaching (I thought it 
was him teaching Marshy about AV) or that he made some personal 
money out of it which TM bigwigs saw as some sort of ultimate 
crime. Bizarrely, as they still sell no end of courses in vedic #wisdom 
promising a fruitful career. Maybe they were annoyed as 
he was the only one who ever did make a buck out of the TMO. 
I know precious few who ever got any "nature" support from that direction.

> 
> I know I have enjoyed his writing - especially his first fiction novel, 
> Return of Merlin which he supposedly wrote the bulk of during the year when 
> he was looking after the Big M subsequent to his being poisoned. I loved that 
> novel.

Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy 
novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.


>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:22 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Seraphita"  wrote:
> 
> > If you're interested in the debate with materialists, you
> > could do a lot better than Chopra. He's not what I would
> > call a rigorous thinker.
> 
> He's an asshole.
> 
> > You might try Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the
> > Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost
> > Certainly False." 
> > 
> > Nagel got in a lot of trouble with the big-time materialists;
> > the book really upset them, so he must have hit close to the
> > bone.
> 
> LOL.
>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] A selection of Crop Circles from 2008

[Share Long]

Thanks, Nabby, these are some of the most beautiful I've ever seen, a splendid 
collection.





 From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 4:00 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] A selection of Crop Circles from 2008
 


  
 
No straws broken in any of these Crop Circles, all bent. No mud or footprints

  
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Entire Countries Are Banning GMO's. Still think they are safe?

[nablusoss1008]

So you still think they are safe? 

Entire countries are banning the stuff... Why do you think that is? You
think they are stupid? You think GMO is safe? You might want to start
researching. Here is a good start:
What countries have banned GMO crops?
http://www.examiner.com/article/what-countries-have-banned-gmo-crops
 
Hungary Destorys all Monsanto GMO corn fields! WIN.
http://www.trueactivist.com/hungary-destroys-all-monsanto-gmo-corn-field\
s/

The GMO take over is most likely the most important topic of our decade.
We beg you to share and investigate this information as well as petition
to change these dangerous practices before it's too late.
Read more at
http://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine.com/2013/03/entire-countries-are-bann\
ing-gmos-still.html#B28EjIpbQWLDS6Ck.99
 

[FairfieldLife] A selection of Crop Circles from 2008

[nablusoss1008]

No straws broken in any of these Crop Circles, all bent. No mud or
footprints

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> As much of a fan of Zelazny as I am, I have never 
> read any of the Amber series - Lord of Light and 
> Creatures of Light and Darkness were my favorites 
> and I also was pretty fond of his early Shadow 
> Jack character and Dilvish the Damned. I think 
> every current and former practitioner of TM 
> should read Lord of Light.

Other favorites of mine include Eye Of Cat
and the novella A Rose For Ecclesiastes.

[FairfieldLife] Crop Circles 2009

[nablusoss1008]

No mud or footprints were found in any of the Crop Circles. No straws
broken, all bent at exactly the same place.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Tuning Into Vedic Radio

[obbajeeba]

Here is some interesting overlapping
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy9Zk7hrqLo



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Yep - As I have been doing this, I get more sensitive to building
harmonies, both through rhythm, and melody - my ear demands better and
better music, so I try to choose the chanting segments carefully.
>
> It is an interesting problem to solve, trying to keep up with my own
evolving perceptions, as I continue to create music - keeping away from
stale, without veering into unrecognizable.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote:
> >
> > It will be interesting to hear how that comes out.  Another problem
with
> > the pundit's chanting is that a lot of it is in mixed meter.
> >
> > On 08/14/2013 08:28 PM, doctordumbass@ wrote:
> > > Good advice - you've also given me an idea, to try the auto-tune,
with a speech synthesizer I have installed. Not for this particular
series, but to bring more vocals in.
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> > >> Of course their pitch will probably drift. :-D
> > >>
> > >> You might try an auto-tune plugin on their chanting if they are
drifting.
> > >>
> > >> On 08/14/2013 07:22 PM, doctordumbass@ wrote:
> > >>> I also have the option to change the key of any sample I am
using. I have done this before, though not to match sampled vocals like
this. I may try some sharps and flats, too, to see if I can match the
pandits' tone better.
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >  On 08/13/2013 08:56 PM, doctordumbass@ wrote:
> > > The party continues...and parties need music...
> > >
> > > Bringing you da freshest!
> > >
> > > This one is dedicated to Rory, who is truly one of my BFFs,
even if I may agree to disagree with him on the protocol for handling
dipsticks.
> > >
> > > Tuning Into Vedic Radio (3:30)
> > >
> > > https://app.box.com/s/2hx2rylk73cy5vi8p1ot
> > >
> > > copyright Temple Dog 2013
> > >
> > >
> >  I'm not too sure that the pundits would be too happy about this
piece.
> >  The music is sort of dissonant with their chanting.  Have you
tried
> >  writing a piece where you do chanting?  I'm sure you're
familiar with
> >  Jai Uttal who does interesting things with a mix of Indian and
western
> >  music:
> >  http://jaiuttal.com/
> > 
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Tuning Into Vedic Radio

[obbajeeba]

and the endless list of plug-in apps!  :)


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Yep - As I have been doing this, I get more sensitive to building harmonies, 
> both through rhythm, and melody - my ear demands better and better music, so 
> I try to choose the chanting segments carefully.
> 
> It is an interesting problem to solve, trying to keep up with my own evolving 
> perceptions, as I continue to create music - keeping away from stale, without 
> veering into unrecognizable. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >
> > It will be interesting to hear how that comes out.  Another problem with 
> > the pundit's chanting is that a lot of it is in mixed meter.
> > 
> > On 08/14/2013 08:28 PM, doctordumbass@ wrote:
> > > Good advice - you've also given me an idea, to try the auto-tune, with a 
> > > speech synthesizer I have installed. Not for this particular series, but 
> > > to bring more vocals in.
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> > >> Of course their pitch will probably drift. :-D
> > >>
> > >> You might try an auto-tune plugin on their chanting if they are drifting.
> > >>
> > >> On 08/14/2013 07:22 PM, doctordumbass@ wrote:
> > >>> I also have the option to change the key of any sample I am using. I 
> > >>> have done this before, though not to match sampled vocals like this. I 
> > >>> may try some sharps and flats, too, to see if I can match the pandits' 
> > >>> tone better.
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >  On 08/13/2013 08:56 PM, doctordumbass@ wrote:
> > > The party continues...and parties need music...
> > >
> > > Bringing you da freshest!
> > >
> > > This one is dedicated to Rory, who is truly one of my BFFs, even if I 
> > > may agree to disagree with him on the protocol for handling dipsticks.
> > >
> > > Tuning Into Vedic Radio (3:30)
> > >
> > > https://app.box.com/s/2hx2rylk73cy5vi8p1ot
> > >
> > > copyright Temple Dog 2013
> > >
> > >
> >  I'm not too sure that the pundits would be too happy about this piece.
> >  The music is sort of dissonant with their chanting.  Have you tried
> >  writing a piece where you do chanting?  I'm sure you're familiar with
> >  Jai Uttal who does interesting things with a mix of Indian and western
> >  music:
> >  http://jaiuttal.com/
> > 
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Tuning Into Vedic Radio

[doctordumbass]

Yep - As I have been doing this, I get more sensitive to building harmonies, 
both through rhythm, and melody - my ear demands better and better music, so I 
try to choose the chanting segments carefully.

It is an interesting problem to solve, trying to keep up with my own evolving 
perceptions, as I continue to create music - keeping away from stale, without 
veering into unrecognizable. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> It will be interesting to hear how that comes out.  Another problem with 
> the pundit's chanting is that a lot of it is in mixed meter.
> 
> On 08/14/2013 08:28 PM, doctordumbass@... wrote:
> > Good advice - you've also given me an idea, to try the auto-tune, with a 
> > speech synthesizer I have installed. Not for this particular series, but to 
> > bring more vocals in.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >> Of course their pitch will probably drift. :-D
> >>
> >> You might try an auto-tune plugin on their chanting if they are drifting.
> >>
> >> On 08/14/2013 07:22 PM, doctordumbass@ wrote:
> >>> I also have the option to change the key of any sample I am using. I have 
> >>> done this before, though not to match sampled vocals like this. I may try 
> >>> some sharps and flats, too, to see if I can match the pandits' tone 
> >>> better.
> >>>
> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>  On 08/13/2013 08:56 PM, doctordumbass@ wrote:
> > The party continues...and parties need music...
> >
> > Bringing you da freshest!
> >
> > This one is dedicated to Rory, who is truly one of my BFFs, even if I 
> > may agree to disagree with him on the protocol for handling dipsticks.
> >
> > Tuning Into Vedic Radio (3:30)
> >
> > https://app.box.com/s/2hx2rylk73cy5vi8p1ot
> >
> > copyright Temple Dog 2013
> >
> >
>  I'm not too sure that the pundits would be too happy about this piece.
>  The music is sort of dissonant with their chanting.  Have you tried
>  writing a piece where you do chanting?  I'm sure you're familiar with
>  Jai Uttal who does interesting things with a mix of Indian and western
>  music:
>  http://jaiuttal.com/
> 
> >>>
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Bhagavad Gita: In English Chapter 02 The 2nd Verse, 3rd, four letter word!

[obbajeeba]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> >
> > from
> >
> 
> It's better not to "isolate" prepositions, because in the original
> Sanskrit they usually correspond to suffixes, here of the ablative case 
> ("from-case"), pañcamii vibhakti (the fifth "division" [of nouns])!
> 
> 1. nominative, prathamaa vibhakti
> 2. accusative (English objective), dvitiiyaa vibhakti
> 3. instrumental, tRtiiyaa vibhakti
> 4. dative, caturthii vibhakti
> 5. ablative, pañcamii vibhakti
> 6. genitive (English possessive), SaSThii vibhakti
> 7. locative, saptamii vibhakti 
> 
> RoFLoL!
>

Gotcha! Comparative reasoning
from;
I am as happy as a Joad in a boxcar.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Tuning Into Vedic Radio

[Bhairitu]

It will be interesting to hear how that comes out.  Another problem with 
the pundit's chanting is that a lot of it is in mixed meter.

On 08/14/2013 08:28 PM, doctordumb...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> Good advice - you've also given me an idea, to try the auto-tune, with a 
> speech synthesizer I have installed. Not for this particular series, but to 
> bring more vocals in.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> Of course their pitch will probably drift. :-D
>>
>> You might try an auto-tune plugin on their chanting if they are drifting.
>>
>> On 08/14/2013 07:22 PM, doctordumbass@... wrote:
>>> I also have the option to change the key of any sample I am using. I have 
>>> done this before, though not to match sampled vocals like this. I may try 
>>> some sharps and flats, too, to see if I can match the pandits' tone better.
>>>
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
 On 08/13/2013 08:56 PM, doctordumbass@ wrote:
> The party continues...and parties need music...
>
> Bringing you da freshest!
>
> This one is dedicated to Rory, who is truly one of my BFFs, even if I may 
> agree to disagree with him on the protocol for handling dipsticks.
>
> Tuning Into Vedic Radio (3:30)
>
> https://app.box.com/s/2hx2rylk73cy5vi8p1ot
>
> copyright Temple Dog 2013
>
>
 I'm not too sure that the pundits would be too happy about this piece.
 The music is sort of dissonant with their chanting.  Have you tried
 writing a piece where you do chanting?  I'm sure you're familiar with
 Jai Uttal who does interesting things with a mix of Indian and western
 music:
 http://jaiuttal.com/

>>>
>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Bhagavad Gita: In English Chapter 02 The 2nd Verse, 3rd, four letter word!

[card]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
>
> from
>

It's better not to "isolate" prepositions, because in the original
Sanskrit they usually correspond to suffixes, here of the ablative case 
("from-case"), pañcamii vibhakti (the fifth "division" [of nouns])!

1. nominative, prathamaa vibhakti
2. accusative (English objective), dvitiiyaa vibhakti
3. instrumental, tRtiiyaa vibhakti
4. dative, caturthii vibhakti
5. ablative, pañcamii vibhakti
6. genitive (English possessive), SaSThii vibhakti
7. locative, saptamii vibhakti 

RoFLoL!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> 
> Iain Banks does it in some of his sci-fi, one of his characters
> will be in an impossible situation with no possible escape and
> suddenly we find out that he's a shape shifter, which never got mentioned 
> before, and he slides out of an air vent or something.
> Lazy, lazy...

Actually, that should be Iain Banks RIP as the poor lad passed
away too soon. And he did write some good books. His 'Culture'
novels about a galaxy wide future humanity have some great ideas.

It's like an ultra PC Star Trek but also very sexy and he uses the characters 
well to explore the issues facing mankind at the moment,
like terrorism and environmentalism, religion and the dangers of
intervention into primitive cultures. 

It's good stuff, you could do worse than read "Excession" "Against
a Dark Background" or "Matter" but start with "Consider Phlebas" so
you know how it all started. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> I liked the books quite a bit, having never had any problem with wizards 
> myself, I like her style of writing too. 

I don't like the insto-get-out clause that magic gives you.
I saw the Lord of the Rings movies and almost really enjoyed 
them - part 2 was sublime actually - Trouble was the magic, in
the first episode the main hobbit gets a spear the size of a 
telegraph pole right through his chest pinning him to a concrete pillar!

I thought that must be the end and got up to leave but no! He
was wearing a magic waistcoat. How it might work I don't know,
maybe some sort of quantum superposition? I guess you're supposed
to suspend your disbelief at that point but I can't, I have to have
a consistent metaphysics or I think the writer is just being lazy.

Iain Banks does it in some of his sci-fi, one of his characters
will be in an impossible situation with no possible escape and
suddenly we find out that he's a shape shifter, which never got mentioned 
before, and he slides out of an air vent or something.
Lazy, lazy...

I think if you are going to have spells then they have to be 
consistently used, if Harry Potter could kill the bad guy with
a wave of his wand, why doesn't he do it from a safe distance
rather than waiting till he's hanging upside down in a cellar?

Sorry. It's a pet peeve.


> 
>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 1:07 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
>  
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > Oh my lord! That means you can't abide that English woman, Jo Rowling!
> 
> Deary me no, Harry Potter and the Gob of Shite. Admittedly I 
> haven't read any of the books and why my (female) friends used 
> to recommend them to me I don't know, but I sat through one of the movies and 
> wanted to gnaw my legs off after 5 minutes.
> 
> I think I'm a bit too old for Voldemort being past puberty as I 
> am...
> 
> > 
> >  From: salyavin808 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:41 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > Awww, Come on Sal, why you don't like Deepak?
> > 
> > I don't like any of these guru types who make a fortune out
> > of seekers, even if it is their own choice. I don't like the
> > reliance on quantum physics as a prop for woolly thinking 
> > and undeliverable promises or pushing untested folk medicine. 
> > I don't like the whole "veda is truth" thing. Basically my 
> > same reasons for disliking the TMO.
> > 
> > I am interested in his split from the TMO though, in our old
> > tape cupboard at the academy we had a huge box of videos
> > featuring Deepak with a "not to be played" sign on them. I
> > gather he went from quite the darling to public enemy number one
> > very swiftly but I never managed to get a straight answer about
> > why from anybody. 
> > 
> > Usually it was that he changed Marshy's teaching (I thought it 
> > was him teaching Marshy about AV) or that he made some personal 
> > money out of it which TM bigwigs saw as some sort of ultimate 
> > crime. Bizarrely, as they still sell no end of courses in vedic #wisdom 
> > promising a fruitful career. Maybe they were annoyed as 
> > he was the only one who ever did make a buck out of the TMO. 
> > I know precious few who ever got any "nature" support from that direction.
> > 
> > > 
> > > I know I have enjoyed his writing - especially his first fiction novel, 
> > > Return of Merlin which he supposedly wrote the bulk of during the year 
> > > when he was looking after the Big M subsequent to his being poisoned. I 
> > > loved that novel.
> > 
> > Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy 
> > novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
> > sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.
> > 
> > 
> > >  From: salyavin808 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:22 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Seraphita"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > If you're interested in the debate with materialists, you
> > > > could do a lot better than Chopra. He's not what I would
> > > > call a rigorous thinker.
> > > 
> > > He's an asshole.
> > > 
> > > > You might try Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the
> > > > Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost
> > > > Certainly False." 
> > > > 
> > > > Nagel got in a lot of trouble with the big-time materialists;
> > >

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[Michael Jackson]

there are some great books on that list - I appreciate you sending that out - I 
had forgotten about some of them 





 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 1:46 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
 


  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy 
> > > > novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
> > > > sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.
> > > 
> > > Just as a question, did you ever read any of 
> > > Roger Zelazny's Chronicles Of Amber series? 
> > > 
> > > That's got Woo, and the existence of wizards 
> > > of a sort, but it's also got a lot of phwam!
> > > in my opinion. 
> > > 
> > > The series started as an act of will. Roger
> > > had caught a bad case of writer's block, and
> > > couldn't get a damned thing to come out. So,
> > > being a martial artists and a warrior type
> > > himself, he set himself a task to help him
> > > snap out of it. 
> > > 
> > > He would write a whole novel in one month.
> > > (It usually took him six months to a year.)
> > > The novel was to be a throw-away. He didn't
> > > plan to do anything with it. He was using
> > > it to inspire him to write more serious 
> > > books. 
> > > 
> > > The result was "Nine Princes In Amber," a 
> > > novel that went on to be the first of a 
> > > series of ten novels that, collectively,
> > > are Zelazny's biggest sellers. Go figure.
> > 
> > Something to be said for spontaneity perhaps?
> > 
> > I have got one book of his but it has yet to be
> > read. It came out as part of a Masters of Sci-Fi 
> > selection. Chosen by contemporary writers, it has
> > everyone from HG Wells and John Wyndham through what
> > I consider the golden age, people like Bob Silverberg
> > and Brian Aldiss, to Iain Banks and KW Jetter.
> > 
> > They released a book a month for ages and I discovered
> > some real gems, people I never would have heard of.
> > I don't know why but new sci-fi does nothing for me -
> > or the local library have a very poor buyer - but it seems
> > like I pick up and put down an awful lot of books after
> > one chapter. But something like 'Flowers for Algernon'
> > 'The Earth Abides' or 'Ringworld' and I'm hooked to the 
> > last page.
> > 
> > 'Lords of Light' will get a look in sometime and I shall
> > take a look at the Amber series just in case I'm missing
> > something.
> > 
> > Here's a list of them so far:
> > 
> > http://www.gollancz.co.uk/2013/02/the-sf-masterworks/
> 
> That's quite a list. I've read many of them, 
> but not all. Interesting that Philip K. Dick
> has 14 entries on the list.

I wish I had the time to read more! But I haven't been
disappointed yet, except when they changed the cover of
one and I bought it twice.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[Michael Jackson]

I liked the books quite a bit, having never had any problem with wizards 
myself, I like her style of writing too. 





 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 1:07 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
 


  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Oh my lord! That means you can't abide that English woman, Jo Rowling!

Deary me no, Harry Potter and the Gob of Shite. Admittedly I 
haven't read any of the books and why my (female) friends used 
to recommend them to me I don't know, but I sat through one of the movies and 
wanted to gnaw my legs off after 5 minutes.

I think I'm a bit too old for Voldemort being past puberty as I 
am...

> 
>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:41 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > Awww, Come on Sal, why you don't like Deepak?
> 
> I don't like any of these guru types who make a fortune out
> of seekers, even if it is their own choice. I don't like the
> reliance on quantum physics as a prop for woolly thinking 
> and undeliverable promises or pushing untested folk medicine. 
> I don't like the whole "veda is truth" thing. Basically my 
> same reasons for disliking the TMO.
> 
> I am interested in his split from the TMO though, in our old
> tape cupboard at the academy we had a huge box of videos
> featuring Deepak with a "not to be played" sign on them. I
> gather he went from quite the darling to public enemy number one
> very swiftly but I never managed to get a straight answer about
> why from anybody. 
> 
> Usually it was that he changed Marshy's teaching (I thought it 
> was him teaching Marshy about AV) or that he made some personal 
> money out of it which TM bigwigs saw as some sort of ultimate 
> crime. Bizarrely, as they still sell no end of courses in vedic #wisdom 
> promising a fruitful career. Maybe they were annoyed as 
> he was the only one who ever did make a buck out of the TMO. 
> I know precious few who ever got any "nature" support from that direction.
> 
> > 
> > I know I have enjoyed his writing - especially his first fiction novel, 
> > Return of Merlin which he supposedly wrote the bulk of during the year when 
> > he was looking after the Big M subsequent to his being poisoned. I loved 
> > that novel.
> 
> Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy 
> novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
> sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.
> 
> 
> >  From: salyavin808 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:22 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Seraphita"  wrote:
> > 
> > > If you're interested in the debate with materialists, you
> > > could do a lot better than Chopra. He's not what I would
> > > call a rigorous thinker.
> > 
> > He's an asshole.
> > 
> > > You might try Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the
> > > Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost
> > > Certainly False." 
> > > 
> > > Nagel got in a lot of trouble with the big-time materialists;
> > > the book really upset them, so he must have hit close to the
> > > bone.
> > 
> > LOL.
> >
>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[Michael Jackson]

As much of a fan of Zelazny as I am,  I have never read any of the Amber series 
- Lord of Light and Creatures of Light and Darkness were my favorites and I 
also was pretty fond of his early Shadow Jack character and Dilvish the Damned. 
I think every current and former practitioner of TM should read Lord of Light.

On a completely different note, I was once a big fan of the Stainless Steel Rat 
(Harry Harrison's creation)





 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:55 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
 


  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy 
> novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
> sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.

Just as a question, did you ever read any of 
Roger Zelazny's Chronicles Of Amber series? 

That's got Woo, and the existence of wizards 
of a sort, but it's also got a lot of phwam!
in my opinion. 

The series started as an act of will. Roger
had caught a bad case of writer's block, and
couldn't get a damned thing to come out. So,
being a martial artists and a warrior type
himself, he set himself a task to help him
snap out of it. 

He would write a whole novel in one month.
(It usually took him six months to a year.)
The novel was to be a throw-away. He didn't
plan to do anything with it. He was using
it to inspire him to write more serious 
books. 

The result was "Nine Princes In Amber," a 
novel that went on to be the first of a 
series of ten novels that, collectively,
are Zelazny's biggest sellers. Go figure.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  
> > > wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > > > You might try Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the
> > > > > Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost
> > > > > Certainly False." 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Nagel got in a lot of trouble with the big-time materialists;
> > > > > the book really upset them, so he must have hit close to the
> > > > > bone.
> > > > 
> > > > LOL.
> > > 
> > > Is that a tic of some kind you've got there? 
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > I made a
> > > perfectly reasonable statement, regardless of what you
> > > think of Nagel. The leading materialists don't tend to
> > > come out in droves to burn a heretic unless they're
> > > afraid serious people may find the heretic convincing.
> > > 
> > > Have you read Nagel's book, BTW?
> > 
> > No, and I can tell you haven't. That's what made me laugh,
> > defending something you haven't read using other peoples
> > dislike as evidence that he's on to something.
> 
> Ah, but you're very much mistaken, I did indeed read it,
> have it on my Kindle, in fact. I don't think you quite
> got what I meant by "he must have hit close to the bone,"
> even after I tried to explain it to you. Let me try
> again:
> 
> See, hard-core materialists are very unlikely to come out
> in force against a book that makes a weak argument against
> materialism. So the fact that they *did* come out in force
> against Nagel's book is evidence that his argument was
> strong enough to make them nervous. They wouldn't have
> bothered otherwise. (By "nervous," I don't mean afraid
> he's right, but rather afraid that, as I said, his
> argument is strong enough to convince those who aren't
> already convinced of materialism.)
> 
> That has nothing whatsoever to do with *my* evaluation of
> the book. I don't need much convincing, so my opinion of
> his argument isn't evidence that it's a strong one. That's
> why I cited the response of the materialists.
> 
> Get it now?

Now that you've explained it, yes. 

I'm much more interested in whether the materialists are 
content that they have successfully seen off the incursion.
Maybe - like we were with the so called "intelligent design"
BS - they react strongly to the ignorance of the argument
to slap it down straight away lest tubthumpers use it as an
excuse.

It took me 20 minutes to dismiss the ID case, and that included
a bike ride to the library for the relevant high school text book.
Simples. But they were a bunch of tubthumpers on a mission to
get creationism taught in schools as we now know.

No one knows of anything that couldn't have got here under it's
own steam, baffling and stunning though it all is whenever someone
comes a major natural mystery it almost always turns out to be
something that came pre-adapted to do something else and got co-
opted into helping out another part of the organism.

The mind is a case in point, like I said about music the other
day, it takes many parts of the brain to give us the subjective
experience but none of them evolved to do that, I think it's
that we join things up and our minds just enlarge and link up
emotions and memories or maybe the earliest music played a different part in 
our social lives and has just got "out of hand" as far as
whatever it's original intention or use was.

But it isn't all explained by any means, I get sceptical because
the method of explanation used so far (materialist science) has
done a pretty damn good job so far.
 
 
> > I haven't read any "materialist" critiques of it either.
> 
> Hooboy, there's a ton of 'em.
> 
> > I think Darwinism is doing a fine and dandy - if currently
> > incomplete - job of explaining things, to say there are
> > irreducible structures in nature - whatever your angle -
> > is another way of saying "I don't believe it because I
> > don't understand it" until we reach the end of possible
> > exploration and there are unexplainable gaps. *Then* we
> > can get all theological about other entities involvement.
> 
> Oh, gracious, no "other entities" in this book. Nagel is
> a very determined atheist. I'm not quite sure what you
> mean by "irreducible structures in nature," unless you're
> referring to mind as a structure. Now, when you say,
> "another way of saying, 'I don't believe it,'" what is the
> antecedent of "it"? If you're suggesting that Nagel doesn't
> understand Darwinism, I suggest you think again.
> 
> Nagel's argument is basically philosophical, i.e., he shows
> logically how neo-Darwinism cannot *in principle* account
> for the human mind.
> 
> He suggests one potential (nontheistic) solution to fill
> the explanatory gap, but he offers it only as a
> possibility, not as a firm conclusion. His main focus is
> on why there *is* a gap.

So, it's one of those irreduci

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy 
> > > > novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
> > > > sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.
> > > 
> > > Just as a question, did you ever read any of 
> > > Roger Zelazny's Chronicles Of Amber series? 
> > > 
> > > That's got Woo, and the existence of wizards 
> > > of a sort, but it's also got a lot of phwam!
> > > in my opinion. 
> > > 
> > > The series started as an act of will. Roger
> > > had caught a bad case of writer's block, and
> > > couldn't get a damned thing to come out. So,
> > > being a martial artists and a warrior type
> > > himself, he set himself a task to help him
> > > snap out of it. 
> > > 
> > > He would write a whole novel in one month.
> > > (It usually took him six months to a year.)
> > > The novel was to be a throw-away. He didn't
> > > plan to do anything with it. He was using
> > > it to inspire him to write more serious 
> > > books. 
> > > 
> > > The result was "Nine Princes In Amber," a 
> > > novel that went on to be the first of a 
> > > series of ten novels that, collectively,
> > > are Zelazny's biggest sellers. Go figure.
> > 
> > Something to be said for spontaneity perhaps?
> > 
> > I have got one book of his but it has yet to be
> > read. It came out as part of a Masters of Sci-Fi 
> > selection. Chosen by contemporary writers, it has
> > everyone from HG Wells and John Wyndham through what
> > I consider the golden age, people like Bob Silverberg
> > and Brian Aldiss, to Iain Banks and KW Jetter.
> > 
> > They released a book a month for ages and I discovered
> > some real gems, people I never would have heard of.
> > I don't know why but new sci-fi does nothing for me -
> > or the local library have a very poor buyer - but it seems
> > like I pick up and put down an awful lot of books after
> > one chapter. But something like 'Flowers for Algernon'
> > 'The Earth Abides' or 'Ringworld' and I'm hooked to the 
> > last page.
> > 
> > 'Lords of Light' will get a look in sometime and I shall
> > take a look at the Amber series just in case I'm missing
> > something.
> > 
> > Here's a list of them so far:
> > 
> > http://www.gollancz.co.uk/2013/02/the-sf-masterworks/
> 
> That's quite a list. I've read many of them, 
> but not all. Interesting that Philip K. Dick
> has 14 entries on the list.

I wish I had the time to read more! But I haven't been
disappointed yet, except when they changed the cover of
one and I bought it twice.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[doctordumbass]

I don't mind him being here, at all. As I said before, with Barry around, every 
other aspect of my life seems so much brighter. The Cautionary Tale, himself.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > Barry is not a hack writer.
> > 
> > He introduces us all to new concepts on a DAILY basis.  He creates 
> > wonderful phrases that nail down his nuances.  He communicates!
> > 
> > He knows his own mind.
> > 
> > He is brave.
> > 
> > He's in fucking Europe and taking its pulse -- how many others in your life 
> > do you have as an on-the-spot reporter?
> 
> I agree, Barry brings a lot of energy and ideas to this place and I always 
> enjoy his writings.
> 
> What the hell would everyone talk about if he left? We'd get away
> with a five post a week maximum if nobody had him to kick against.
> 
> To use Judy's argument from earlier, is this aggression towards him
> a sign that he's on the right track?*
> 
> 
> > 
>  
> > So keep on writing you bastard!  
> 
> And you, Edg.
>  
> > Edg
> 
> 
> *May I predict 20,000 posts by sundown.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
(snip)
> To use Judy's argument from earlier, is this aggression towards
> him a sign that he's on the right track?*

Not my argument, sorry.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  
> > wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > > You might try Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the
> > > > Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost
> > > > Certainly False." 
> > > > 
> > > > Nagel got in a lot of trouble with the big-time materialists;
> > > > the book really upset them, so he must have hit close to the
> > > > bone.
> > > 
> > > LOL.
> > 
> > Is that a tic of some kind you've got there? 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I made a
> > perfectly reasonable statement, regardless of what you
> > think of Nagel. The leading materialists don't tend to
> > come out in droves to burn a heretic unless they're
> > afraid serious people may find the heretic convincing.
> > 
> > Have you read Nagel's book, BTW?
> 
> No, and I can tell you haven't. That's what made me laugh,
> defending something you haven't read using other peoples
> dislike as evidence that he's on to something.

Ah, but you're very much mistaken, I did indeed read it,
have it on my Kindle, in fact. I don't think you quite
got what I meant by "he must have hit close to the bone,"
even after I tried to explain it to you. Let me try
again:

See, hard-core materialists are very unlikely to come out
in force against a book that makes a weak argument against
materialism. So the fact that they *did* come out in force
against Nagel's book is evidence that his argument was
strong enough to make them nervous. They wouldn't have
bothered otherwise. (By "nervous," I don't mean afraid
he's right, but rather afraid that, as I said, his
argument is strong enough to convince those who aren't
already convinced of materialism.)

That has nothing whatsoever to do with *my* evaluation of
the book. I don't need much convincing, so my opinion of
his argument isn't evidence that it's a strong one. That's
why I cited the response of the materialists.

Get it now?

> I haven't read any "materialist" critiques of it either.

Hooboy, there's a ton of 'em.

> I think Darwinism is doing a fine and dandy - if currently
> incomplete - job of explaining things, to say there are
> irreducible structures in nature - whatever your angle -
> is another way of saying "I don't believe it because I
> don't understand it" until we reach the end of possible
> exploration and there are unexplainable gaps. *Then* we
> can get all theological about other entities involvement.

Oh, gracious, no "other entities" in this book. Nagel is
a very determined atheist. I'm not quite sure what you
mean by "irreducible structures in nature," unless you're
referring to mind as a structure. Now, when you say,
"another way of saying, 'I don't believe it,'" what is the
antecedent of "it"? If you're suggesting that Nagel doesn't
understand Darwinism, I suggest you think again.

Nagel's argument is basically philosophical, i.e., he shows
logically how neo-Darwinism cannot *in principle* account
for the human mind.

He suggests one potential (nontheistic) solution to fill
the explanatory gap, but he offers it only as a
possibility, not as a firm conclusion. His main focus is
on why there *is* a gap.
 
> Or maybe Nagel has done just that and provided science with
> an argument it can't explain. Until one of us reads the book
> we won't know. LOL.

Well, *you* won't know until *you* read the book, that's
for sure. LOL.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy 
> > > novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
> > > sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.
> > 
> > Just as a question, did you ever read any of 
> > Roger Zelazny's Chronicles Of Amber series? 
> > 
> > That's got Woo, and the existence of wizards 
> > of a sort, but it's also got a lot of phwam!
> > in my opinion. 
> > 
> > The series started as an act of will. Roger
> > had caught a bad case of writer's block, and
> > couldn't get a damned thing to come out. So,
> > being a martial artists and a warrior type
> > himself, he set himself a task to help him
> > snap out of it. 
> > 
> > He would write a whole novel in one month.
> > (It usually took him six months to a year.)
> > The novel was to be a throw-away. He didn't
> > plan to do anything with it. He was using
> > it to inspire him to write more serious 
> > books. 
> > 
> > The result was "Nine Princes In Amber," a 
> > novel that went on to be the first of a 
> > series of ten novels that, collectively,
> > are Zelazny's biggest sellers. Go figure.
> 
> Something to be said for spontaneity perhaps?
> 
> I have got one book of his but it has yet to be
> read. It came out as part of a Masters of Sci-Fi 
> selection. Chosen by contemporary writers, it has
> everyone from HG Wells and John Wyndham through what
> I consider the golden age, people like Bob Silverberg
> and Brian Aldiss, to Iain Banks and KW Jetter.
> 
> They released a book a month for ages and I discovered
> some real gems, people I never would have heard of.
> I don't know why but new sci-fi does nothing for me -
> or the local library have a very poor buyer - but it seems
> like I pick up and put down an awful lot of books after
> one chapter. But something like 'Flowers for Algernon'
> 'The Earth Abides' or 'Ringworld' and I'm hooked to the 
> last page.
> 
> 'Lords of Light' will get a look in sometime and I shall
> take a look at the Amber series just in case I'm missing
> something.
> 
> Here's a list of them so far:
> 
> http://www.gollancz.co.uk/2013/02/the-sf-masterworks/

That's quite a list. I've read many of them, 
but not all. Interesting that Philip K. Dick
has 14 entries on the list. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Oh my lord! That means you can't abide that English woman, Jo Rowling!

Deary me no, Harry Potter and the Gob of Shite. Admittedly I 
haven't read any of the books and why my (female) friends used 
to recommend them to me I don't know, but I sat through one of the movies and 
wanted to gnaw my legs off after 5 minutes.

I think I'm a bit too old for Voldemort being past puberty as I 
am...

 

> 
>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:41 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
>  
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > Awww, Come on Sal, why you don't like Deepak?
> 
> I don't like any of these guru types who make a fortune out
> of seekers, even if it is their own choice. I don't like the
> reliance on quantum physics as a prop for woolly thinking 
> and undeliverable promises or pushing untested folk medicine. 
> I don't like the whole "veda is truth" thing. Basically my 
> same reasons for disliking the TMO.
> 
> I am interested in his split from the TMO though, in our old
> tape cupboard at the academy we had a huge box of videos
> featuring Deepak with a "not to be played" sign on them. I
> gather he went from quite the darling to public enemy number one
> very swiftly but I never managed to get a straight answer about
> why from anybody. 
> 
> Usually it was that he changed Marshy's teaching (I thought it 
> was him teaching Marshy about AV) or that he made some personal 
> money out of it which TM bigwigs saw as some sort of ultimate 
> crime. Bizarrely, as they still sell no end of courses in vedic #wisdom 
> promising a fruitful career. Maybe they were annoyed as 
> he was the only one who ever did make a buck out of the TMO. 
> I know precious few who ever got any "nature" support from that direction.
> 
> > 
> > I know I have enjoyed his writing - especially his first fiction novel, 
> > Return of Merlin which he supposedly wrote the bulk of during the year when 
> > he was looking after the Big M subsequent to his being poisoned. I loved 
> > that novel.
> 
> Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy 
> novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
> sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.
> 
> 
> >  From: salyavin808 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:22 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Seraphita"  wrote:
> > 
> > > If you're interested in the debate with materialists, you
> > > could do a lot better than Chopra. He's not what I would
> > > call a rigorous thinker.
> > 
> > He's an asshole.
> > 
> > > You might try Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the
> > > Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost
> > > Certainly False." 
> > > 
> > > Nagel got in a lot of trouble with the big-time materialists;
> > > the book really upset them, so he must have hit close to the
> > > bone.
> > 
> > LOL.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy 
> > novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
> > sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.
> 
> Just as a question, did you ever read any of 
> Roger Zelazny's Chronicles Of Amber series? 
> 
> That's got Woo, and the existence of wizards 
> of a sort, but it's also got a lot of phwam!
> in my opinion. 
> 
> The series started as an act of will. Roger
> had caught a bad case of writer's block, and
> couldn't get a damned thing to come out. So,
> being a martial artists and a warrior type
> himself, he set himself a task to help him
> snap out of it. 
> 
> He would write a whole novel in one month.
> (It usually took him six months to a year.)
> The novel was to be a throw-away. He didn't
> plan to do anything with it. He was using
> it to inspire him to write more serious 
> books. 
> 
> The result was "Nine Princes In Amber," a 
> novel that went on to be the first of a 
> series of ten novels that, collectively,
> are Zelazny's biggest sellers. Go figure.

Something to be said for spontaneity perhaps?

I have got one book of his but it has yet to be
read. It came out as part of a Masters of Sci-Fi 
selection. Chosen by contemporary writers, it has
everyone from HG Wells and John Wyndham through what
I consider the golden age, people like Bob Silverberg
and Brian Aldiss, to Iain Banks and KW Jetter.

They released a book a month for ages and I discovered
some real gems, people I never would have heard of.
I don't know why but new sci-fi does nothing for me -
or the local library have a very poor buyer - but it seems
like I pick up and put down an awful lot of books after
one chapter. But something like 'Flowers for Algernon'
'The Earth Abides' or 'Ringworld' and I'm hooked to the 
last page.

'Lords of Light' will get a look in sometime and I shall
take a look at the Amber series just in case I'm missing
something.

Here's a list of them so far:

http://www.gollancz.co.uk/2013/02/the-sf-masterworks/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[Michael Jackson]

That's awesome, I never knew that about Zelazny - Lord of Light is one of my 
favorites and obviously has echoes of the Movement. 





 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 12:07 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
 


  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy 
> > novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
> > sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.
> 
> Just as a question, did you ever read any of 
> Roger Zelazny's Chronicles Of Amber series? 
> 
> That's got Woo, and the existence of wizards 
> of a sort, but it's also got a lot of phwam!
> in my opinion. 
> 
> The series started as an act of will. Roger
> had caught a bad case of writer's block, and
> couldn't get a damned thing to come out. So,
> being a martial artists and a warrior type
> himself, he set himself a task to help him
> snap out of it. 
> 
> He would write a whole novel in one month.
> (It usually took him six months to a year.)
> The novel was to be a throw-away. He didn't
> plan to do anything with it. He was using
> it to inspire him to write more serious 
> books. 
> 
> The result was "Nine Princes In Amber," a 
> novel that went on to be the first of a 
> series of ten novels that, collectively,
> are Zelazny's biggest sellers. Go figure.

Just because you got me thinking about him
I'll rap a bit more about Roger Zelazny. I
never knew him, even though he lived in Santa
Fe. By the time I moved there he was already
dying, and in seclusion with his caretaker/
cowriter. I saw him speak once, and my memory
(even though he was one of my Science Fiction
Gods) is that as a public speaker, he was a 
good writer, one who shoulda stuck to it. 

So it surprised me recently to learn that he
had been a long-time student of the martial
arts. I hadn't ever known that about him, but
hearing it was like a mini-revelation that
explained something for me I'd noticed but
never thought about. 

Roger wrote great fight scenes. They rocked.
They "rang true." I've since learned that he
acted out the fight scenes with a partner 
before writing them. He literally knew what
every punch, kick, sword thrust or parry
*felt* like, because he'd just finished 
doing it. 

He didn't have to imagine it. He felt it,
in muscle memory. 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[Michael Jackson]

Oh my lord! That means you can't abide that English woman, Jo Rowling!





 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:41 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
 


  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Awww, Come on Sal, why you don't like Deepak?

I don't like any of these guru types who make a fortune out
of seekers, even if it is their own choice. I don't like the
reliance on quantum physics as a prop for woolly thinking 
and undeliverable promises or pushing untested folk medicine. 
I don't like the whole "veda is truth" thing. Basically my 
same reasons for disliking the TMO.

I am interested in his split from the TMO though, in our old
tape cupboard at the academy we had a huge box of videos
featuring Deepak with a "not to be played" sign on them. I
gather he went from quite the darling to public enemy number one
very swiftly but I never managed to get a straight answer about
why from anybody. 

Usually it was that he changed Marshy's teaching (I thought it 
was him teaching Marshy about AV) or that he made some personal 
money out of it which TM bigwigs saw as some sort of ultimate 
crime. Bizarrely, as they still sell no end of courses in vedic #wisdom 
promising a fruitful career. Maybe they were annoyed as 
he was the only one who ever did make a buck out of the TMO. 
I know precious few who ever got any "nature" support from that direction.

> 
> I know I have enjoyed his writing - especially his first fiction novel, 
> Return of Merlin which he supposedly wrote the bulk of during the year when 
> he was looking after the Big M subsequent to his being poisoned. I loved that 
> novel.

Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy 
novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.


>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:22 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Seraphita"  wrote:
> 
> > If you're interested in the debate with materialists, you
> > could do a lot better than Chopra. He's not what I would
> > call a rigorous thinker.
> 
> He's an asshole.
> 
> > You might try Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the
> > Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost
> > Certainly False." 
> > 
> > Nagel got in a lot of trouble with the big-time materialists;
> > the book really upset them, so he must have hit close to the
> > bone.
> 
> LOL.
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy 
> > novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
> > sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.
> 
> Just as a question, did you ever read any of 
> Roger Zelazny's Chronicles Of Amber series? 
> 
> That's got Woo, and the existence of wizards 
> of a sort, but it's also got a lot of phwam!
> in my opinion. 
> 
> The series started as an act of will. Roger
> had caught a bad case of writer's block, and
> couldn't get a damned thing to come out. So,
> being a martial artists and a warrior type
> himself, he set himself a task to help him
> snap out of it. 
> 
> He would write a whole novel in one month.
> (It usually took him six months to a year.)
> The novel was to be a throw-away. He didn't
> plan to do anything with it. He was using
> it to inspire him to write more serious 
> books. 
> 
> The result was "Nine Princes In Amber," a 
> novel that went on to be the first of a 
> series of ten novels that, collectively,
> are Zelazny's biggest sellers. Go figure.

Just because you got me thinking about him
I'll rap a bit more about Roger Zelazny. I
never knew him, even though he lived in Santa
Fe. By the time I moved there he was already
dying, and in seclusion with his caretaker/
cowriter. I saw him speak once, and my memory
(even though he was one of my Science Fiction
Gods) is that as a public speaker, he was a 
good writer, one who shoulda stuck to it. 

So it surprised me recently to learn that he
had been a long-time student of the martial
arts. I hadn't ever known that about him, but
hearing it was like a mini-revelation that
explained something for me I'd noticed but
never thought about. 

Roger wrote great fight scenes. They rocked.
They "rang true." I've since learned that he
acted out the fight scenes with a partner 
before writing them. He literally knew what
every punch, kick, sword thrust or parry
*felt* like, because he'd just finished 
doing it. 

He didn't have to imagine it. He felt it,
in muscle memory. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[obbajeeba]

The beast hit me like a ton of bricks, that 666.
Deepen to the darker side,
 for the dark is not dark enough for I! 
Shani,a temporary gaze on Surya, which combination,
 I shall not say.
A hint, the Turq is kind of spelled like Turd.
 Lot's of blueberries come to mind!
 Blue biliary traced on end results,
 where Turd's reside. 

The old man whispers in my ear from afar,
he who belches loudly will Shani's grace,
a man of sooji complexion, that Sade Sati face,
Italian Stallion. I save myself for he.
Not the Turq. (hmm what rhymes) He is a jerk;
Play with the animals and do not feed them!




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> How coquettish of you, Obba. Ooops, don't lift that petticoat in front of the 
> big strong man! Yes, smelling the scent of cheap cloying perfume in the air, 
> and how you flutter your fan, so! Just another damsel in distress, eh???
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> >
> > As Share prods me to end my beasty number ending in 666, in another post, I 
> > move along here, to this compliment to the Turq, from Michael.
> > I agree with Michael. I enjoy Turq's big head writing. I only thrash at him 
> > (He who goes by the name of Barry, but I am not quite personal enough to 
> > call him anything in a formal, except to fuck off, as Ann and I believe Dr. 
> > Dumbass have said here somewhere on these FFL group pages.)
> > Turq, I enjoy your writing too. Sometimes they do get long winded and 
> > boring, but I still stomach through them, because sometimes past your ego, 
> > you do put together fine sentences many of the times.
> > You are worth the skim through.
> >  A one night stand dressed in different clothing can make it feel like new, 
> > when you run out of material. 
> > Seriously, the squeaky wheel gets the oil and you have much rusted debris 
> > to keep the volume up for a good time to come.
> > 
> > Fuck off, Turq. Keep up the good work. ;)
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq, but I love 
> > > your writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will have achieved 
> > > something great.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: turquoiseb 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:01 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Prerequisites for Enlightenment
> > >  
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Given the definition given by the Big M for enlightenment 
> > > > and all the glorious things that the enlightened are and 
> > > > can do, you would think these TM enlightened would be 
> > > > doing marvelous things in the world, especially in the 
> > > > area of saving the rest of us from ignorance. I eagerly 
> > > > await their coming out and heppin' the rest of us 
> > > > ignorant folks out.
> > > 
> > > Michael, I think your understanding in this vitally important area is 
> > > flawed by an improper understanding of the relationship between the 
> > > enlightened and the...uh...not so much. 
> > > 
> > > The "real story" of why so many have failed to become enlightened 
> > > themselves as a result of the beneficence of the enlightened is much like 
> > > a section I have to create often when doing tech writing. The 
> > > unenlightened have failed to become All That They Could Be because they 
> > > didn't RTFM, or skipped over the Prerequisites section. 
> > > 
> > > In the Prerequisites section of technical documentation, one lists all of 
> > > the things one has to have in place or have done before installing/using 
> > > the new-fangled software or hardware that the manual is about. Like, 
> > > before installing and running a Java-based program
> > > on your computer, there is a prerequisite that you have to have installed 
> > > Java first, and that it has to be functional and capable of launching a 
> > > JVM (Java Virtual Machine) for the new-fangled program to run in. Not to 
> > > mention...uh...*having* a computer in the first place, and turning it on 
> > > using the little red switch.
> > > 
> > > These are all *prerequisites* that must be met before the new-fangled 
> > > program will work, and transform your life into the wonderland that our 
> > > marketing and sales reps told you it would become if you just bought our 
> > > product. 
> > > 
> > > The User's Manual for Enlightenment is notoriously badly written, when 
> > > you can find it at all, and contains many Class-A bugs that have never 
> > > been addressed, even though the software of enlightenment is now up to 
> > > Release 3,784.256.11. In *all* of those releases, the
> > > shitty tech writers have failed to write a Prerequisites section. For 
> > > your edification, and that of other hapless seekers, I shall seek to 
> > > rectify that situation now:
> > > 
> > > 
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy 
> novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
> sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.

Just as a question, did you ever read any of 
Roger Zelazny's Chronicles Of Amber series? 

That's got Woo, and the existence of wizards 
of a sort, but it's also got a lot of phwam!
in my opinion. 

The series started as an act of will. Roger
had caught a bad case of writer's block, and
couldn't get a damned thing to come out. So,
being a martial artists and a warrior type
himself, he set himself a task to help him
snap out of it. 

He would write a whole novel in one month.
(It usually took him six months to a year.)
The novel was to be a throw-away. He didn't
plan to do anything with it. He was using
it to inspire him to write more serious 
books. 

The result was "Nine Princes In Amber," a 
novel that went on to be the first of a 
series of ten novels that, collectively,
are Zelazny's biggest sellers. Go figure.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Barry is not a hack writer.
> 
> He introduces us all to new concepts on a DAILY basis.  He creates wonderful 
> phrases that nail down his nuances.  He communicates!
> 
> He knows his own mind.
> 
> He is brave.
> 
> He's in fucking Europe and taking its pulse -- how many others in your life 
> do you have as an on-the-spot reporter?

I agree, Barry brings a lot of energy and ideas to this place and I always 
enjoy his writings.

What the hell would everyone talk about if he left? We'd get away
with a five post a week maximum if nobody had him to kick against.

To use Judy's argument from earlier, is this aggression towards him
a sign that he's on the right track?*


> 
 
> So keep on writing you bastard!  

And you, Edg.
 
> Edg


*May I predict 20,000 posts by sundown.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hyperlinks

[obbajeeba]

Share, I threw myself under the bus. I died for your sins. 
Thank you for recognizing my sacrifice.
Please remove your shoes at the door when you enter. 
See you soon. Bring gold. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Obbajee, I miss the Gita words! Any way you might continue with that? Plus, 
> it might offset the influence of that Beastly Number! Which you were very 
> brave to accept IMHO (-:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: obbajeeba 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 9:01 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hyperlinks
>  
> 
> 
>   
> 
> RD, Yahoo has taken us back in time to manually insert these links.
> 
> Yes, phooey. 
> 
> I am fading, can't spell worth poop. Me, that is.
> 
> What is typing without using the word Share? I don't care anymore. 
> 
> Time to recharge. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How come my hyperlinks aren't clickable in my yahoo web posts
> > > > anymore? 
> > > 
> > > The links are clickable in email but not on the website. Why? Because 
> > > it's Yahoo.
> > > 
> > > > I could copy/paste a link from a word doc to Rich-Text Editor but
> > > > that's a pain in the butt.
> > > 
> > > Yep, but it appears to be the only way your links will be clickable for 
> > > website users.
> > >
> > Phooey.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] The Bhagavad Gita: In English Chapter 02 The 2nd Verse, 3rd, four letter word!

[obbajeeba]

from

[FairfieldLife] My kinda joint

[turquoiseb]

I  almost bought a sign today at a street market, for the bar I've never
owned but always  wanted to. It is supposedly a real sign, from a
restaurant in the  Luberon. It failed. Can't imagine why.
 
[https://sphotos-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/q71/s720x720/1185364_65\
1988918158578_1504698729_n.jpg]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Awww, Come on Sal, why you don't like Deepak?

I don't like any of these guru types who make a fortune out
of seekers, even if it is their own choice. I don't like the
reliance on quantum physics as a prop for woolly thinking 
and undeliverable promises or pushing untested folk medicine. 
I don't like the whole "veda is truth" thing. Basically my 
same reasons for disliking the TMO.

I am interested in his split from the TMO though, in our old
tape cupboard at the academy we had a huge box of videos
featuring Deepak with a "not to be played" sign on them. I
gather he went from quite the darling to public enemy number one
very swiftly but I never managed to get a straight answer about
why from anybody. 

Usually it was that he changed Marshy's teaching (I thought it 
was him teaching Marshy about AV) or that he made some personal 
money out of it which TM bigwigs saw as some sort of ultimate 
crime. Bizarrely, as they still sell no end of courses in vedic #wisdom 
promising a fruitful career. Maybe they were annoyed as 
he was the only one who ever did make a buck out of the TMO. 
I know precious few who ever got any "nature" support from that direction.

> 
> I know I have enjoyed his writing - especially his first fiction novel, 
> Return of Merlin which he supposedly wrote the bulk of during the year when 
> he was looking after the Big M subsequent to his being poisoned. I loved that 
> novel.


Didn't know he wrote fiction though, but I never liked fantasy 
novels anyway, if I even get a sniff of a wizard I'm off - It's
sci-fi for me if I'm feeling speculative.

 
>  From: salyavin808 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:22 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
>  
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Seraphita"  wrote:
> 
> > If you're interested in the debate with materialists, you
> > could do a lot better than Chopra. He's not what I would
> > call a rigorous thinker.
> 
> He's an asshole.
> 
> > You might try Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the
> > Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost
> > Certainly False." 
> > 
> > Nagel got in a lot of trouble with the big-time materialists;
> > the book really upset them, so he must have hit close to the
> > bone.
> 
> LOL.
>

[FairfieldLife] The Bhagavad Gita: In English Chapter 01 The 2nd Verse, 3rd, four letter word!

[obbajeeba]

from

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[doctordumbass]

How coquettish of you, Obba. Ooops, don't lift that petticoat in front of the 
big strong man! Yes, smelling the scent of cheap cloying perfume in the air, 
and how you flutter your fan, so! Just another damsel in distress, eh???

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
>
> As Share prods me to end my beasty number ending in 666, in another post, I 
> move along here, to this compliment to the Turq, from Michael.
> I agree with Michael. I enjoy Turq's big head writing. I only thrash at him 
> (He who goes by the name of Barry, but I am not quite personal enough to call 
> him anything in a formal, except to fuck off, as Ann and I believe Dr. 
> Dumbass have said here somewhere on these FFL group pages.)
> Turq, I enjoy your writing too. Sometimes they do get long winded and boring, 
> but I still stomach through them, because sometimes past your ego, you do put 
> together fine sentences many of the times.
> You are worth the skim through.
>  A one night stand dressed in different clothing can make it feel like new, 
> when you run out of material. 
> Seriously, the squeaky wheel gets the oil and you have much rusted debris to 
> keep the volume up for a good time to come.
> 
> Fuck off, Turq. Keep up the good work. ;)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq, but I love 
> > your writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will have achieved 
> > something great.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: turquoiseb 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:01 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Prerequisites for Enlightenment
> >  
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > Given the definition given by the Big M for enlightenment 
> > > and all the glorious things that the enlightened are and 
> > > can do, you would think these TM enlightened would be 
> > > doing marvelous things in the world, especially in the 
> > > area of saving the rest of us from ignorance. I eagerly 
> > > await their coming out and heppin' the rest of us 
> > > ignorant folks out.
> > 
> > Michael, I think your understanding in this vitally important area is 
> > flawed by an improper understanding of the relationship between the 
> > enlightened and the...uh...not so much. 
> > 
> > The "real story" of why so many have failed to become enlightened 
> > themselves as a result of the beneficence of the enlightened is much like a 
> > section I have to create often when doing tech writing. The unenlightened 
> > have failed to become All That They Could Be because they didn't RTFM, or 
> > skipped over the Prerequisites section. 
> > 
> > In the Prerequisites section of technical documentation, one lists all of 
> > the things one has to have in place or have done before installing/using 
> > the new-fangled software or hardware that the manual is about. Like, before 
> > installing and running a Java-based program
> > on your computer, there is a prerequisite that you have to have installed 
> > Java first, and that it has to be functional and capable of launching a JVM 
> > (Java Virtual Machine) for the new-fangled program to run in. Not to 
> > mention...uh...*having* a computer in the first place, and turning it on 
> > using the little red switch.
> > 
> > These are all *prerequisites* that must be met before the new-fangled 
> > program will work, and transform your life into the wonderland that our 
> > marketing and sales reps told you it would become if you just bought our 
> > product. 
> > 
> > The User's Manual for Enlightenment is notoriously badly written, when you 
> > can find it at all, and contains many Class-A bugs that have never been 
> > addressed, even though the software of enlightenment is now up to Release 
> > 3,784.256.11. In *all* of those releases, the
> > shitty tech writers have failed to write a Prerequisites section. For your 
> > edification, and that of other hapless seekers, I shall seek to rectify 
> > that situation now:
> > 
> > 
> > PREREQUISITES FOR BEING HEPPED' TO BE ENLIGHTENED
> > BY SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY ENLIGHTENED
> > 
> > 
> > * You need to be somewhat alive, and sentient. To date, very few of the 
> > enlightened have ever been able to hep a rock or an amoeba to become 
> > enlightened.
> > 
> > * You need to be OPEN to being enlightened. This is usually 
> > demonstrated by being willing to pay those who claim to be able to hep you 
> > great deals of money.
> > 
> > * You must accept without question that the person you have just paid 
> > to enlighten you is enlightened themselves. THIS IS CRITICAL. Failure to 
> > follow this prerequisite may result in not only a failed installation of 
> > the enlightenment software, but in a series of nasty tantrums thrown by the 
> > enlightened person. Be warned.
> > 
> > 
> > * When

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[doctordumbass]

Spooky! Actually, I see you as a person who has done a lot of living, hands 
on,and stays grounded in her opinions, so we think alike. Not a lot of shit to 
tolerate, once you've actually shoveled enough of it.:-) 

Also makes it child's play to spot those like Barry, who pretend to keep their 
hands clean, while living delusionally upstairs all the time.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Just *one* more sip of coffee, Michael, for you. You are a hundred times 
> > the writer than this guy is. YOU could get published, whereas Barry has 
> > nothing to say - he is in a writer's rut, and has been for years. YOU could 
> > actually make money at it, whereas Barry never will, except as a tech 
> > writer. 
> 
> What the hell is this Dr? First the "Is it safe?" post and now this that I 
> just read after posting my own MJ writing kudos. I think sometimes we share 
> the same wavelength (is that the same as a wavicle?)
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq, but I love 
> > > your writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will have achieved 
> > > something great.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: turquoiseb 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:01 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Prerequisites for Enlightenment
> > >  
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Given the definition given by the Big M for enlightenment 
> > > > and all the glorious things that the enlightened are and 
> > > > can do, you would think these TM enlightened would be 
> > > > doing marvelous things in the world, especially in the 
> > > > area of saving the rest of us from ignorance. I eagerly 
> > > > await their coming out and heppin' the rest of us 
> > > > ignorant folks out.
> > > 
> > > Michael, I think your understanding in this vitally important area is 
> > > flawed by an improper understanding of the relationship between the 
> > > enlightened and the...uh...not so much. 
> > > 
> > > The "real story" of why so many have failed to become enlightened 
> > > themselves as a result of the beneficence of the enlightened is much like 
> > > a section I have to create often when doing tech writing. The 
> > > unenlightened have failed to become All That They Could Be because they 
> > > didn't RTFM, or skipped over the Prerequisites section. 
> > > 
> > > In the Prerequisites section of technical documentation, one lists all of 
> > > the things one has to have in place or have done before installing/using 
> > > the new-fangled software or hardware that the manual is about. Like, 
> > > before installing and running a Java-based program
> > > on your computer, there is a prerequisite that you have to have installed 
> > > Java first, and that it has to be functional and capable of launching a 
> > > JVM (Java Virtual Machine) for the new-fangled program to run in. Not to 
> > > mention...uh...*having* a computer in the first place, and turning it on 
> > > using the little red switch.
> > > 
> > > These are all *prerequisites* that must be met before the new-fangled 
> > > program will work, and transform your life into the wonderland that our 
> > > marketing and sales reps told you it would become if you just bought our 
> > > product. 
> > > 
> > > The User's Manual for Enlightenment is notoriously badly written, when 
> > > you can find it at all, and contains many Class-A bugs that have never 
> > > been addressed, even though the software of enlightenment is now up to 
> > > Release 3,784.256.11. In *all* of those releases, the
> > > shitty tech writers have failed to write a Prerequisites section. For 
> > > your edification, and that of other hapless seekers, I shall seek to 
> > > rectify that situation now:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > PREREQUISITES FOR BEING HEPPED' TO BE ENLIGHTENED
> > > BY SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY ENLIGHTENED
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   * You need to be somewhat alive, and sentient. To date, very few of the 
> > > enlightened have ever been able to hep a rock or an amoeba to become 
> > > enlightened.
> > > 
> > >   * You need to be OPEN to being enlightened. This is usually 
> > > demonstrated by being willing to pay those who claim to be able to hep 
> > > you great deals of money.
> > > 
> > >   * You must accept without question that the person you have just paid 
> > > to enlighten you is enlightened themselves. THIS IS CRITICAL. Failure to 
> > > follow this prerequisite may result in not only a failed installation of 
> > > the enlightenment software, but in a series of nasty tantrums thrown by 
> > > the enlightened person. Be warned.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   * When the enlightened person tells you what is WRONG with you that 
> > >

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> (snip)
> > > You might try Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the
> > > Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost
> > > Certainly False." 
> > > 
> > > Nagel got in a lot of trouble with the big-time materialists;
> > > the book really upset them, so he must have hit close to the
> > > bone.
> > 
> > LOL.
> 
> Is that a tic of some kind you've got there? 

Yes.

I made a
> perfectly reasonable statement, regardless of what you
> think of Nagel. The leading materialists don't tend to
> come out in droves to burn a heretic unless they're
> afraid serious people may find the heretic convincing.
> 
> Have you read Nagel's book, BTW?

No, and I can tell you haven't. That's what made me laugh,
defending something you haven't read using other peoples
dislike as evidence that he's on to something.

I haven't read any "materialist" critiques of it either.
I think Darwinism is doing a fine and dandy - if currently
incomplete - job of explaining things, to say there are
irreducible structures in nature - whatever your angle -
is another way of saying "I don't believe it because I
don't understand it" until we reach the end of possible
exploration and there are unexplainable gaps. *Then* we
can get all theological about other entities involvement.

Or maybe Nagel has done just that and provided science with
an argument it can't explain. Until one of us reads the book
we won't know. LOL.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[obbajeeba]

As Share prods me to end my beasty number ending in 666, in another post, I 
move along here, to this compliment to the Turq, from Michael.
I agree with Michael. I enjoy Turq's big head writing. I only thrash at him (He 
who goes by the name of Barry, but I am not quite personal enough to call him 
anything in a formal, except to fuck off, as Ann and I believe Dr. Dumbass have 
said here somewhere on these FFL group pages.)
Turq, I enjoy your writing too. Sometimes they do get long winded and boring, 
but I still stomach through them, because sometimes past your ego, you do put 
together fine sentences many of the times.
You are worth the skim through.
 A one night stand dressed in different clothing can make it feel like new, 
when you run out of material. 
Seriously, the squeaky wheel gets the oil and you have much rusted debris to 
keep the volume up for a good time to come.

Fuck off, Turq. Keep up the good work. ;)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq, but I love your 
> writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will have achieved 
> something great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: turquoiseb 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:01 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Prerequisites for Enlightenment
>  
> 
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > Given the definition given by the Big M for enlightenment 
> > and all the glorious things that the enlightened are and 
> > can do, you would think these TM enlightened would be 
> > doing marvelous things in the world, especially in the 
> > area of saving the rest of us from ignorance. I eagerly 
> > await their coming out and heppin' the rest of us 
> > ignorant folks out.
> 
> Michael, I think your understanding in this vitally important area is flawed 
> by an improper understanding of the relationship between the enlightened and 
> the...uh...not so much. 
> 
> The "real story" of why so many have failed to become enlightened themselves 
> as a result of the beneficence of the enlightened is much like a section I 
> have to create often when doing tech writing. The unenlightened have failed 
> to become All That They Could Be because they didn't RTFM, or skipped over 
> the Prerequisites section. 
> 
> In the Prerequisites section of technical documentation, one lists all of the 
> things one has to have in place or have done before installing/using the 
> new-fangled software or hardware that the manual is about. Like, before 
> installing and running a Java-based program
> on your computer, there is a prerequisite that you have to have installed 
> Java first, and that it has to be functional and capable of launching a JVM 
> (Java Virtual Machine) for the new-fangled program to run in. Not to 
> mention...uh...*having* a computer in the first place, and turning it on 
> using the little red switch.
> 
> These are all *prerequisites* that must be met before the new-fangled program 
> will work, and transform your life into the wonderland that our marketing and 
> sales reps told you it would become if you just bought our product. 
> 
> The User's Manual for Enlightenment is notoriously badly written, when you 
> can find it at all, and contains many Class-A bugs that have never been 
> addressed, even though the software of enlightenment is now up to Release 
> 3,784.256.11. In *all* of those releases, the
> shitty tech writers have failed to write a Prerequisites section. For your 
> edification, and that of other hapless seekers, I shall seek to rectify that 
> situation now:
> 
> 
> PREREQUISITES FOR BEING HEPPED' TO BE ENLIGHTENED
> BY SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY ENLIGHTENED
> 
> 
>   * You need to be somewhat alive, and sentient. To date, very few of the 
> enlightened have ever been able to hep a rock or an amoeba to become 
> enlightened.
> 
>   * You need to be OPEN to being enlightened. This is usually 
> demonstrated by being willing to pay those who claim to be able to hep you 
> great deals of money.
> 
>   * You must accept without question that the person you have just paid 
> to enlighten you is enlightened themselves. THIS IS CRITICAL. Failure to 
> follow this prerequisite may result in not only a failed installation of the 
> enlightenment software, but in a series of nasty tantrums thrown by the 
> enlightened person. Be warned.
> 
> 
>   * When the enlightened person tells you what is WRONG with you that 
> makes you so unenlightened, and thus SO not like them, you should agree with 
> them quickly and publicly. Failure to admit that 1) you have a problem, 2) 
> that the enlightened person, being...uh...enlightened and all, is more 
> capable of seeing this problem than you are, and 3) they can FIX your problem 
> if you just pay them enough attention and money may result again in improper 
> installation of the enlighte

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[doctordumbass]

I did not realize that you have lived such a sheltered existence, Edg. Get out 
more, see the world, meet some real people. Then you will be embarrassed, I 
hope, by what you have written here.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Barry is not a hack writer.
> 
> He introduces us all to new concepts on a DAILY basis.  He creates wonderful 
> phrases that nail down his nuances.  He communicates!
> 
> He knows his own mind.
> 
> He is brave.
> 
> He's in fucking Europe and taking its pulse -- how many others in your life 
> do you have as an on-the-spot reporter?
> 
> And despite his having pissed me off by the ton, FFL would be almost hollowed 
> out if he stopped writing here.
> 
> And Curtis likes him like a brother.
> 
> My biggest gripe about him as a writer is that he tosses off a ton of his 
> stuff without any major re-writing.  That's okay, cuz he's just funnin' iz 
> all, but yeah, he could benefit from taking to heart the best advice I ever 
> got as a writer -- from L.B.Shriver -- that is:  to "kill your precious 
> little darlings."  Every single day as a writer, I have to toss out some of 
> my best stuff because is just doesn't belong in what I'm writing at the time. 
>  Ironic that, eh?
> 
> So keep on writing you bastard!  
> 
> Edg
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > Just *one* more sip of coffee, Michael, for you. You are a
> > > hundred times the writer than this guy is.
> > 
> > Have to agree. Barry's a hack writer--showy, but shallow.
> > 
> > Michael, I was hors de combat when you posted them, so I
> > didn't get a chance to tell you, but those reminiscences
> > of yours were superb, beautifully written *and* full of
> > heart.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > YOU could get published, whereas Barry has nothing to say - he is in a 
> > > writer's rut, and has been for years. YOU could actually make money at 
> > > it, whereas Barry never will, except as a tech writer. 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq, but I 
> > > > love your writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will have 
> > > > achieved something great.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[turquoiseb]

Thanks for the nice comments, Edg. I promise to keep being a bastard.

And for your information, I dash off things here and send them without
editing them because most of the time I'm just having fun with them.
That, and the audience I'm writing for doesn't meet my standards for
deserving edited copy -- they're not paying me.

For paying customers, I edit. Non-paying customers who don't like
my unedited posts can go suck eggs. Non-paying editors who get off
on editing my posts for me should pay *me*, for providing them with
something to do on those days when they're off work and thus not
busy...uh...editing.   :-)


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Barry is not a hack writer.
>
> He introduces us all to new concepts on a DAILY basis.  He creates
wonderful phrases that nail down his nuances.  He communicates!
>
> He knows his own mind.
>
> He is brave.
>
> He's in fucking Europe and taking its pulse -- how many others in your
life do you have as an on-the-spot reporter?
>
> And despite his having pissed me off by the ton, FFL would be almost
hollowed out if he stopped writing here.
>
> And Curtis likes him like a brother.
>
> My biggest gripe about him as a writer is that he tosses off a ton of
his stuff without any major re-writing.  That's okay, cuz he's just
funnin' iz all, but yeah, he could benefit from taking to heart the best
advice I ever got as a writer -- from L.B.Shriver -- that is:  to "kill
your precious little darlings."  Every single day as a writer, I have to
toss out some of my best stuff because is just doesn't belong in what
I'm writing at the time.  Ironic that, eh?
>
> So keep on writing you bastard!
>
> Edg
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > Just *one* more sip of coffee, Michael, for you. You are a
> > > hundred times the writer than this guy is.
> >
> > Have to agree. Barry's a hack writer--showy, but shallow.
> >
> > Michael, I was hors de combat when you posted them, so I
> > didn't get a chance to tell you, but those reminiscences
> > of yours were superb, beautifully written *and* full of
> > heart.
> >
> > > YOU could get published, whereas Barry has nothing to say - he is
in a writer's rut, and has been for years. YOU could actually make money
at it, whereas Barry never will, except as a tech writer.
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq,
but I love your writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will
have achieved something great.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[authfriend]

Edg, I'm going to respectfully (because you are a very
fine writer) disagree.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Barry is not a hack writer.
> 
> He introduces us all to new concepts on a DAILY basis.

Speak for yourself. I don't often find a new concept
that I think is of much value in Barry's posts.

> He creates wonderful phrases that nail down his nuances.

That's what I meant by "showy," actually.

> He communicates!

So do many hack writers. The issue for me is *what* he
communicates. That's where "shallow" comes in.

The rest of your points have to do with Barry as a 
person, not Barry as a writer. I disagree with them
even more strongly.

> He knows his own mind.

He has less self-knowledge than anybody I have ever
encountered.

> He is brave.

Doesn't take much courage to be a dick. Where it counts,
he is an extreme moral coward.

> He's in fucking Europe and taking its pulse -- how many
> others in your life do you have as an on-the-spot reporter?

I'll give you this where FFL is concerned, but when I'm
looking for good information about the pulse of Europe,
I'll go with the better bloggers and professional
journalists. Travel writing you can find anywhere.

> And despite his having pissed me off by the ton, FFL would
> be almost hollowed out if he stopped writing here.

IMHO, when Barry occasionally absents himself for a day
or more, this forum is *vastly* more interesting and
pleasant.

> And Curtis likes him like a brother.

Not a recommendation in my book. (Curtis, BTW, is not
what I'd call a hack writer. There are other problems
with his writing, though.)

> My biggest gripe about him as a writer is that he tosses off
> a ton of his stuff without any major re-writing.  That's okay,
> cuz he's just funnin' iz all, but yeah, he could benefit from
> taking to heart the best advice I ever got as a writer -- from
> L.B.Shriver -- that is:  to "kill your precious little
> darlings."

Original quote, from Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch: "Whenever
you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally
fine writing, obey it – whole-heartedly – and delete it
before sending your manuscripts to press. Murder your darlings".

One is tempted to wonder whether Quiller-Couch wrote "your
precious little darlings" to start with and then proceeded
to murder "precious little." ;-)

I agree with you about the need for Barry to rewrite, but
more for the purpose of seeing whether what he's written
actually makes sense. A good bit of the time, it doesn't.
Making sense takes more attention than just writing what
sounds good.

> Every single day as a writer, I have to toss out
> some of my best stuff because is just doesn't belong in what
> I'm writing at the time.  Ironic that, eh?

You can't be a good writer if irony doesn't flow through
your very veins, IMHO. Another reason Barry is a hack.

(No, I wasn't punning on "hemoglobin," at least not
intentionally.)



> 
> So keep on writing you bastard!  
> 
> Edg
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > Just *one* more sip of coffee, Michael, for you. You are a
> > > hundred times the writer than this guy is.
> > 
> > Have to agree. Barry's a hack writer--showy, but shallow.
> > 
> > Michael, I was hors de combat when you posted them, so I
> > didn't get a chance to tell you, but those reminiscences
> > of yours were superb, beautifully written *and* full of
> > heart.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > YOU could get published, whereas Barry has nothing to say - he is in a 
> > > writer's rut, and has been for years. YOU could actually make money at 
> > > it, whereas Barry never will, except as a tech writer. 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq, but I 
> > > > love your writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will have 
> > > > achieved something great.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq,
> but I love your writing - if one day I can write as well as you
> I will have achieved something great.

Well, if you liked this rap, know that you inspired it. I read
your post over coffee on my balcony this morning, got to your
line " heppin' the rest of us ignorant folks out," and laughed.

Fortunately, I was not actually drinking the coffee at the time,
or the laugh might have turned into the need for a new keyboard.
What it turned into instead was this rap. Once I started it just
flowed out. WYSIWYG, no edits. Just write, then push Send.

Sometimes that's a mistake, but in my experience if you're
laughing as you write it, you're usually pretty safe in just going
for it. Those who get it will laugh, too. Those who don't have
bigger and more important things to do, like getting that
stick out of where it don't belong.  :-)

> 
>  From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:01 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Prerequisites for Enlightenment
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@
wrote:
> >
> > Given the definition given by the Big M for enlightenment
> > and all the glorious things that the enlightened are and
> > can do, you would think these TM enlightened would be
> > doing marvelous things in the world, especially in the
> > area of saving the rest of us from ignorance. I eagerly
> > await their coming out and heppin' the rest of us
> > ignorant folks out.
>
> Michael, I think your understanding in this vitally important area is
flawed by an improper understanding of the relationship between the
enlightened and the...uh...not so much.
>
> The "real story" of why so many have failed to become enlightened
themselves as a result of the beneficence of the enlightened is much
like a section I have to create often when doing tech writing. The
unenlightened have failed to become All That They Could Be because they
didn't RTFM, or skipped over the Prerequisites section.
>
> In the Prerequisites section of technical documentation, one lists all
of the things one has to have in place or have done before
installing/using the new-fangled software or hardware that the manual is
about. Like, before installing and running a Java-based program
> on your computer, there is a prerequisite that you have to have
installed Java first, and that it has to be functional and capable of
launching a JVM (Java Virtual Machine) for the new-fangled program to
run in. Not to mention...uh...*having* a computer in the first place,
and turning it on using the little red switch.
>
> These are all *prerequisites* that must be met before the new-fangled
program will work, and transform your life into the wonderland that our
marketing and sales reps told you it would become if you just bought our
product.
>
> The User's Manual for Enlightenment is notoriously badly written, when
you can find it at all, and contains many Class-A bugs that have never
been addressed, even though the software of enlightenment is now up to
Release 3,784.256.11. In *all* of those releases, the
> shitty tech writers have failed to write a Prerequisites section. For
your edification, and that of other hapless seekers, I shall seek to
rectify that situation now:
>
>
> PREREQUISITES FOR BEING HEPPED' TO BE ENLIGHTENED
> BY SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY ENLIGHTENED
>
>  * You need to be somewhat alive, and sentient. To date, very few of
the enlightened have ever been able to hep a rock or an amoeba to become
enlightened.
>
>  * You need to be OPEN to being enlightened. This is usually
demonstrated by being willing to pay those who claim to be able to hep
you great deals of money.
>
>  * You must accept without question that the person you have just paid
to enlighten you is enlightened themselves. THIS IS CRITICAL. Failure to
follow this prerequisite may result in not only a failed installation of
the enlightenment software, but in a series of nasty tantrums thrown by
the enlightened person. Be warned.
>
>  * When the enlightened person tells you what is WRONG with you that
makes you so unenlightened, and thus SO not like them, you should agree
with them quickly and publicly. Failure to admit that 1) you have a
problem, 2) that the enlightened person, being...uh...enlightened and
all, is more capable of seeing this problem than you are, and 3) they
can FIX your problem if you just pay them enough attention and money may
result again in improper installation of the enlightenmentware, not to
mention more tantrums.
>
>  * Never, never, NEVER ask the enlightened person who is benevolently
sharing their valuable time and energy to hep you become so like them
WHY you'd want to do so. This is a demonstration of having failed to
accept the base conditions that allow an enlightened person to make a
living without having to

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[Seraphita]

Thanks for that response. PSM sounds intriguing. There are so many
techniques to choose from these days. Once upon a time TM was the only
game in town - if your home town was in the north of England at any
rate.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Hmm good question Seraphita. Dunno what the Movement did with PST
after Deepak left. I know they had various Indian healers come round and
do some expensive healing stuff, cost was based on what kind of healing
you wanted.
>
> Had some TM friends who did it, cost them about $1400.00, per person.
The lady would walk around them and blow her breath on them, and intone
some kind of mantra from time to time, sometimes it was just a shout,
but that was a different thing than the PST I think.
>
> As to my experience with Primordial Sound meditation.
>
> When I was initiated, the teachers don't do puja, they chant some
sanskrit lines.
>
> I sat there in front of the teacher and as soon as she started
chanting, I felt this rather pleasant and powerful energy right over the
top of my head. As she chanted the energy built and built, becoming
stronger and stronger and it seemed to be swirling around in circle from
top to bottom like a ferris wheel - I was kind of surprised and wondered
what was gonna happen but sat there and as soon as she finished the
chant, she leaned in and whispered the mantra - instantly I felt all
that energy whoosh down into my crown and go all the way to my feet.
>
> Per instruction I closed my eyes and began to repeat the mantra, and
all I can say is that what I experienced was the feeling of energy that
felt like it was the very essence of who I am. I had never felt anything
like that in my life. For about two or three months every time I
meditated with the Primordial Sound mantra it felt the same way, same
energy, same essence of me.
>
> After that two or three month period that stopped and meditation was
just meditation. The difference between the two, TM and PSM for me is
this: TM always felt like I was sinking into the Absolute, and PSM feels
like I am waking up or enlivening the Absolute within me.
>
> So that's my take on it.
>
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hyperlinks

[Share Long]

Obbajee, I miss the Gita words! Any way you might continue with that? Plus, it 
might offset the influence of that Beastly Number! Which you were very brave to 
accept IMHO (-:





 From: obbajeeba 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 9:01 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hyperlinks
 


  

RD, Yahoo has taken us back in time to manually insert these links.

Yes, phooey. 

I am fading, can't spell worth poop. Me, that is.

What is typing without using the word Share? I don't care anymore. 

Time to recharge. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > >
> > > How come my hyperlinks aren't clickable in my yahoo web posts
> > > anymore? 
> > 
> > The links are clickable in email but not on the website. Why? Because it's 
> > Yahoo.
> > 
> > > I could copy/paste a link from a word doc to Rich-Text Editor but
> > > that's a pain in the butt.
> > 
> > Yep, but it appears to be the only way your links will be clickable for 
> > website users.
> >
> Phooey.
>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hyperlinks

[Share Long]

Obbajee, free health tip: gargling with tumeric and salt really works to 
relieve minor sore throat and keep it from becoming major. I think tumeric is 
some kind of miracle herb, also good for reducing inflammation which is the 
latest designated body no no. However don't get it on clothes even though some 
people swear there are ways to fix that. Hope yagya regimen is going smoothly.





 From: obbajeeba 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 9:01 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Hyperlinks
 


  

RD, Yahoo has taken us back in time to manually insert these links.

Yes, phooey. 

I am fading, can't spell worth poop. Me, that is.

What is typing without using the word Share? I don't care anymore. 

Time to recharge. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > >
> > > How come my hyperlinks aren't clickable in my yahoo web posts
> > > anymore? 
> > 
> > The links are clickable in email but not on the website. Why? Because it's 
> > Yahoo.
> > 
> > > I could copy/paste a link from a word doc to Rich-Text Editor but
> > > that's a pain in the butt.
> > 
> > Yep, but it appears to be the only way your links will be clickable for 
> > website users.
> >
> Phooey.
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Barry is not a hack writer.
> 
> He introduces us all to new concepts on a DAILY basis.  He creates wonderful 
> phrases that nail down his nuances.  He communicates!
> 
> He knows his own mind.
> 
> He is brave.
> 
> He's in fucking Europe and taking its pulse -- how many others in your life 
> do you have as an on-the-spot reporter?
> 
> And despite his having pissed me off by the ton, FFL would be almost hollowed 
> out if he stopped writing here.
> 
> And Curtis likes him like a brother.
> 
> My biggest gripe about him as a writer is that he tosses off a ton of his 
> stuff without any major re-writing.  That's okay, cuz he's just funnin' iz 
> all, but yeah, he could benefit from taking to heart the best advice I ever 
> got as a writer -- from L.B.Shriver -- that is:  to "kill your precious 
> little darlings."  Every single day as a writer, I have to toss out some of 
> my best stuff because is just doesn't belong in what I'm writing at the time. 
>  Ironic that, eh?
> 
> So keep on writing you bastard!

Oh, don't worry, he'll never stop or being a bastard. Have no fears.  
> 
> Edg
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > Just *one* more sip of coffee, Michael, for you. You are a
> > > hundred times the writer than this guy is.
> > 
> > Have to agree. Barry's a hack writer--showy, but shallow.
> > 
> > Michael, I was hors de combat when you posted them, so I
> > didn't get a chance to tell you, but those reminiscences
> > of yours were superb, beautifully written *and* full of
> > heart.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > YOU could get published, whereas Barry has nothing to say - he is in a 
> > > writer's rut, and has been for years. YOU could actually make money at 
> > > it, whereas Barry never will, except as a tech writer. 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq, but I 
> > > > love your writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will have 
> > > > achieved something great.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Just *one* more sip of coffee, Michael, for you. You are a hundred times the 
> writer than this guy is. YOU could get published, whereas Barry has nothing 
> to say - he is in a writer's rut, and has been for years. YOU could actually 
> make money at it, whereas Barry never will, except as a tech writer. 

What the hell is this Dr? First the "Is it safe?" post and now this that I just 
read after posting my own MJ writing kudos. I think sometimes we share the same 
wavelength (is that the same as a wavicle?)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq, but I love 
> > your writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will have achieved 
> > something great.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: turquoiseb 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:01 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Prerequisites for Enlightenment
> >  
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > Given the definition given by the Big M for enlightenment 
> > > and all the glorious things that the enlightened are and 
> > > can do, you would think these TM enlightened would be 
> > > doing marvelous things in the world, especially in the 
> > > area of saving the rest of us from ignorance. I eagerly 
> > > await their coming out and heppin' the rest of us 
> > > ignorant folks out.
> > 
> > Michael, I think your understanding in this vitally important area is 
> > flawed by an improper understanding of the relationship between the 
> > enlightened and the...uh...not so much. 
> > 
> > The "real story" of why so many have failed to become enlightened 
> > themselves as a result of the beneficence of the enlightened is much like a 
> > section I have to create often when doing tech writing. The unenlightened 
> > have failed to become All That They Could Be because they didn't RTFM, or 
> > skipped over the Prerequisites section. 
> > 
> > In the Prerequisites section of technical documentation, one lists all of 
> > the things one has to have in place or have done before installing/using 
> > the new-fangled software or hardware that the manual is about. Like, before 
> > installing and running a Java-based program
> > on your computer, there is a prerequisite that you have to have installed 
> > Java first, and that it has to be functional and capable of launching a JVM 
> > (Java Virtual Machine) for the new-fangled program to run in. Not to 
> > mention...uh...*having* a computer in the first place, and turning it on 
> > using the little red switch.
> > 
> > These are all *prerequisites* that must be met before the new-fangled 
> > program will work, and transform your life into the wonderland that our 
> > marketing and sales reps told you it would become if you just bought our 
> > product. 
> > 
> > The User's Manual for Enlightenment is notoriously badly written, when you 
> > can find it at all, and contains many Class-A bugs that have never been 
> > addressed, even though the software of enlightenment is now up to Release 
> > 3,784.256.11. In *all* of those releases, the
> > shitty tech writers have failed to write a Prerequisites section. For your 
> > edification, and that of other hapless seekers, I shall seek to rectify 
> > that situation now:
> > 
> > 
> > PREREQUISITES FOR BEING HEPPED' TO BE ENLIGHTENED
> > BY SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY ENLIGHTENED
> > 
> > 
> > * You need to be somewhat alive, and sentient. To date, very few of the 
> > enlightened have ever been able to hep a rock or an amoeba to become 
> > enlightened.
> > 
> > * You need to be OPEN to being enlightened. This is usually 
> > demonstrated by being willing to pay those who claim to be able to hep you 
> > great deals of money.
> > 
> > * You must accept without question that the person you have just paid 
> > to enlighten you is enlightened themselves. THIS IS CRITICAL. Failure to 
> > follow this prerequisite may result in not only a failed installation of 
> > the enlightenment software, but in a series of nasty tantrums thrown by the 
> > enlightened person. Be warned.
> > 
> > 
> > * When the enlightened person tells you what is WRONG with you that 
> > makes you so unenlightened, and thus SO not like them, you should agree 
> > with them quickly and publicly. Failure to admit that 1) you have a 
> > problem, 2) that the enlightened person, being...uh...enlightened and all, 
> > is more capable of seeing this problem than you are, and 3) they can FIX 
> > your problem if you just pay them enough attention and money may result 
> > again in improper installation of the enlightenmentware, not to mention 
> > more tantrums. 
> > 
> > 
> > * Never, never, NEVER ask the enlightened person who is benevolently 
> > sharing their valuable time and 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq, but I love your 
> writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will have achieved 
> something great.

Actually MJ, you write purty darn well. Don't covet what Barry does, either 
writing-wise or any other wise. I noticed you could wield the virtual pen here 
as well as anyone very early on when I first started to read your posts. You 
have written some very cogent and readable material. But Barry will thank you 
for making at least part of his day with your praise - it doesn't come his way 
very often here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: turquoiseb 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:01 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Prerequisites for Enlightenment
>  
> 
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > Given the definition given by the Big M for enlightenment 
> > and all the glorious things that the enlightened are and 
> > can do, you would think these TM enlightened would be 
> > doing marvelous things in the world, especially in the 
> > area of saving the rest of us from ignorance. I eagerly 
> > await their coming out and heppin' the rest of us 
> > ignorant folks out.
> 
> Michael, I think your understanding in this vitally important area is flawed 
> by an improper understanding of the relationship between the enlightened and 
> the...uh...not so much. 
> 
> The "real story" of why so many have failed to become enlightened themselves 
> as a result of the beneficence of the enlightened is much like a section I 
> have to create often when doing tech writing. The unenlightened have failed 
> to become All That They Could Be because they didn't RTFM, or skipped over 
> the Prerequisites section. 
> 
> In the Prerequisites section of technical documentation, one lists all of the 
> things one has to have in place or have done before installing/using the 
> new-fangled software or hardware that the manual is about. Like, before 
> installing and running a Java-based program
> on your computer, there is a prerequisite that you have to have installed 
> Java first, and that it has to be functional and capable of launching a JVM 
> (Java Virtual Machine) for the new-fangled program to run in. Not to 
> mention...uh...*having* a computer in the first place, and turning it on 
> using the little red switch.
> 
> These are all *prerequisites* that must be met before the new-fangled program 
> will work, and transform your life into the wonderland that our marketing and 
> sales reps told you it would become if you just bought our product. 
> 
> The User's Manual for Enlightenment is notoriously badly written, when you 
> can find it at all, and contains many Class-A bugs that have never been 
> addressed, even though the software of enlightenment is now up to Release 
> 3,784.256.11. In *all* of those releases, the
> shitty tech writers have failed to write a Prerequisites section. For your 
> edification, and that of other hapless seekers, I shall seek to rectify that 
> situation now:
> 
> 
> PREREQUISITES FOR BEING HEPPED' TO BE ENLIGHTENED
> BY SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY ENLIGHTENED
> 
> 
>   * You need to be somewhat alive, and sentient. To date, very few of the 
> enlightened have ever been able to hep a rock or an amoeba to become 
> enlightened.
> 
>   * You need to be OPEN to being enlightened. This is usually 
> demonstrated by being willing to pay those who claim to be able to hep you 
> great deals of money.
> 
>   * You must accept without question that the person you have just paid 
> to enlighten you is enlightened themselves. THIS IS CRITICAL. Failure to 
> follow this prerequisite may result in not only a failed installation of the 
> enlightenment software, but in a series of nasty tantrums thrown by the 
> enlightened person. Be warned.
> 
> 
>   * When the enlightened person tells you what is WRONG with you that 
> makes you so unenlightened, and thus SO not like them, you should agree with 
> them quickly and publicly. Failure to admit that 1) you have a problem, 2) 
> that the enlightened person, being...uh...enlightened and all, is more 
> capable of seeing this problem than you are, and 3) they can FIX your problem 
> if you just pay them enough attention and money may result again in improper 
> installation of the enlightenmentware, not to mention more tantrums. 
> 
> 
>   * Never, never, NEVER ask the enlightened person who is benevolently 
> sharing their valuable time and energy to hep you become so like them WHY 
> you'd want to do so. This is a demonstration of having failed to accept the 
> base conditions that allow an enlightened person to make a living without 
> having to work. Bad juju. Don't even *think* of asking WHY you'd want to 
> become so like them. Doubts are BAD. Just *accept* the basic premise that 
> they're

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[Duveyoung]

Barry is not a hack writer.

He introduces us all to new concepts on a DAILY basis.  He creates wonderful 
phrases that nail down his nuances.  He communicates!

He knows his own mind.

He is brave.

He's in fucking Europe and taking its pulse -- how many others in your life do 
you have as an on-the-spot reporter?

And despite his having pissed me off by the ton, FFL would be almost hollowed 
out if he stopped writing here.

And Curtis likes him like a brother.

My biggest gripe about him as a writer is that he tosses off a ton of his stuff 
without any major re-writing.  That's okay, cuz he's just funnin' iz all, but 
yeah, he could benefit from taking to heart the best advice I ever got as a 
writer -- from L.B.Shriver -- that is:  to "kill your precious little 
darlings."  Every single day as a writer, I have to toss out some of my best 
stuff because is just doesn't belong in what I'm writing at the time.  Ironic 
that, eh?

So keep on writing you bastard!  

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Just *one* more sip of coffee, Michael, for you. You are a
> > hundred times the writer than this guy is.
> 
> Have to agree. Barry's a hack writer--showy, but shallow.
> 
> Michael, I was hors de combat when you posted them, so I
> didn't get a chance to tell you, but those reminiscences
> of yours were superb, beautifully written *and* full of
> heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > YOU could get published, whereas Barry has nothing to say - he is in a 
> > writer's rut, and has been for years. YOU could actually make money at it, 
> > whereas Barry never will, except as a tech writer. 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq, but I love 
> > > your writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will have achieved 
> > > something great.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Seraphita"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > If you're interested in the debate with materialists, you
> > > could do a lot better than Chopra. He's not what I would
> > > call a rigorous thinker.
> > >
> > > You might try Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the
> > > Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost
> > > Certainly False."
> > >
> > > Nagel got in a lot of trouble with the big-time materialists;
> > > the book really upset them, so he must have hit close to the
> > > bone.
> >
> > Yes, Nagel's book is already on my to-read list
> 
> Oh, excellent. Again, if you want to preview it, probably
> a good quarter of it is on FFL in those posts I listed.
> 
> > as I've been amused by the way atheist philosophers and
> > neo-Darwinian scientists have closed ranks to denounce
> > his heresy.
> 
> It's been sort of a hobby of mine since the book came
> out to read all the reviews I can find. It's a sort of
> non-Chopra education in the "War of the Worldviews." ;-)
> Except that Nagel himself hasn't been interested in
> responding to his critics (can't say as I blame him, but
> it would be fun to see his defense).
> 
> If you're interested, there's a neat blog by a classical
> theist philosopher who made a series of eight longish
> posts on Nagel's book, picking a few nits here and there
> but mostly taking apart the materialists' attacks on it:
> 
> edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/06/mind-and-cosmos-roundup.html
> 
> All kinds of interesting stuff on that blog. The guy's
> sort of crabby, but he's also a very clear writer.
> 
> > It's curious that so many people have a strong emotional
> > attachment to whatever the current orthodoxy is.
> 
> Well, the nonmaterialists are generally just as emotionally
> attached to their UNorthodox point of view...
> 
> > My vice
> > is the exact opposite - I only enjoy reading people who
> > shake the foundations - whether they are right or wrong I
> > find that approach is invariably more entertaining.
> 
> *And* more educational, I'd say, especially when those
> who are trying to hold up the foundations do their best
> to debunk the shakers.
> 
> > (Of course one has to draw the line somewhere: I need my
> > heretics to make a good case and not simply spout wild
> > theories like David Icke, for example.)
> 
> Oh, jeez. We had somebody on FFL a few years back who was
> a big Icke fan, a very intelligent woman, believe it or not.

I never heard of this guy but from what a few people have said already it 
sounds like he is an example of name/form.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> pinky-swear. You just reminded me of one of my favorite jokes:
> 
> Scene: Mid-1970's. Fierce winter at the White House. The Secret Service, 
> patrolling the grounds, finds someone has written, "Fuck Nixon!", in yellow 
> snow. The President demands an explanation. "Well Sir, the handwriting is 
> Pat's, but the urine is Kissinger's..."
> 
Ha! Gives new meaning to Tricky Dicky.

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > Just *one* more sip of coffee, Michael, for you. You are a hundred times 
> > > the writer than this guy is. YOU could get published, whereas Barry has 
> > > nothing to say - he is in a writer's rut, and has been for years. YOU 
> > > could actually make money at it, whereas Barry never will, except as a 
> > > tech writer. 
> > > 
> > True dat, Doc. MJ writes with his heart. Barry writes with his dick.
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq, but I 
> > > > love your writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will have 
> > > > achieved something great.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  From: turquoiseb 
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:01 AM
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Prerequisites for Enlightenment
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Given the definition given by the Big M for enlightenment 
> > > > > and all the glorious things that the enlightened are and 
> > > > > can do, you would think these TM enlightened would be 
> > > > > doing marvelous things in the world, especially in the 
> > > > > area of saving the rest of us from ignorance. I eagerly 
> > > > > await their coming out and heppin' the rest of us 
> > > > > ignorant folks out.
> > > > 
> > > > Michael, I think your understanding in this vitally important area is 
> > > > flawed by an improper understanding of the relationship between the 
> > > > enlightened and the...uh...not so much. 
> > > > 
> > > > The "real story" of why so many have failed to become enlightened 
> > > > themselves as a result of the beneficence of the enlightened is much 
> > > > like a section I have to create often when doing tech writing. The 
> > > > unenlightened have failed to become All That They Could Be because they 
> > > > didn't RTFM, or skipped over the Prerequisites section. 
> > > > 
> > > > In the Prerequisites section of technical documentation, one lists all 
> > > > of the things one has to have in place or have done before 
> > > > installing/using the new-fangled software or hardware that the manual 
> > > > is about. Like, before installing and running a Java-based program
> > > > on your computer, there is a prerequisite that you have to have 
> > > > installed Java first, and that it has to be functional and capable of 
> > > > launching a JVM (Java Virtual Machine) for the new-fangled program to 
> > > > run in. Not to mention...uh...*having* a computer in the first place, 
> > > > and turning it on using the little red switch.
> > > > 
> > > > These are all *prerequisites* that must be met before the new-fangled 
> > > > program will work, and transform your life into the wonderland that our 
> > > > marketing and sales reps told you it would become if you just bought 
> > > > our product. 
> > > > 
> > > > The User's Manual for Enlightenment is notoriously badly written, when 
> > > > you can find it at all, and contains many Class-A bugs that have never 
> > > > been addressed, even though the software of enlightenment is now up to 
> > > > Release 3,784.256.11. In *all* of those releases, the
> > > > shitty tech writers have failed to write a Prerequisites section. For 
> > > > your edification, and that of other hapless seekers, I shall seek to 
> > > > rectify that situation now:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > PREREQUISITES FOR BEING HEPPED' TO BE ENLIGHTENED
> > > > BY SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY ENLIGHTENED
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > * You need to be somewhat alive, and sentient. To date, very 
> > > > few of the enlightened have ever been able to hep a rock or an amoeba 
> > > > to become enlightened.
> > > > 
> > > > * You need to be OPEN to being enlightened. This is usually 
> > > > demonstrated by being willing to pay those who claim to be able to hep 
> > > > you great deals of money.
> > > > 
> > > > * You must accept without question that the person you have 
> > > > just paid to enlighten you is enlightened themselves. THIS IS CRITICAL. 
> > > > Failure to follow this prerequisite may result in not only a failed 
> > > > installation of the enlightenment software, but in 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Rare footage of Maharishi addressing a group of followers

[Mike Dixon]

Sounds like the House of Lords.

 


 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:05 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Rare footage of Maharishi addressing a group of 
followers
  
 
   
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcE5aDTszrY 


   
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[Michael Jackson]

Hmm good question Seraphita. Dunno what the Movement did with PST after Deepak 
left. I know they had various Indian healers come round and do some expensive 
healing stuff, cost was based on what kind of healing you wanted. 

Had some TM friends who did it, cost them about $1400.00, per person. The lady 
would walk around them and blow her breath on them, and intone some kind of 
mantra from time to time, sometimes it was just a shout, but that was a 
different thing than the PST I think.

As to my experience with Primordial Sound meditation. 

When I was initiated, the teachers don't do puja, they chant some sanskrit 
lines.

I sat there in front of the teacher and as soon as she started chanting, I felt 
this rather pleasant and powerful energy right over the top of my head. As she 
chanted the energy built and built, becoming stronger and stronger and it 
seemed to be swirling around in circle from top to bottom like a ferris wheel - 
I was kind of surprised and wondered what was gonna happen but sat there and as 
soon as she finished the chant, she leaned in and whispered the mantra - 
instantly I felt all that energy whoosh down into my crown and go all the way 
to my feet. 

Per instruction I closed my eyes and began to repeat the mantra, and all I can 
say is that what I experienced was the feeling of energy that felt like it was 
the very essence of who I am. I had never felt anything like that in my life. 
For about two or three months every time I meditated with the Primordial Sound 
mantra it felt the same way, same energy, same essence of me.

After that two or three month period that stopped and meditation was just 
meditation. The difference between the two, TM and PSM for me is this: TM 
always felt like I was sinking into the Absolute, and PSM feels like I am 
waking up or enlivening the Absolute within me. 

So that's my take on it.





 From: Seraphita 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 11:32 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
 


  
Thanks Michael. 

Re "not an internally used mantra": a bit like japa maybe?

Was the Primordial Sound Technique ditched by the TMO when Chopra bailed out or 
is it still available as an advanced technique?

I found my TM induction a heck of an initiation! As in, quite dramatic body 
twitchings and that sense of falling down the rabbit hole like Alice. For you, 
was your PSM initiation back in '96 even more of a wake-up call than your first 
TM session? One thing I like about my original seed mantra (which I have stayed 
faithful to) is that I'm happy to let it mutate during a session and have been 
intrigued by claims that all these bija syllables eventually turn into "Aum" if 
allowed to follow their natural course. I always think that if I had to repeat 
a three-part mantra (with more than three syllables of course) I'd be 
concentrating too much on remembering the sequence correctly to be able to 
enter a state of restful alertness -whereas a one- or two-syllable mantra is 
perfect for Seraphita's tiny mind! 

On the topic of his books, I'm tempted to buy War of the Worldviews as I enjoy 
argy-bargy and I respect Chopra for having the balls to engage in open debate 
with a full-on materialist. Anyone read that and would recommend it?


.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> The original Primordial Sound Technique was a TM thing that Chopra gave out, 
> having the person intone a certain sound. It was not an internally used 
> mantra.
> 
> The Primordial Sound Meditation that Chopra came up with is a mantra 
> meditation. The mantras are chosen according to your birthday and time. 
> 
> I got my PSM mantra back in 1996 - it was a heck of an initiation. 
> 
> The PSM mantras are all three part mantras, the first is Om, the second part 
> is the one determined by your birthday and time info, and the third part is 
> Namah, so Om (Private mantra) Namah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Seraphita s3raphita@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:27 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > Well, he re-wrote _Quantum Healing_, which was originally about the 
> > Primordial Sound Technique, which has nothing to do with Primordial Sound 
> > Meditation, to make it all about the latter.
> 
> Is the  "Primordial Sound Technique" basically TM with a new (and longer) 
> mantra? And how does it differ from "Primordial Sound Meditation" (apart from 
> being a lot more expensive, I guess)?  The only Chopra book I've read was 
> Synchrodestiny which although being unobjectionable struck me as pretty 
> bland. Can anyone recommend a Chopra title that they found helpful?
>

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[doctordumbass]

pinky-swear. You just reminded me of one of my favorite jokes:

Scene: Mid-1970's. Fierce winter at the White House. The Secret Service, 
patrolling the grounds, finds someone has written, "Fuck Nixon!", in yellow 
snow. The President demands an explanation. "Well Sir, the handwriting is 
Pat's, but the urine is Kissinger's..."

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Just *one* more sip of coffee, Michael, for you. You are a hundred times 
> > the writer than this guy is. YOU could get published, whereas Barry has 
> > nothing to say - he is in a writer's rut, and has been for years. YOU could 
> > actually make money at it, whereas Barry never will, except as a tech 
> > writer. 
> > 
> True dat, Doc. MJ writes with his heart. Barry writes with his dick.
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq, but I love 
> > > your writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will have achieved 
> > > something great.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: turquoiseb 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:01 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Prerequisites for Enlightenment
> > >  
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Given the definition given by the Big M for enlightenment 
> > > > and all the glorious things that the enlightened are and 
> > > > can do, you would think these TM enlightened would be 
> > > > doing marvelous things in the world, especially in the 
> > > > area of saving the rest of us from ignorance. I eagerly 
> > > > await their coming out and heppin' the rest of us 
> > > > ignorant folks out.
> > > 
> > > Michael, I think your understanding in this vitally important area is 
> > > flawed by an improper understanding of the relationship between the 
> > > enlightened and the...uh...not so much. 
> > > 
> > > The "real story" of why so many have failed to become enlightened 
> > > themselves as a result of the beneficence of the enlightened is much like 
> > > a section I have to create often when doing tech writing. The 
> > > unenlightened have failed to become All That They Could Be because they 
> > > didn't RTFM, or skipped over the Prerequisites section. 
> > > 
> > > In the Prerequisites section of technical documentation, one lists all of 
> > > the things one has to have in place or have done before installing/using 
> > > the new-fangled software or hardware that the manual is about. Like, 
> > > before installing and running a Java-based program
> > > on your computer, there is a prerequisite that you have to have installed 
> > > Java first, and that it has to be functional and capable of launching a 
> > > JVM (Java Virtual Machine) for the new-fangled program to run in. Not to 
> > > mention...uh...*having* a computer in the first place, and turning it on 
> > > using the little red switch.
> > > 
> > > These are all *prerequisites* that must be met before the new-fangled 
> > > program will work, and transform your life into the wonderland that our 
> > > marketing and sales reps told you it would become if you just bought our 
> > > product. 
> > > 
> > > The User's Manual for Enlightenment is notoriously badly written, when 
> > > you can find it at all, and contains many Class-A bugs that have never 
> > > been addressed, even though the software of enlightenment is now up to 
> > > Release 3,784.256.11. In *all* of those releases, the
> > > shitty tech writers have failed to write a Prerequisites section. For 
> > > your edification, and that of other hapless seekers, I shall seek to 
> > > rectify that situation now:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > PREREQUISITES FOR BEING HEPPED' TO BE ENLIGHTENED
> > > BY SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY ENLIGHTENED
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   * You need to be somewhat alive, and sentient. To date, very few of the 
> > > enlightened have ever been able to hep a rock or an amoeba to become 
> > > enlightened.
> > > 
> > >   * You need to be OPEN to being enlightened. This is usually 
> > > demonstrated by being willing to pay those who claim to be able to hep 
> > > you great deals of money.
> > > 
> > >   * You must accept without question that the person you have just paid 
> > > to enlighten you is enlightened themselves. THIS IS CRITICAL. Failure to 
> > > follow this prerequisite may result in not only a failed installation of 
> > > the enlightenment software, but in a series of nasty tantrums thrown by 
> > > the enlightened person. Be warned.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   * When the enlightened person tells you what is WRONG with you that 
> > > makes you so unenlightened, and thus SO not like them, you should agree 
> > > with them quickly and publicly. Failure to admit that 1) you have a 
> > > problem

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Just *one* more sip of coffee, Michael, for you. You are a hundred times the 
> writer than this guy is. YOU could get published, whereas Barry has nothing 
> to say - he is in a writer's rut, and has been for years. YOU could actually 
> make money at it, whereas Barry never will, except as a tech writer. 
> 
True dat, Doc. MJ writes with his heart. Barry writes with his dick.

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq, but I love 
> > your writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will have achieved 
> > something great.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: turquoiseb 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:01 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Prerequisites for Enlightenment
> >  
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > Given the definition given by the Big M for enlightenment 
> > > and all the glorious things that the enlightened are and 
> > > can do, you would think these TM enlightened would be 
> > > doing marvelous things in the world, especially in the 
> > > area of saving the rest of us from ignorance. I eagerly 
> > > await their coming out and heppin' the rest of us 
> > > ignorant folks out.
> > 
> > Michael, I think your understanding in this vitally important area is 
> > flawed by an improper understanding of the relationship between the 
> > enlightened and the...uh...not so much. 
> > 
> > The "real story" of why so many have failed to become enlightened 
> > themselves as a result of the beneficence of the enlightened is much like a 
> > section I have to create often when doing tech writing. The unenlightened 
> > have failed to become All That They Could Be because they didn't RTFM, or 
> > skipped over the Prerequisites section. 
> > 
> > In the Prerequisites section of technical documentation, one lists all of 
> > the things one has to have in place or have done before installing/using 
> > the new-fangled software or hardware that the manual is about. Like, before 
> > installing and running a Java-based program
> > on your computer, there is a prerequisite that you have to have installed 
> > Java first, and that it has to be functional and capable of launching a JVM 
> > (Java Virtual Machine) for the new-fangled program to run in. Not to 
> > mention...uh...*having* a computer in the first place, and turning it on 
> > using the little red switch.
> > 
> > These are all *prerequisites* that must be met before the new-fangled 
> > program will work, and transform your life into the wonderland that our 
> > marketing and sales reps told you it would become if you just bought our 
> > product. 
> > 
> > The User's Manual for Enlightenment is notoriously badly written, when you 
> > can find it at all, and contains many Class-A bugs that have never been 
> > addressed, even though the software of enlightenment is now up to Release 
> > 3,784.256.11. In *all* of those releases, the
> > shitty tech writers have failed to write a Prerequisites section. For your 
> > edification, and that of other hapless seekers, I shall seek to rectify 
> > that situation now:
> > 
> > 
> > PREREQUISITES FOR BEING HEPPED' TO BE ENLIGHTENED
> > BY SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY ENLIGHTENED
> > 
> > 
> > * You need to be somewhat alive, and sentient. To date, very few of the 
> > enlightened have ever been able to hep a rock or an amoeba to become 
> > enlightened.
> > 
> > * You need to be OPEN to being enlightened. This is usually 
> > demonstrated by being willing to pay those who claim to be able to hep you 
> > great deals of money.
> > 
> > * You must accept without question that the person you have just paid 
> > to enlighten you is enlightened themselves. THIS IS CRITICAL. Failure to 
> > follow this prerequisite may result in not only a failed installation of 
> > the enlightenment software, but in a series of nasty tantrums thrown by the 
> > enlightened person. Be warned.
> > 
> > 
> > * When the enlightened person tells you what is WRONG with you that 
> > makes you so unenlightened, and thus SO not like them, you should agree 
> > with them quickly and publicly. Failure to admit that 1) you have a 
> > problem, 2) that the enlightened person, being...uh...enlightened and all, 
> > is more capable of seeing this problem than you are, and 3) they can FIX 
> > your problem if you just pay them enough attention and money may result 
> > again in improper installation of the enlightenmentware, not to mention 
> > more tantrums. 
> > 
> > 
> > * Never, never, NEVER ask the enlightened person who is benevolently 
> > sharing their valuable time and energy to hep you become so like them WHY 
> > you'd want to do so. This is a demonstration of having failed to accept the 
> > base cond

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[doctordumbass]

MJ's stories engage me, and have a timeless quality to them. There is no 
obvious purpose to them, except for enjoyment, and bringing the reader in. He 
also has an exceptional ear for the flow of dialogue. Big Fan!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Just *one* more sip of coffee, Michael, for you. You are a
> > hundred times the writer than this guy is.
> 
> Have to agree. Barry's a hack writer--showy, but shallow.
> 
> Michael, I was hors de combat when you posted them, so I
> didn't get a chance to tell you, but those reminiscences
> of yours were superb, beautifully written *and* full of
> heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > YOU could get published, whereas Barry has nothing to say - he is in a 
> > writer's rut, and has been for years. YOU could actually make money at it, 
> > whereas Barry never will, except as a tech writer. 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq, but I love 
> > > your writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will have achieved 
> > > something great.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ah, France

[doctordumbass]

Wow, just like any truck stop on the interstate highway system, here in the US. 
Those French are all class.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Sitting with my coffee on the balcony of my Airbnb apartment in Avignon,
> I  notice that the pharmacy across the street has a 24/7 condom machine 
> (lower left).
>  
> [https://sphotos-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/q71/s720x720/1170722_65\
> 1820558175414_2030770069_n.jpg]
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Just *one* more sip of coffee, Michael, for you. You are a
> hundred times the writer than this guy is.

Have to agree. Barry's a hack writer--showy, but shallow.

Michael, I was hors de combat when you posted them, so I
didn't get a chance to tell you, but those reminiscences
of yours were superb, beautifully written *and* full of
heart.





> YOU could get published, whereas Barry has nothing to say - he is in a 
> writer's rut, and has been for years. YOU could actually make money at it, 
> whereas Barry never will, except as a tech writer. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq, but I love 
> > your writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will have achieved 
> > something great.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[doctordumbass]

Just *one* more sip of coffee, Michael, for you. You are a hundred times the 
writer than this guy is. YOU could get published, whereas Barry has nothing to 
say - he is in a writer's rut, and has been for years. YOU could actually make 
money at it, whereas Barry never will, except as a tech writer. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq, but I love your 
> writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will have achieved 
> something great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: turquoiseb 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:01 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Prerequisites for Enlightenment
>  
> 
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > Given the definition given by the Big M for enlightenment 
> > and all the glorious things that the enlightened are and 
> > can do, you would think these TM enlightened would be 
> > doing marvelous things in the world, especially in the 
> > area of saving the rest of us from ignorance. I eagerly 
> > await their coming out and heppin' the rest of us 
> > ignorant folks out.
> 
> Michael, I think your understanding in this vitally important area is flawed 
> by an improper understanding of the relationship between the enlightened and 
> the...uh...not so much. 
> 
> The "real story" of why so many have failed to become enlightened themselves 
> as a result of the beneficence of the enlightened is much like a section I 
> have to create often when doing tech writing. The unenlightened have failed 
> to become All That They Could Be because they didn't RTFM, or skipped over 
> the Prerequisites section. 
> 
> In the Prerequisites section of technical documentation, one lists all of the 
> things one has to have in place or have done before installing/using the 
> new-fangled software or hardware that the manual is about. Like, before 
> installing and running a Java-based program
> on your computer, there is a prerequisite that you have to have installed 
> Java first, and that it has to be functional and capable of launching a JVM 
> (Java Virtual Machine) for the new-fangled program to run in. Not to 
> mention...uh...*having* a computer in the first place, and turning it on 
> using the little red switch.
> 
> These are all *prerequisites* that must be met before the new-fangled program 
> will work, and transform your life into the wonderland that our marketing and 
> sales reps told you it would become if you just bought our product. 
> 
> The User's Manual for Enlightenment is notoriously badly written, when you 
> can find it at all, and contains many Class-A bugs that have never been 
> addressed, even though the software of enlightenment is now up to Release 
> 3,784.256.11. In *all* of those releases, the
> shitty tech writers have failed to write a Prerequisites section. For your 
> edification, and that of other hapless seekers, I shall seek to rectify that 
> situation now:
> 
> 
> PREREQUISITES FOR BEING HEPPED' TO BE ENLIGHTENED
> BY SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY ENLIGHTENED
> 
> 
>   * You need to be somewhat alive, and sentient. To date, very few of the 
> enlightened have ever been able to hep a rock or an amoeba to become 
> enlightened.
> 
>   * You need to be OPEN to being enlightened. This is usually 
> demonstrated by being willing to pay those who claim to be able to hep you 
> great deals of money.
> 
>   * You must accept without question that the person you have just paid 
> to enlighten you is enlightened themselves. THIS IS CRITICAL. Failure to 
> follow this prerequisite may result in not only a failed installation of the 
> enlightenment software, but in a series of nasty tantrums thrown by the 
> enlightened person. Be warned.
> 
> 
>   * When the enlightened person tells you what is WRONG with you that 
> makes you so unenlightened, and thus SO not like them, you should agree with 
> them quickly and publicly. Failure to admit that 1) you have a problem, 2) 
> that the enlightened person, being...uh...enlightened and all, is more 
> capable of seeing this problem than you are, and 3) they can FIX your problem 
> if you just pay them enough attention and money may result again in improper 
> installation of the enlightenmentware, not to mention more tantrums. 
> 
> 
>   * Never, never, NEVER ask the enlightened person who is benevolently 
> sharing their valuable time and energy to hep you become so like them WHY 
> you'd want to do so. This is a demonstration of having failed to accept the 
> base conditions that allow an enlightened person to make a living without 
> having to work. Bad juju. Don't even *think* of asking WHY you'd want to 
> become so like them. Doubts are BAD. Just *accept* the basic premise that 
> they're better than you are, and put your energy into becoming more like 
> them. 
> 
>   * Similarly, never neve

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[Michael Jackson]

I know there are a lot of people on FFL who dislike you Turq, but I love your 
writing - if one day I can write as well as you I will have achieved something 
great.







 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:01 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Prerequisites for Enlightenment
 


  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Given the definition given by the Big M for enlightenment 
> and all the glorious things that the enlightened are and 
> can do, you would think these TM enlightened would be 
> doing marvelous things in the world, especially in the 
> area of saving the rest of us from ignorance. I eagerly 
> await their coming out and heppin' the rest of us 
> ignorant folks out.

Michael, I think your understanding in this vitally important area is flawed by 
an improper understanding of the relationship between the enlightened and 
the...uh...not so much. 

The "real story" of why so many have failed to become enlightened themselves as 
a result of the beneficence of the enlightened is much like a section I have to 
create often when doing tech writing. The unenlightened have failed to become 
All That They Could Be because they didn't RTFM, or skipped over the 
Prerequisites section. 

In the Prerequisites section of technical documentation, one lists all of the 
things one has to have in place or have done before installing/using the 
new-fangled software or hardware that the manual is about. Like, before 
installing and running a Java-based program
on your computer, there is a prerequisite that you have to have installed Java 
first, and that it has to be functional and capable of launching a JVM (Java 
Virtual Machine) for the new-fangled program to run in. Not to 
mention...uh...*having* a computer in the first place, and turning it on using 
the little red switch.

These are all *prerequisites* that must be met before the new-fangled program 
will work, and transform your life into the wonderland that our marketing and 
sales reps told you it would become if you just bought our product. 

The User's Manual for Enlightenment is notoriously badly written, when you can 
find it at all, and contains many Class-A bugs that have never been addressed, 
even though the software of enlightenment is now up to Release 3,784.256.11. In 
*all* of those releases, the
shitty tech writers have failed to write a Prerequisites section. For your 
edification, and that of other hapless seekers, I shall seek to rectify that 
situation now:


PREREQUISITES FOR BEING HEPPED' TO BE ENLIGHTENED
BY SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY ENLIGHTENED


* You need to be somewhat alive, and sentient. To date, very few of the 
enlightened have ever been able to hep a rock or an amoeba to become 
enlightened.

* You need to be OPEN to being enlightened. This is usually 
demonstrated by being willing to pay those who claim to be able to hep you 
great deals of money.

* You must accept without question that the person you have just paid 
to enlighten you is enlightened themselves. THIS IS CRITICAL. Failure to follow 
this prerequisite may result in not only a failed installation of the 
enlightenment software, but in a series of nasty tantrums thrown by the 
enlightened person. Be warned.


* When the enlightened person tells you what is WRONG with you that 
makes you so unenlightened, and thus SO not like them, you should agree with 
them quickly and publicly. Failure to admit that 1) you have a problem, 2) that 
the enlightened person, being...uh...enlightened and all, is more capable of 
seeing this problem than you are, and 3) they can FIX your problem if you just 
pay them enough attention and money may result again in improper installation 
of the enlightenmentware, not to mention more tantrums. 


* Never, never, NEVER ask the enlightened person who is benevolently 
sharing their valuable time and energy to hep you become so like them WHY you'd 
want to do so. This is a demonstration of having failed to accept the base 
conditions that allow an enlightened person to make a living without having to 
work. Bad juju. Don't even *think* of asking WHY you'd want to become so like 
them. Doubts are BAD. Just *accept* the basic premise that they're better than 
you are, and put your energy into becoming more like them. 

* Similarly, never never NEVER ask the enlightened person to walk their 
enlightenment talk. For example, if they've said that the enlightened are 
beyond petty things like anger and jealousy and spite, never never NEVER point 
out to them that they've been acting that way themselves on a regular basis. 
Doing this might result in the enlightened person writing you off as a lost 
cause, and you missing out on the enlightenment boat forever. 


* When the enlightened person tells you to do something, well, like the 
Nike commercials say, JUST DO IT. Don't ask questi

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Do you mean no puja before the Primordial Sound thing when he
> was still hand and glove with the Movement?

Chopra never became a TM teacher, FWIW. He wouldn't have
been considered qualified to do the TM puja by the TMO.

> 
>  From: sparaig 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:01 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> 
> I'll not go into details, save to point out that 1) Chopra
> never did a puja before teaching, at least when he taught
> me, and 2) TMers and Sidhas apparently got somewhat different
> instructions.
> 
> I have no idea what non-TMers were told to do as there were
> none on the Fairfield course I was at.
> 
> L.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Seraphita"  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Michael.
> > Re "not an internally used mantra": a bit like japa maybe?
> > Was the Primordial Sound Technique ditched by the TMO when Chopra bailed
> > out or is it still available as an advanced technique?
> > I found my TM induction a heck of an initiation! As in, quite dramatic
> > body twitchings and that sense of falling down the rabbit hole like
> > Alice. For you, was your PSM initiation back in '96 even more of a
> > wake-up call than your first TM session? One thing I like about my
> > original seed mantra (which I have stayed faithful to) is that I'm happy
> > to let it mutate during a session and have been intrigued by claims that
> > all these bija syllables eventually turn into "Aum" if allowed to follow
> > their natural course. I always think that if I had to repeat a
> > three-part mantra (with more than three syllables of course) I'd be
> > concentrating too much on remembering the sequence correctly to be able
> > to enter a state of restful alertness -whereas a one- or two-syllable
> > mantra is perfect for Seraphita's tiny mind!
> > On the topic of his books, I'm tempted to buy War of the Worldviews as I
> > enjoy argy-bargy and I respect Chopra for having the balls to engage in
> > open debate with a full-on materialist. Anyone read that and would
> > recommend it?
> > .
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > The original Primordial Sound Technique was a TM thing that Chopra
> > gave out, having the person intone a certain sound. It was not an
> > internally used mantra.
> > >
> > > The Primordial Sound Meditation that Chopra came up with is a mantra
> > meditation. The mantras are chosen according to your birthday and time.
> > >
> > > I got my PSM mantra back in 1996 - it was a heck of an initiation.
> > >
> > > The PSM mantras are all three part mantras, the first is Om, the
> > second part is the one determined by your birthday and time info, and
> > the third part is Namah, so Om (Private mantra) Namah.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >  From: Seraphita s3raphita@
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:27 PM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > �
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well, he re-wrote _Quantum Healing_, which was originally about the
> > Primordial Sound Technique, which has nothing to do with Primordial
> > Sound Meditation, to make it all about the latter.
> > >
> > > Is the � "Primordial Sound Technique" basically TM with a new (and
> > longer) mantra? And how does it differ from "Primordial Sound
> > Meditation" (apart from being a lot more expensive, I guess)? � The
> > only Chopra book I've read was Synchrodestiny which although being
> > unobjectionable struck me as pretty bland. Can anyone recommend a Chopra
> > title that they found helpful?
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment

[doctordumbass]

Lame-o. My answer was shorter, better, funnier, and TRUE! Fail for Barry.

And please explain how a JVM works. I ran the technical training for VMware, 
and just curious if you know. Your "explanation" of why you get uninterrupted 
YouTube videos at work, "due to having a T1 line", was frankly hilarious!!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson 
> wrote:
> >
> > Given the definition given by the Big M for enlightenment
> > and all the glorious things that the enlightened are and
> > can do, you would think these TM enlightened would be
> > doing marvelous things in the world, especially in the
> > area of saving the rest of us from ignorance. I eagerly
> > await their coming out and heppin' the rest of us
> > ignorant folks out.
> 
> Michael, I think your understanding in this vitally important area is
> flawed by an improper understanding of the relationship between the
> enlightened and the...uh...not so much.
> 

> installed Java first, and that it has to be functional and capable of
> launching a JVM (Java Virtual Machine) for the new-fangled program to
> run in. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[Michael Jackson]

Do you mean no puja before the Primordial Sound thing when he was still hand 
and glove with the Movement?





 From: sparaig 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:01 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
 


  
I'll not go into details, save to point out that 1) Chopra never did a puja 
before teaching, at least when he taught me, and 2) TMers and Sidhas apparently 
got somewhat different instructions.

I have no idea what non-TMers were told to do as there were none on the 
Fairfield course I was at.

L.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Seraphita"  wrote:
>
> Thanks Michael.
> Re "not an internally used mantra": a bit like japa maybe?
> Was the Primordial Sound Technique ditched by the TMO when Chopra bailed
> out or is it still available as an advanced technique?
> I found my TM induction a heck of an initiation! As in, quite dramatic
> body twitchings and that sense of falling down the rabbit hole like
> Alice. For you, was your PSM initiation back in '96 even more of a
> wake-up call than your first TM session? One thing I like about my
> original seed mantra (which I have stayed faithful to) is that I'm happy
> to let it mutate during a session and have been intrigued by claims that
> all these bija syllables eventually turn into "Aum" if allowed to follow
> their natural course. I always think that if I had to repeat a
> three-part mantra (with more than three syllables of course) I'd be
> concentrating too much on remembering the sequence correctly to be able
> to enter a state of restful alertness -whereas a one- or two-syllable
> mantra is perfect for Seraphita's tiny mind!
> On the topic of his books, I'm tempted to buy War of the Worldviews as I
> enjoy argy-bargy and I respect Chopra for having the balls to engage in
> open debate with a full-on materialist. Anyone read that and would
> recommend it?
> .
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > The original Primordial Sound Technique was a TM thing that Chopra
> gave out, having the person intone a certain sound. It was not an
> internally used mantra.
> >
> > The Primordial Sound Meditation that Chopra came up with is a mantra
> meditation. The mantras are chosen according to your birthday and time.
> >
> > I got my PSM mantra back in 1996 - it was a heck of an initiation.
> >
> > The PSM mantras are all three part mantras, the first is Om, the
> second part is the one determined by your birthday and time info, and
> the third part is Namah, so Om (Private mantra) Namah.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >  From: Seraphita s3raphita@
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:27 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
> >
> >
> >
> > �
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, he re-wrote _Quantum Healing_, which was originally about the
> Primordial Sound Technique, which has nothing to do with Primordial
> Sound Meditation, to make it all about the latter.
> >
> > Is the � "Primordial Sound Technique" basically TM with a new (and
> longer) mantra? And how does it differ from "Primordial Sound
> Meditation" (apart from being a lot more expensive, I guess)? � The
> only Chopra book I've read was Synchrodestiny which although being
> unobjectionable struck me as pretty bland. Can anyone recommend a Chopra
> title that they found helpful?
> >
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
(snip)
> > You might try Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the
> > Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost
> > Certainly False." 
> > 
> > Nagel got in a lot of trouble with the big-time materialists;
> > the book really upset them, so he must have hit close to the
> > bone.
> 
> LOL.

Is that a tic of some kind you've got there? I made a
perfectly reasonable statement, regardless of what you
think of Nagel. The leading materialists don't tend to
come out in droves to burn a heretic unless they're
afraid serious people may find the heretic convincing.

Have you read Nagel's book, BTW?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[Michael Jackson]

Awww, Come on Sal, why you don't like Deepak?

I know I have enjoyed his writing - especially his first fiction novel, Return 
of Merlin which he supposedly wrote the bulk of during the year when he was 
looking after the Big M subsequent to his being poisoned. I loved that novel.





 From: salyavin808 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:22 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
 


  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Seraphita"  wrote:

> If you're interested in the debate with materialists, you
> could do a lot better than Chopra. He's not what I would
> call a rigorous thinker.

He's an asshole.

> You might try Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the
> Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost
> Certainly False." 
> 
> Nagel got in a lot of trouble with the big-time materialists;
> the book really upset them, so he must have hit close to the
> bone.

LOL. 


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Seraphita"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > If you're interested in the debate with materialists, you
> > could do a lot better than Chopra. He's not what I would
> > call a rigorous thinker.
> >
> > You might try Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos: Why the
> > Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost
> > Certainly False."
> >
> > Nagel got in a lot of trouble with the big-time materialists;
> > the book really upset them, so he must have hit close to the
> > bone.
>
> Yes, Nagel's book is already on my to-read list

Oh, excellent. Again, if you want to preview it, probably
a good quarter of it is on FFL in those posts I listed.

> as I've been amused by the way atheist philosophers and
> neo-Darwinian scientists have closed ranks to denounce
> his heresy.

It's been sort of a hobby of mine since the book came
out to read all the reviews I can find. It's a sort of
non-Chopra education in the "War of the Worldviews." ;-)
Except that Nagel himself hasn't been interested in
responding to his critics (can't say as I blame him, but
it would be fun to see his defense).

If you're interested, there's a neat blog by a classical
theist philosopher who made a series of eight longish
posts on Nagel's book, picking a few nits here and there
but mostly taking apart the materialists' attacks on it:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/06/mind-and-cosmos-roundup.html

All kinds of interesting stuff on that blog. The guy's
sort of crabby, but he's also a very clear writer.

> It's curious that so many people have a strong emotional
> attachment to whatever the current orthodoxy is.

Well, the nonmaterialists are generally just as emotionally
attached to their UNorthodox point of view...

> My vice
> is the exact opposite - I only enjoy reading people who
> shake the foundations - whether they are right or wrong I
> find that approach is invariably more entertaining.

*And* more educational, I'd say, especially when those
who are trying to hold up the foundations do their best
to debunk the shakers.

> (Of course one has to draw the line somewhere: I need my
> heretics to make a good case and not simply spout wild
> theories like David Icke, for example.)

Oh, jeez. We had somebody on FFL a few years back who was
a big Icke fan, a very intelligent woman, believe it or not.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marathon

[Share Long]

Jeez, Ann, just because Robin and BP aren't *speaking* on FFL these days, I 
don't think that's any reason to call them Dumb and Dumber! YMMV 





 From: Ann 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:31 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Marathon
 


  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> Thank you, thank you all. (bows modestly)
> 
> But it's my *fingers* that are tired, folks. The leg
> massage is lovely, but you can stop now. And if you
> pour any more Gatorade down my throat, I'm going to
> throw up.

Ah, but your bedchamber awaits madam...
Sleep well, tomorrow is another day and I hear Dumb and Dumber are will be 
attending tomorrow's event.







> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Judy has just ru/swam/biked the equivalent of some sort of 
> > > > > Iron
> > > > > Woman competition today. Can someone bring out the Gatorade and salt
> > > > > tablets? Oh, and get that sports masseuse and arnica. She's sure to 
> > > > > need
> > > > > a little muscle relief. If anyone doubts the resilience and strong
> > > > > stomach of this woman, think again.
> > > > 
> > > > I forgot the 'n'. Or is it "ran"? And is it "swum"? I know for sure it 
> > > > is "biked" though.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Yep, and didn't break a sweat.
> > > http://youtu.be/MTn1v5TGK_w
> > > 
> > 
> > Oh good God, Judy!  Here, let this gel cushions help you chill. 
> > Great job, mon. Three cheers to Judy. :)
> > 
> > > She has run
> > > http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/English/run.html
> > > She has swum
> > > http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/English/swim.html
> > >
> >
>

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: ksinoeh? (nain-ilevn)

[card]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
>
>
> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread750749/pg1
>
> I seem to recall having participated in that thread
> as B. Mullquist. At least I saw with my own eyes
> that "prediction" by xino.
>
>  I was extremely anxious at the end of August 2001, what shall
> happen in the US of A, because transiting Pluto was
> almost exactly on the ascendant of the Sagittarius rising
> (tropical) chart of USA, for the first time ever (and the last??).
> Tr. Pluto was also opposing tr. Saturn.
>

[FairfieldLife] ksinoeh? (nain-ilevn)

[card]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread750749/pg1

I seem to recall having participated in that thread
as B. Mullquist. At least I saw with my own eyes
that "prediction" by xino.

 I was extremely anxious at the end of August 2001, what shall
happen in the US of A, because transiting Pluto was
almost exactly on the ascendant of the Sagittarius rising
(tropical) chart of USA, for the first time ever (and the last??).
Tr. Pluto was also opposing tr. Saturn.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count Thu 15-Aug-13 00:15:08 UTC

[Share Long]

That's what I'm sayin' (-:




 From: Seraphita 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 9:09 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count Thu 15-Aug-13 00:15:08 UTC
 


  
That's better - now we're talking!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, FFL PostCount  wrote:
>
> Fairfield Life Post Counter
> ===
> Start Date (UTC): 08/10/13 00:00:00
> End Date (UTC): 08/17/13 00:00:00
> 1105 messages as of (UTC) 08/15/13 00:08:38
> 
> 146 Share Long 
7 sharelong60 
> 134 authfriend 
> 118 doctordumbass
>  88 obbajeeba 
>  76 RoryGoff 
>  69 Ravi Chivukula 
>  61 Ann 


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[sparaig]

It might be the case. I always thought MMY was pretty good at stringing 
sentences together, at least in short bursts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRSvW9Ml9DQ

L

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/
> > 
> > You'll think a simplistic AI is totally enlightened...
> > 
> > ...or something.
> > 
> > [Apparently fooled Chopra]
> 
> What makes you think that Maharishi was doing anything
> other than this same parroted pattern-matching?
> 
> This is *exactly* the kind of thing I was referring to
> earlier as "spiritual teacher schtick" and that Curtis
> referred to as a "language form." 
> 
> And Maharishi was *just* as likely to use it as Chopra.
> 
> [ Apparently that fooled you, and many others ]
>  
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@  wrote:
> > >
> > > Chopra has made it very clear he would be nothing 
> > > without Maharishi, there would certainly have been 
> > > no primordial sound meditation. 
> > > At least he is honest about it unlike certain others.
> > > 
> > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-maharishi-years-the-u_b_86412.html
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Rare footage of Maharishi addressing a group of followers

[turquoiseb]

   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcE5aDTszrY

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
> Chopra has a thinner skin than MMY did, as far as I know. Of course, MMY 
> never went into a live AMA forum on reddit.com, so its hard to  know what he 
> would have done, but someone started playing the auto-chopra.com (don't 
> remember the URL sorry) back to him as though it were comments from readers. 
> Its basically a typical phrase generator: one from column A, one from column 
> B, one from column C --based on a collection of random sayings by Chopra.
> 
> Chopra apparently got very excited by the wisdom of the bot and they 
> apparently got into a long-winded conversation until someone revealed the AI 
> behind the curtain.

Haha, classic, do you have a link to the conversation? I love that
wisdom generator, I often turn to it in moments of loneliness and
sorrow and receive wisdom as useful as any I've got from the TMO:

"Orderliness serves humble potentiality" LOL

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/


Actually it's not fair of me to call him an asshole. It isn't his
fault he's religious and surrounded by people desperate for there
to something - anything - more than the "mundane" reality we seem
to be stuck with.

That most of the people I hear from that love him are ex-TMers
which is weird considering they learnt TM as it was supposedly the
ultimate transformative technique, now they go to someone else to 
hopefully get what they didn't in the first place! Once bitten...
 

[FairfieldLife] Ah, France

[turquoiseb]

Sitting with my coffee on the balcony of my Airbnb apartment in Avignon,
I  notice that the pharmacy across the street has a 24/7 condom machine 
(lower left).
 
[https://sphotos-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/q71/s720x720/1170722_65\
1820558175414_2030770069_n.jpg]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
>
> http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/
> 
> You'll think a simplistic AI is totally enlightened...
> 
> ...or something.
> 
> [Apparently fooled Chopra]

What makes you think that Maharishi was doing anything
other than this same parroted pattern-matching?

This is *exactly* the kind of thing I was referring to
earlier as "spiritual teacher schtick" and that Curtis
referred to as a "language form." 

And Maharishi was *just* as likely to use it as Chopra.

[ Apparently that fooled you, and many others ]
 


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@  wrote:
> >
> > Chopra has made it very clear he would be nothing 
> > without Maharishi, there would certainly have been 
> > no primordial sound meditation. 
> > At least he is honest about it unlike certain others.
> > 
> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-maharishi-years-the-u_b_86412.html
> >
>