[FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: You should probably read the essay: http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf Knowing what it is like to be your identical twin brother is no more possible than knowing what it is like to be a bat. You can imagine to a certain extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to be your identical twin brother, but you cannot know what it is like for a *bat* to be a bat, nor what it is like for your identical twin brother to be your identical twin brother. As far as Batman is concerned, there is nothing that it is like for Batman to be Batman, since he doesn't exist. I did read Nagel's essay some years ago, but just taking what you have written here, I have a few comments. There is something it is like to be Batman because this persona was created in the human mind of Robert Kane. There is something that it is like to be Robert Kane creating Batman. There is nothing that it is like to be Batman, as I said, because Batman does not exist. In the academic vernacular: Nagel's point is an ontological, point, not an epistemological one. I think we can agree that the world we live in is full of many things. The inventory of this world is our ontology. Mine includes the planet Mars, Mozart's Requiem, my big toe, my wife, the number 4,039, and so on. YMMV. On my desk there is an empty coffee mug, a computer that is nicknamed Parmenides on my LAN, and our cat Dexter. The statement there is an x such that there is something that is what is like to be that coffee mug I take to be false. The statement there is an x such that there is something that is what is like to be the computer called Parmenides I take to be false. The statement there is an x such that there is something that is what is like to be Dexter I take to be true. So what? Well this clarifies the problem of consciousness (or being). It points us towards the hard problem. That is to say, on the basis of most folks' ontology there exists in the world things that can take a perspective (which is surely better than things that can have a first person ontology? It seems odd to say that one's ontology includes first person ontologies?). From a materialist, or a physicalist, or a naturalistic point of view it is hard to explain how things with perspectives could come to be. Try to persuade me however much you like, I cannot see how a computer for example could ever have a perspective in the way alluded to here. It might pass the Turing test; it might walk, talk, and otherwise act indistinguishably from a human. But I see no reason to believe that it would be true *for that reason alone* that there would be an x such that there would be something that is what is like to be that thing. The human mind can envision things, situations, people, which previously did not exist, and bring them to fruition. I am thinking how realistically good actors portray (snip) This has nothing to do with what Nagel is talking about. Indeed. Nothing. What is the certain extent that it is possible to imagine what it is to be like someone? It varies. If it is true you cannot know what it is like to be even your twin, if you had one, what does this say for your supposed ability to know what a person's motives are, what they are experiencing when they make a post here on FFL? As I believe I said above, You can imagine to a certain extent what it would be like for *you* to be a bat or to be your identical twin brother... Now, I know you read that, because you asked me what a certain extent was. So why are you asking that question as though I hadn't already covered it? According to the account above, it would seem likely that you are very much overstepping what it is possible to *plonk*
[FairfieldLife] Re: FFL looks different this morning
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Yes, I remember it as being within the last month. That's what I meant by recently. I saw on yahoo help page that someone had already complained about it and my tech savvy friend said that it wasn't a glitch, it was an alleged *improvement.* Wonder why nobody else here has mentioned it? Any ideas? I dunno for sure - but it it 'cos Share is using Yahoo!'s web *email client* (Yahoo! Mail) to read FFL (and the issue she has is with that), whereas other folks are referring to access to Yahoo! groups via browser (which does not have that issue)? This! may! be! the! source! of! the! confusion!?
[FairfieldLife] Re: FFL looks different this morning
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Yes, I get posts in my yahoo inbox. I use Mozilla Firefox browser. Are you saying there's a bridge between these two worlds?! There is but *one* world Share. It's not reality; it's your mail box (that can be viewed via different clients). I have a Yahoo! mail account that I use to read several hundred messages a day using the Yahoo! web email client. Recently they introduced a *smart* feature whereby the right-hand scroll bar automatically loads more than the initial screen-full as you drag it down. It uses 'Ajax' technology I suspect. That is to say that as you drag it down it sends (behind the scenes) requests for more email headers to display in the list. I find it disconcerting and very *non* user-friendly. And it conflicts with the option you may have set in settings to display, say, 25, 50 or 100 emails per screen. I haven't been following your travails closely, but is this possibly the irritation you are experiencing? From: PaliGap compost1uk@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 12:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: FFL looks different this morning  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Yes, I remember it as being within the last month. That's what I meant by recently. I saw on yahoo help page that someone had already complained about it and my tech savvy friend said that it wasn't a glitch, it was an alleged *improvement.* Wonder why nobody else here has mentioned it? Any ideas? I dunno for sure - but it it 'cos Share is using Yahoo!'s web *email client* (Yahoo! Mail) to read FFL (and the issue she has is with that), whereas other folks are referring to access to Yahoo! groups via browser (which does not have that issue)? This! may! be! the! source! of! the! confusion!?
[FairfieldLife] Re: FFL looks different this morning
- -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: yes yes YES YES! and IMHO not a very smart feature at all! I used to have 25 messages on a screen/page! I don't really know what is meant by *client* in this context. Is yahoo a client? Google? Yahoo! Mail is an email client. Think of an email client as a window. You have a mail box (It could be your Yahoo! email account, or a Gmail account, or a regular mail server account). The mail box resides on some server somewhere (or on a group of servers if there is mirrored backup). To read your email you need an email client that presents the emails that are on the server in an orderly and human-friendly way to you. Many different clients can be used to present the same email account data. E.g. desktop software such as Microsoft Outlook, Thunderbird, Mac mail, or browser applications such as Gmail, Yahoo! mail, FastMail and so on. Yahoo! groups has an email feed. That means you can read it in any email client. But then you can also just read it in your browser as a regular (regular-ish) web site. Which is what I do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: FFL looks different this morning
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: yes yes YES YES! and IMHO not a very smart feature at all! I used to have 25 messages on a screen/page! Well, heck, that's an easy fix. Go to Yahoo mail, hover your mouse pointer over the little gear in the upper right corner, and click on Mail Options in the drop down menu. At the very bottom, click the little thingie next to Basic, click OK on the balloon that pops up, then click the orange Save button. That will take your Inbox back to only displaying 25 emails at a time. Yes, I think switching to basic will eliminate the smart, but irritating scroll bar. Unfortunately, unless I can't see for looking, you cannot then set the number of messages per screen? (If that matters).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did this come through? (three stooges pic)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: I have long suspected that The Three Stooges may originally have been The Three Goons, clearly an anglicized version of The Three Gunas http://youtu.be/Nebe1zuEtbc a href=http://youtu.be/Nebe1zuEtbc; target=_blankEnjoy/a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Om Happy Day!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Happy Birthday, Alex! You're The Cream In My Coffee http://youtu.be/m-6m2CC0pPM And you bring me sunshine... http://youtu.be/ZedhoqYdfTM
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Culture of Illusion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: Lawson, It all depends on what is your definition of cosmic consciousness. But having a noisy mind appears to be an indication of an inertia due to having a conditioned mind. What do you think? Not just this, but that
[FairfieldLife] Re: Atheism rears its ugly head again!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: God said to Abraham, Kill me a son Abe says, Man, you must be puttin' me on God say, No. Abe say, What? God say, You can do what you want Abe, but The next time you see me comin' you better run Abe says, Where do you want this killin' done? God says, Out on Highway 61 Texas gold (go figure): http://youtu.be/KGGR3b8vycY And Yahweh sayeth on the seventh day: Play ye loud. I was fortunate to see JW play in a very small, intimate venue a couple of years ago. At first it didn't look good. The support band were fine, but went on too long. Then JW's band came on and played some blues, but without the great man himself. Eventually a frail, stooped, seemingly blind figure was helped to a seat at the front of the stage. At this point it was all looking like a sad, uncomfortable mistake. But then he was handed his guitar, and I swear you could see the blood rising in his albino veins, and then, wow, the magic was there! I love JW. This track next more than any other (forgive me Lord for I hath posteth this more than once): I Love Everybody: http://youtu.be/Y7SezI3PgTI
[FairfieldLife] Re: Most jazz drummers can't play rock'n roll?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 07/31/2013 04:09 AM, card wrote: Sometime in the 20th century, Joe Morello started his drum clinic here in my home town by playing some rock'n roll. Of course, technically that was nothing short of perfect, but I'm sad to say, IMO there was almost no rock'n roll at all in it... :/ http://www.drummerworld.com/Videos/joemorellokiller.html Those are just basic stick control exercises. I'm sure Morello could have played rock if needed too. I used to piss off the local rock bands I played in because I played double time jazz swing instead of eighth notes on the ride cymbal. A few years later Mitch Michell was doing that with Jimmy Hendrix. ;-) And Jimi too?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Trayvon Martin was a Homophobic bigot
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: Thanks for being a good sport. I quite like the English, actually. But that cultural superiority thing is a bit outdated, don't you think? You may have Shakespeare, but we have, er . . . er . . . we have . . . OK, I'll get back to you on that one. Charles Sanders Peirce --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Seraphita s3raphita@ wrote: Excellent. That's a fair cop as we say over here! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 wrote: Someone appears to have undergone an irony-bypass operation. Now, what was that you were saying a few days ago about British superiority in the recognition of irony? Time to eat humble pie. How ironic.
[FairfieldLife] Hippy Altruism
Google is providing free advertising worth $240,000 to help Michigan Compassion: Michigan Compassion will use the grant to promote its medical cannabis awareness initiatives http://mycompassion.org/news?mode=PostViewbmi=1321918 What makes this grant award unique is that Google AdWords, being a key-word driven service, prohibits the promotion of cannabis which is the primary theme of the organization's mission, said James Campbell, Board Secretary of Michigan Compassion. The award letter from Google acknowledges that this is the first Medical Marijuana Non-profit to receive an AdWords Grant from Google Grants. Michigan Compassion's mission is to increase awareness and understanding through education, information and advocacy of all the medical benefits and healing properties of Cannabis
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dennett on Stuff
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Dennett's incoherence is legendary among those who know what they're talking about (including atheists). I can't say I've ever been persuaded by anything he says about consciousness, but I do like the chap. He was after all defending Aristotle et.al. from facile criticism in the article salyavin808 referred to. And he likes sailing! Plus any ex-student of W.V Quine can't be all bad: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mad Men and Crossing Lines
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: Last night was the season finale of Mad Men. I don't know if many here watch it and I know particularly some of our TV fans don't. I do! I loved it earlier on, but I felt it wasn't so good recently. It became a bit too much the Don Draper bonking fest at the expense of some of the other great characters. But let's see if it picks up as it heads for its final season. That doesn't surprise me because I'm sure more than a few grew up with parents who were executives and might have been like Don Draper or his peers. My late brother was of that generation and though not in the advertising industry ran businesses so I found the show amusing. The award winning show has one more season to go and because they are winding through the years (this season took place in 1968) are about to enter into the time when ad agencies went Public and thus more responsible to the stockholders and started hiring CEOs who could talk to bankers. In fact a public offering was even in the episodes this season. But that would not make for good television. Also should mention that the show featured corporations that were still family run which was another thing that changed in the 1970s. Also debuting last night was a new NBC series Crossing Lines which was another pleasant surprise. Another because when I watched the pilot episode of Hannibal I didn't have much faith in a broadcast network delivering anything other than watered down schlock. But Hannibal played like a foreign TV series and the same was true of Crossing Lines which stars William Fitchner and Donald Sutherland (in a limited role). This show so much reminded me of UK or even Danish TV series which can be viewed on Netflix. Both Hannibal and Crossing Lines seem to be a departure from dumbed down television. As much as I don't care for Comcast's carnival like business model I'm beginning to wonder if their takeover on NBC has resulted in these changes. A few months back they announced there would be changes. And changes need to be done to keep people from tuning out broadcast in favor of cable and premium network offerings like Mad Men and Dexter (whose final season begins Sunday).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dennett on Stuff
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: He was after all defending Aristotle et.al. from facile criticism in the article salyavin808 referred to. Which article was this, again? That I'd like to read. ;-) Well given the title of the article: Daniel Dennett: 'You can make Aristotle look like a flaming idiot', and given the context of recent discussions in which salyavin808 posted, it did seem to me at first Oh, here we go, new atheist rubbishes iron age philosopher. But then when I read it, I think Dennett is saying the exact opposite. From the key passage: But Dennett also maintains that we need philosophy to protect us from scientific overreach. The history of philosophy is the history of very tempting mistakes made by very smart people, and if you don't learn that history you'll make those mistakes again and again and again. One of the ignoble joys of my life is watching very smart scientists just reinvent all the second-rate philosophical ideas because they're very tempting until you pause, take a deep breath and take them apart. Ridicule and misrepresentation are in some sense an occupational hazard for the philosopher. The best philosophers are always walking a tightrope where one misstep either side is just nonsense, he says. That's why caricatures are too easy to be worth doing. You can make any philosopher any, Aristotle, Kant, you name it look like a complete flaming idiot with just a slightest little tweak. I take him to mean by that they are most certainly *not* idiots. What he calls a 'tweak' would be gratuitous.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Champions Trophy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Richard - yes I'm definitely going to be watching the finals Come on Ravi. Stop snoring and out of your pit. Yeah, just step over those gopi girls. The match is starting. And, I say, what bad luck, India have lost the toss on a sticky wicket. Uh, oh, belay that. It's now raining at Edgbaston. As you were. What do you reckon? Anderson versus Dhawan. Anderson's my man!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Champions Trophy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: On Jun 23, 2013, at 2:58 AM, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Richard - yes I'm definitely going to be watching the finals Come on Ravi. Stop snoring and out of your pit. Yeah, just step over those gopi girls. The match is starting. And, I say, what bad luck, India have lost the toss on a sticky wicket. Uh, oh, belay that. It's now raining at Edgbaston. As you were. What do you reckon? Anderson versus Dhawan. Anderson's my man! I'm up Richard - after an hour of sleep, tired and awake, lying on the bed with my laptop on and had to respond to your post :-) Good for you! I'm having to follow it by blog as I don't have a sports subscription channel. But you've got it on the web? Can you post the URL? (latest: Oh and dear, och and vey. It's raining heavily, and we're watching old footage. Prepare for the dreaded set-in.) Yes - bad luck with the toss, but I'm banking on Dhawan. Don't forget we have 2 Ravi's in our team and you just got one LOL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Champions Trophy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Richard - The site is espncricinfo.com, the match is being streamed live for free on ESPN3, not sure if its available in UK - but do check and let me know (I'm curious). Nah, live commentary/scorecard only for us. Yeah - hopefully the rain relents because I may have hard time going back to sleep now. There's supposed to be a dry patch after this band of heavy rain? It's not persistent, heavy rain at least. And clearing later. http://www.xcweather.co.uk/forecast/edgbaston
[FairfieldLife] Re: Champions Trophy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Yes - bad luck with the toss, but I'm banking on Dhawan. Don't forget we have 2 Ravi's in our team and you just got one LOL. Perhaps one Ravworth counts for two Ravis? 5.49pm WICKET! Dhawan c Tredwell b Ravworth Bopara 31 (India 50/2) A useful innings though. I think the ball is too wet for my man Anderson. That's our excuse ;-) Hang on, breaking news. Have I been saying Anderson? I meant Treadwell (who he?) 6.01pm WICKET! Karthik c Morgan b Tredwell 6 (India 64/3)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Champions Trophy
6:10pm My man! DOUBLE WICKET DHONI OUT MAIDEN! Dhoni c Tredwell b Bopara 0 (India 66/5) Or should I say my TWO men (stop sniggering in the back) Tredwell and Ravi (aka Ravworth). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Yes - bad luck with the toss, but I'm banking on Dhawan. Don't forget we have 2 Ravi's in our team and you just got one LOL. Perhaps one Ravworth counts for two Ravis? 5.49pm WICKET! Dhawan c Tredwell b Ravworth Bopara 31 (India 50/2) A useful innings though. I think the ball is too wet for my man Anderson. That's our excuse ;-) Hang on, breaking news. Have I been saying Anderson? I meant Treadwell (who he?) 6.01pm WICKET! Karthik c Morgan b Tredwell 6 (India 64/3)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Champions Trophy
The Tao Of Cricket (I think I'm channeling Buck with all these nutty posts. But the sap is rising!). Higgs-boson, dematerialisation - it's all there: 6.17pm BST 15th over: India 79/5 (Kohli 27, Jadeja 3) Virat Kohli's arms and/or bat are made of higgs-boson. To Bopara's first ball, delivered outside off-stump, he dematerialises a drive through cover, and then, for the first time, picks a slower ball, sweeping it to the boundary, one bounce. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: 6:10pm My man! DOUBLE WICKET DHONI OUT MAIDEN! Dhoni c Tredwell b Bopara 0 (India 66/5) Or should I say my TWO men (stop sniggering in the back) Tredwell and Ravi (aka Ravworth). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Yes - bad luck with the toss, but I'm banking on Dhawan. Don't forget we have 2 Ravi's in our team and you just got one LOL. Perhaps one Ravworth counts for two Ravis? 5.49pm WICKET! Dhawan c Tredwell b Ravworth Bopara 31 (India 50/2) A useful innings though. I think the ball is too wet for my man Anderson. That's our excuse ;-) Hang on, breaking news. Have I been saying Anderson? I meant Treadwell (who he?) 6.01pm WICKET! Karthik c Morgan b Tredwell 6 (India 64/3)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: This is all one non sequitur after another, salyavin. Argument by assertion doesn't really do the trick, you know, just makes you look intellectually dishonest like the rest of the New Atheists. Why do you even start if you aren't going to follow through? Why do you call everyone you disagree with intellectually dishonest? Sooner or later you always do. Show of hands...how many here have been at one time or another been accused by Judy of being intellectually dishonest? See? Almost everyone. :-) It's a badge of honour. Or a new game called Judy Bingo, if you get one intellectually dishonest or just plain liar every day for a week there is a special prize. I've been called arrogant, a liar, dishonest and stupid all because I don't believe in god or astrology. I don't think anyone else has trouble following my arguments. Er...(little voice at the back): I do! I was meaning to come back to you about the Krauss-ism Judy posted. But am otherwise engaged. But surely, *surely*, you're not impressed with that? Go figure, as they say.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did the Earth move for you?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Yes, Share, I know you were referring to what salyavin said Dawkins said Williams said. My point was that you assumed this third-hand characterization was accurate, in spite of both Dawkins's and salyavin's own wooly-headed thinking about theism. If I can add my two-pennyworth, I would say it's a bit *clever* of our Salyavin to attempt to deflect this debate on to the wooliness or otherwise of Rowan Williams, ex-archbishop of Canterbury. Williams *is* the very archetype of the nice, well- intentioned but woolly-headed Church of England theist. Having said that, he is also extremely bright (and sensitive) and probably has some quite subtle points to make. But he is an easy target (superficially). And new atheists, especially Dawkins, specialise in picking on what they see as the low hanging fruit. I expect I have seen many of the same TV programs with Dawkins that Salyavin has seen. Typically the format is that you will see him debating some carefully chosen redneck. You do *not* see him in the ring with a serious philosopher or theist with a thorough grounding in the classics (or even modern philosophy such as Wittgenstein or Popper). Or perhaps that's above my subscription TV pay level. It seems to me one would want to know what Williams *actually* said before concluding there was any danger of a mental explosion due to cognitive dissonance, much less that such purported cognitive dissonance was the core of this debate (which debate?--as I said, not the debate salyavin and I were having). If you mean the debate between science and religion generally, I would suggest that one needs to inform oneself thoroughly about the nature of the debate before drawing simplistic conclusions as to what its core is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Judy, here's the excerpt from salyavin I was replying to both in suggesting what for me is the core of this debate and in referring to a potential explosion when one entertains both scientific knowledge and belief in one's one skull: Quite right too. Dawkins interviewed the archbishop of Canterbury about his beliefs and was astonished that this king of wooly thinking didn't really believe most of the bible - except as moral teaching - leading Dawkins to ask why he didn't preach science from the pulpit if he agrees with it so much. He didn't have an answer really, part of the weird disconnect that the devout must have these days if they are honest. snip RD met a science teacher at a high school in the UK who believes the earth is 4000 years old. How can you hold both knowledge and belief with exploding in cognitive dissonance. This teacher didn't mind and perfectly understood both positions. Poor RD was stunned into silence. Share again: Of course I have assumed that salyavin meant to write: How can you hold both knowledge and belief withOUT exploding in cognitive dissonance? I say let's hook up that teacher or the ABofC to fMRI so that poor RD no longer has to be stunned into silence by such wooly thinking. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 10:05 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Did the Earth move for you? Â --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: (snip) On the Dawkins topic: for me the core of the debate seems to lie in understanding the nature of cognitive dissonance or what you call weird disconnect or wooly thinking. Well, that isn't where the core of the debate salyavin and I have been having lies, no. Perhaps you're thinking of some other debate not currently taking place on FFL. I say let's hook up the ABofC to an fMRI and see what actually happens inside his skull when he expresses such a potentially explosive combo of belief and scientific knowledge. I know you say you're joking about the fMRI, but I'm curious as to why you assume Williams has ever expressed a potentially explosive combo of belief and scientific knowledge. Or are you joking about that too? Yep, I'm making a joke and I admit that whenever you make such a point, inside my head I'm screaming gap, gap, gap! Maybe Dawkins doesn't have one. Let's hook him up to fMRI too (-:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Champions Trophy
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Yeah I can't believe this Palisopher - you got one Indian and he takes out 3 of our best batters - is this his day? An Indian winning this for English? http://youtu.be/8Fb8snjIQyo Damn he just caught Kohli :-( On Jun 23, 2013, at 10:23 AM, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: The Tao Of Cricket (I think I'm channeling Buck with all these nutty posts. But the sap is rising!). Higgs-boson, dematerialisation - it's all there: 6.17pm BST 15th over: India 79/5 (Kohli 27, Jadeja 3) Virat Kohli's arms and/or bat are made of higgs-boson. To Bopara's first ball, delivered outside off-stump, he dematerialises a drive through cover, and then, for the first time, picks a slower ball, sweeping it to the boundary, one bounce. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: 6:10pm My man! DOUBLE WICKET DHONI OUT MAIDEN! Dhoni c Tredwell b Bopara 0 (India 66/5) Or should I say my TWO men (stop sniggering in the back) Tredwell and Ravi (aka Ravworth). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Yes - bad luck with the toss, but I'm banking on Dhawan. Don't forget we have 2 Ravi's in our team and you just got one LOL. Perhaps one Ravworth counts for two Ravis? 5.49pm WICKET! Dhawan c Tredwell b Ravworth Bopara 31 (India 50/2) A useful innings though. I think the ball is too wet for my man Anderson. That's our excuse ;-) Hang on, breaking news. Have I been saying Anderson? I meant Treadwell (who he?) 6.01pm WICKET! Karthik c Morgan b Tredwell 6 (India 64/3)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Champions Trophy
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: OK, it's getting tense, but our very own Ravi is in now. OVER 10: ENG 46/4 (Morgan 1* Bopara 0*) Morgan plays out a maiden to Ashwin, men all around the bat. Oh, so now you're fielding with one of the divine twin horsemen from the Rigveda, son of Saranya (daughter of vishwakarma), a goddess of the clouds and wife of Surya in his form as Vivasvat? That's cheating, and you know it. It's a 20-over Test match on a day five bunsen all of a sudden. That run rate is getting worrisome: 84 needed from 60 balls
[FairfieldLife] Re: Champions Trophy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Well really enjoying your humor there Mr. Palisopher - but tense as hell now. I'm like get Ravi Bopara out. I think that's called ritam or something: WICKET! Bopara c square leg b Ishant 30 On Jun 23, 2013, at 11:58 AM, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: OK, it's getting tense, but our very own Ravi is in now. OVER 10: ENG 46/4 (Morgan 1* Bopara 0*) Morgan plays out a maiden to Ashwin, men all around the bat. Oh, so now you're fielding with one of the divine twin horsemen from the Rigveda, son of Saranya (daughter of vishwakarma), a goddess of the clouds and wife of Surya in his form as Vivasvat? That's cheating, and you know it. It's a 20-over Test match on a day five bunsen all of a sudden. That run rate is getting worrisome: 84 needed from 60 balls
[FairfieldLife] Re: Champions Trophy
Groan! ...Ashwin to bowl the last over. (Objection!) Ball five. Tredwell slaps it back down the ground for two. SIX NEEDED OFF THE LAST BALL Ball six. Tredwell misses it! INDIA WIN Man is not made for defeat Ernest Hemingway --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Well really enjoying your humor there Mr. Palisopher - but tense as hell now. I'm like get Ravi Bopara out. I think that's called ritam or something: WICKET! Bopara c square leg b Ishant 30 On Jun 23, 2013, at 11:58 AM, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: OK, it's getting tense, but our very own Ravi is in now. OVER 10: ENG 46/4 (Morgan 1* Bopara 0*) Morgan plays out a maiden to Ashwin, men all around the bat. Oh, so now you're fielding with one of the divine twin horsemen from the Rigveda, son of Saranya (daughter of vishwakarma), a goddess of the clouds and wife of Surya in his form as Vivasvat? That's cheating, and you know it. It's a 20-over Test match on a day five bunsen all of a sudden. That run rate is getting worrisome: 84 needed from 60 balls
[FairfieldLife] Re: Champions Trophy
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Yay - India won !!! Sorry Richard - really Morgan and Bopara messed it up. God they only needed 21 off 16 !!! U saying Ravi messed up? I was counting on him! Good match in the end. It's not the winning but the taking part that counts - and other assorted bollocks, which is all we're left with. Hey - others may have hated this thread. But I enjoyed it, loved your humor :-) On Jun 23, 2013, at 12:24 PM, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Well really enjoying your humor there Mr. Palisopher - but tense as hell now. I'm like get Ravi Bopara out. I think that's called ritam or something: WICKET! Bopara c square leg b Ishant 30 On Jun 23, 2013, at 11:58 AM, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: OK, it's getting tense, but our very own Ravi is in now. OVER 10: ENG 46/4 (Morgan 1* Bopara 0*) Morgan plays out a maiden to Ashwin, men all around the bat. Oh, so now you're fielding with one of the divine twin horsemen from the Rigveda, son of Saranya (daughter of vishwakarma), a goddess of the clouds and wife of Surya in his form as Vivasvat? That's cheating, and you know it. It's a 20-over Test match on a day five bunsen all of a sudden. That run rate is getting worrisome: 84 needed from 60 balls
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Dilettante's Delight... The cat is a dilettante in fur Théophile Gautier http://goo.gl/n2Ljn
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Dilettante's Delight... Feser: To be sure, I had read the usual selections from Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas and Anselm that pretty much every philosophy student reads -- several of Plato's dialogues, the Five Ways, chapter 2 of the Proslogium, and so forth. Indeed, I read a lot more than that. I'd read the entire Proslogium of Anselm, as well as the Monologium, the Cur Deus Homo, and the exchange with Gaunilo, early in my undergraduate years. I'd read Aquinas's De Ente et Essentia and De Principiis Naturae, big chunks of Plotinus's Enneads, Athanasius's On the Incarnation, Augustine's Concerning the Teacher, and Bonaventure's The Mind's Road to God. I'd read Russell's History of Western Philosophy -- hardly an unbiased source, to be sure -- but also a bit of Gilson. All while becoming an atheist during my undergrad years. And I still didn't understand the classical tradition. Oh, man!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, PaliGap--
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: I wanted to let you know how grateful I am to you for calling my attention to Feser's blog a couple months ago, after he'd fallen off my radar screen. That's so nice to hear! Actually I first came across him only recently via our friend MavPhil. http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/. Feser seems to in the forefront of a bit of an Aristotelian renaissance that we are seeing at the moment. I'm sure Robin's a fan. But as a Catholic conservative, I rather think you will dislike some of his political/social ideas. I'm in the process now of beefing up my rudimentary philosophy-of-religion background with his assistance (i.e., via his many posts on the topic). Currently I'm working my way through a long post on the Cosmological Argument related to his series of 10 posts annihilating Rosenberg's Atheists' Guide to Reality. He's a really good explainer of this stuff. Yes, I find that too. Though my interest is not so much in his theistic stuff as with the consciousness issue. He seems to follow the 'part of tens' idea (with which I am quite familiar, having had an extensive education from the Blah Blah For Dummies books). So to match his 10 posts there, he also has 10 posts on Nagel and his critics. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/nagel-and-his- critics-part-i.html I have to keep looking up terms, but so far I've been able to follow him without too much trouble, and I'm having a wonderful time. It'll probably take me a month or so to go through everything he's posted along these lines (plus read all the articles and posts of others he links to)-- I've really just gotten started as of yesterday--and I may have to get a book or two of his as well. But it's such a delight to see him take apart the incompetent arguments of (many of?) the New Atheists. You didn't know you were doing me a huge favor by referring me to that post of his on Descartes, but thank you anyway!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: the flooding @ Uttarkashi Ashram Purusha From Mi...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: and probably could have developed a pretty good golf game. LOL! Perhaps Guru Dev was spirituality's gain, but cricket's loss? http://youtu.be/ur5fGSBsfq8
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: the flooding @ Uttarkashi Ashram Purusha From Mi...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:57 AM, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: and probably could have developed a pretty good golf game. LOL! Perhaps Guru Dev was spirituality's gain, but cricket's loss? âSo are you watching the Champions trophy? I've been following it a bit. Seems we have a promising England v. India final. You gonna watch that? You're in for a pasting you know. For me though, the big one has always been the Ashes. We're at home this summer, and the Aussies look to be vulnerable. (And I'm also very interested in the British Irish Lions rugby v the Aussies down under. First test Saturday. Paging Robin! Paging Robin!).
[FairfieldLife] Politician's Wife Unhappy Over Alien Affair
Married father-of-three Simon Parkes, who represents Stakesby on Whitby Town Council, said his wife had rowed with him after revealing he had a child called Zarka with an alien he refers to as the Cat Queen. http://goo.gl/XzWXp One reader's comment: The Natural Law and Monster Raving Looney Parties now seem so sensible
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: We don't know what it is doesn't mean they go along with the conspiracy theory that the world is being visited by giant UFOs, we'd be able to tell, what with radar and eyesight and everything. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jun/10/insibility-cloak-animals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology
[FairfieldLife] Re: Signs
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: We don't know what it is doesn't mean they go along with the conspiracy theory that the world is being visited by giant UFOs, we'd be able to tell, what with radar and eyesight and everything. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jun/10/insibility-cloak-animals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology Is this an attempt to explain why we don't see these UFOs even though they appear on NASA videos? Colour me baffled. No, just why we might *not* be able to tell (as you say) what with radar and eyesight and everything. Why they might then appear on NASA videos is, well, a mystery. Perhaps they don't. Or they do, and they're just messin' with us? Or perhaps, like all of us, they screw up. I dunno (my default state).
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Philosophy Of Arseholeness
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: Browsing in the high-falutin' section of my local book shop today I came across this: Assholes: A Theory by philosopher Aaron James http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=4884 Sounds like fun. (But alas it's cheaper online so my local shop may loose out). Don't be a cheap A-hole and buy it from your local book store. I mean, surely you can afford to spend an extra $5-$10 to support the little independent. Well I'm a poor, poor man Ann, but yes, I know. Guilt felt! Except this isn't a little independent, but a national chain (http://www.waterstones.com/). They have the blood of little independents on their hands! And also, they sell the book online themselves cheaper than on the street (but not as cheap as Amazon). Perhaps I would do right by buying from the latter and giving the difference to my local cat charity, or to David Lynch's thing? The thing is though - I spent a happy hour browsing the books, and if I generalised my action (if I and everyone else did this...) then probably I would lose that option. So you need not appeal to my self-respect so much as to my self-interest? By comparison Arjuna's dilemma looks like a walk in the park. I only went in for a coffee. (BTW what's the difference between an asshole and an arsehole? Does one get published, and the other not? Or are we, as so often, divided by our common language?) From a review on Amazon: James classifies a-holes by type, including the boorish a-hole (Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore), the smug a-hole (Richard Dawkins, Larry Summers), the a-hole boss (Naomi Campbell), the presidential a-hole (Hugo Chavez), the reckless a-hole (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld), the self-aggrandizing a-hole (Ralph Nader), the cable news a-hole (Neil Cavuto, Keith Olbermann), and the delusional a-hole (Kanye West, Wall Street bankers). James covers the spectrum from liberals to conservatives in his search for a-holes and applies his test with, I think, a nonpartisan outlook. Also looking promising and about my tribe: How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Philosophy Of Arseholeness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: Browsing in the high-falutin' section of my local book shop today I came across this: Assholes: A Theory by philosopher Aaron James http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=4884 Sounds like fun. (But alas it's cheaper online so my local shop may loose out). Don't be a cheap A-hole and buy it from your local book store. I mean, surely you can afford to spend an extra $5-$10 to support the little independent. Well I'm a poor, poor man Ann, but yes, I know. Guilt felt! Except this isn't a little independent, but a national chain (http://www.waterstones.com/). They have the blood of little independents on their hands! And also, they sell the book online themselves cheaper than on the street (but not as cheap as Amazon). Perhaps I would do right by buying from the latter and giving the difference to my local cat charity, or to David Lynch's thing? Good compromise (but perhaps a dog or horse charity would be more to my liking). And yes, if it was just the big Waterstones chain then don't worry about it. I am more interested in the little ma and pa corner bookstore who will be going the way of the dodo within the next few years. Being a small independent tack store I feel their pain! I have a big Canadian tack store chain/franchise five minutes down the road from my store so I am very sensitive on this issue. The stated purpose of this said chain is to drive the independents out of business. Lovely. As if there isn't enough business to go around (which there is in Victoria where I live) but the big, mean ugly owner of the overall franchise just doesn't want to share. Luckily, there are still informed consumers out there who like the idea of shopping locally and supporting small, customer service based retailers. The thing is though - I spent a happy hour browsing the books, and if I generalised my action (if I and everyone else did this...) then probably I would lose that option. So you need not appeal to my self-respect so much as to my self-interest? Ah, the age old story with us pathetic humans. What's in it for me? By comparison Arjuna's dilemma looks like a walk in the park. I only went in for a coffee. I'd be happy to buy - if we ever meet. No, please. It's on me. I insist! (BTW what's the difference between an asshole and an arsehole? Does one get published, and the other not? Or are we, as so often, divided by our common language?) From a review on Amazon: James classifies a-holes by type, including the boorish a-hole (Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore), the smug a-hole (Richard Dawkins, Larry Summers), the a-hole boss (Naomi Campbell), the presidential a-hole (Hugo Chavez), the reckless a-hole (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld), the self-aggrandizing a-hole (Ralph Nader), the cable news a-hole (Neil Cavuto, Keith Olbermann), and the delusional a-hole (Kanye West, Wall Street bankers). James covers the spectrum from liberals to conservatives in his search for a-holes and applies his test with, I think, a nonpartisan outlook. Also looking promising and about my tribe: How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival
[FairfieldLife] Re: RD's astrological analysis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: Any planetary influence will affect you whether you are in the womb or out of it. Birth is purely symbolic as far as the baby is concerned, it's fully formed in there. http://youtu.be/0emeaSF6uPY
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote: Michael, you have the right idea. Leading a good wholesome life and learning from your mistakes and challenges. Being a better person when you leave than when you came. Growing more aware and accomplished. While you have a deep resentment for TM or anything to do with M, I see it(TM) as *greasing the skids*. You still have to pull a weight through life but TM can make it a lot easier. In the early days of the TM movement M always said it wasn't necessary to change anything about your life, just add TM. Didn't need to adopt a new religion etc. TM would make you better at whatever you were or did. It greases the skids of evolution. Amen. To me, religion hopping , living other cultures, whatever, is avoiding one's dharma. If you don't learn what you were supposed to learn, you might have to go through the same thing again. From: Michael Jackson mjackson74@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Â real dharma is supposed to be that action which is most evolutionary in any given moment, which for me is eating venison (I did for lunch), visiting with my daughter tomorrow and watching Warehouse 13 with her and her mother on Sunday might, oh and also my dharma is also not doing TM ever again in this life or any other - in fact, I am so powerful in my dharma that my not doing TMSP counteracts the effect of all the people sleeping in the Golden Domes of Pure Knowledge. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Â Just as a question, what exactly is it that makeseither Maharishi or the Bhagavad-Gita an authority,one whose opinion should be valued or followed asif it were truth?While we're at it, since both of you are talking about dharma as if it were a Done Deal, and youunderstand what it is, what is it? Define dharma for us. If you can't, please tell us who or what you believeIS capable of defining dharma, and telling someonewhether their actions are either in accord with it or not in accord with it. And follow up by telling us why you believe this who or what should beregarded as an authority. Thanks in advance...--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Mike I think Maharishi says better one's own dharma than the dharma of another though higher. The dharma of another brings danger. From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. Be true to your dharma. You don't have to become a Hindu, Buddhist or anything you weren't born as to enjoy it. Doesn't M say in the Gita, better to observe your own dharma poorly, than someone elses, well? From: Buck dhamiltony2k5@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:17 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E. ÃÂ Anywhere, anytime, anybody who is looking for this knowledge must get it, because the Absolute is not for a single race, colour, creed or nation. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Scientific research shows that even small groups of people meditating (as little as the square root of one percent of the population) can quietly transform trends in society from conflict and enmity to peace and cooperation. Yes, the Meissner Effect --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Origins of the ME and the TM western millenarian movement: There is a much better way of helping others. It is not to have the desire as such but to meditate so purely that there is such a wealth of goodness in the individual that anyone who is in need can come and get it naturally. In this way it will be abundantly available to everyone, very much like the sun which does not direct its light to any single place, but anyone who wants to have help or light from the sun can take it. So the better way is to have finer energy or more Sattva in oneself; this can be used by anybody who needs it. --Swami Shantanand Saraswati Quote Source: book in LB Shriver's reading library,Good CompanyAn Anthology ofsayings, stories, andanswers to questions of His Holiness Shantanand Saraswati[Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math] The Luminary who followed Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswatias Shankaracharya.Do See FFL post #345760
[FairfieldLife] Re: someone who understands M.E.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Are you an intentional agent or a robot? If you cannot find out, it will make no difference. You're not sure if you're a robot? Sheesh, Ravi's going to have fun with that. I think I know I'm not. I think you know you're not too. I think we know that prior to anything else we know. That's probably prior in the sense of logically prior. If you were a robot you could not *believe* anything. Or *have a view*. Only a robot containing a homunculus can do that. My computer has no homunculus. It doesn't know it's not a person. It not even doesn't know 'nuttin'. It simply *isn't*.
[FairfieldLife] The Philosophy Of Arseholeness
Browsing in the high-falutin' section of my local book shop today I came across this: Assholes: A Theory by philosopher Aaron James http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=4884 Sounds like fun. (But alas it's cheaper online so my local shop may loose out). (BTW what's the difference between an asshole and an arsehole? Does one get published, and the other not? Or are we, as so often, divided by our common language?) From a review on Amazon: James classifies a-holes by type, including the boorish a-hole (Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore), the smug a-hole (Richard Dawkins, Larry Summers), the a-hole boss (Naomi Campbell), the presidential a-hole (Hugo Chavez), the reckless a-hole (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld), the self-aggrandizing a-hole (Ralph Nader), the cable news a-hole (Neil Cavuto, Keith Olbermann), and the delusional a-hole (Kanye West, Wall Street bankers). James covers the spectrum from liberals to conservatives in his search for a-holes and applies his test with, I think, a nonpartisan outlook. Also looking promising and about my tribe: How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: In reading your objections to astrology, I fail to see anything except objections to the *causal* way of looking at it. An Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter if the planets *cause* the effects if it's the planets that can be used to *measure* the effects. Do you get that, it's pivotal. You can claim it's got nothing to do with planets until you are blue in the face but go see an astrologer and they will cast a chart of the positions of the planets at the time of your birth. So cause or not they are interlinked in what should be a measurable predictable way. Even if it's all just happening at the same time in some mysterious synchronicitous way. ... Being familiar with another explanation doesn't remove the relevance of missing planets etc. But it does. On the non-causal model of astrology you can choose *any* random event to *read* the totality. If you choose some planets and ignore others (or are ignorant of others), it is irrelevant. You can read tea leaves instead if you prefer. Then we're talking divination rather than astrology, but I think the principle is the same. You use this phrase above: ...planets that can be used to *measure* the effects. In expressing it that way you have already ruled out synchronicity (as that is an a-causal principle). Effects are the the manifestations of causes. On the non-causal model planets form some perspective (time and place) are used as *signs* of the state of the totality. Rather like a runny nose is a sign of a cold (but not its cause). Rather like a headache and a temperature may be additional signs. If some ancient society did not have the technology to measure, say, temperature, as we do today, that doesn't invalidate their use of other signs (ditto absence of some planets from an astrological system).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Yugas of Sri Yukteswar
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: Further, another American researcher theorized that the Sphinx may have been built about 16,000 years ago. He calculated that it was a monument to show that it was built when the vernal equinox occurred during the sign of Leo. The most interesting thing I have seen that suggests that the Sphinx may be older than is currently thought is the theory of geologist Robert M. Schoch. He contends that it is only serious rainfall that could have caused the kind of erosion seen on the Sphinx. And because he believes that kind of climate significantly predates the time of Khufu (4.5K years ago), the origin of the Sphinx is a mystery (which is fun). I don't see that he has been conclusively rebutted. It seems to me (from my limited knowledge) that the archaeologists do not take kindly to other disciplines treading on their patch (such turf wars are evident in the climate debate IMO). But there are other more powerful criticisms from some fellow geologists it seems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis http://www.robertschoch.com/sphinxcontent.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Dwarf Planet Astrology Regarding your *devastating* critique of astrology... Have you heard of/considered/understood (delete as appropriate) Jung's concept of synchronicity? I know that as a naive positivist it may be anathema - but do you understand it? The positions of the heavens at a particular moment in time, by reflecting the qualities of that moment, also reflect the qualities of anything born at that moment. [...] One does not cause the other; they are synchronous, and mirror each other. http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_pa_synchro_e.htm If there is something to astrology (if), then it is *not* about causation, or about the *correctness* or *completeness* of any particular astronomical system. It is about the possibility that the *quality* of any *significant* moment can potentially reveal information about the state of the totality. It could be dividing some yarrow stalks, reading some tea leaves, tossing some coins, looking at something significant at the point of birth...whatever. You chose. Note the word: It is about the *Quality* of the moment (in a Hegelian sense) that is chosen. It is an art, not a science. As one of the recent threads on FFL has been delving into the pseudoscience of astrology, I have been spending my time reading sections of a blog written by a sociopath, which is rather interesting reading, it kind of just slides right in with the psychotic nature of FFL and the 'neuro typical' and 'empath' population here, to use some names for most of us from the creative folk in sociopath land (there are some extraordinarliy intelligrnt sociopaths out there, and you probably know some without being aware that they are not like you). There seems to be some specific crossovers between sociopaths and enlightenment as far as mental states of experience. Perhaps I will start a thread on that later on. To get back to astrology. As scientifically astrology basically has zero predictive properties (except in the minds of its practitioners), I thought it might be better to introduce dwarf planet astrology, and chuck the original systems, both Western and Eastern. Unfortunately my idea is not original. Others have already jumped into the fray. The current locations of dwarf planets and dwarf planet candidates [the candidates are marked '(a)' from officially named dwarfs]: (the '#709;' symbol means 'subscript' if it gets through Yahoo's alphanumeric-symbol, character-entity translation software, otherwise whatever shows up on your computer should be an inverted carat [cheers Share ÂÂÂ]) Ceres Gemini HaumeaBootes Makemake ComaBerenices Eris Cetus Pluto-Charon Sagittarius Sedna (a) Taurus Varuna (a)Gemini Quaoar (a)Serpens Cauda Orcus (a) Sextans Ixion (a) Ophiuchus 2002 TC#709;302 (a) Aries 2007 OR#709;10 (a) Aries Since size and distance of those little pointy lights in the sky make no difference in astrology, it certainly is possible that these tiny dim pointy lights could have a VAST influence on humanity and our little world. At least there are some that think so. For example: --- 2007 OR10 and 2002 TC302 astrology 'Perhaps the striking news is that the newly discovered 2007 OR10 , near in size to Pluto, seems to has a strong astrological effect, at least derived by mundane astrology observations.' 'The fact is that in the recent millenia, 2007 OR10 has been orbiting near Eris, just beyond it, with a similar orbital period, and therefore makes things a little bit confusing to distinguish.' 'I see that every time 2007 OR10 has entered Aries a whole lot of global changes have happened: this was circa 150-50 BC, 350-450 AC, 1000 AC, 1470-1520 AC and now 1990-2040.' '2007 OR10 will enter the mid degrees of Aries in the years ahead, as it did in 1490, the years of the discovery (and conquests) of America, or approximately during the fall of Rome circa 350-410, or during the Roman conquests of the Greece and Egypt, two powerful and influencing civilizations. It enters the critical 10-11º Aries in 2010-2014, (like in 1492) then stays during the more intense Aries energy until 2047 (like in 1520).' 'Therefore, we predict a new unfolding wave of discoveries, 'conquests' and societal reconstruction, a civilization shift in balance.' 'It's still too soon to assert its astrological meaning. But judging by several chart readings, it seems that 2007 OR10 is full of positive energy, vibrant and a strong creative and ever-flowing energy (but it is in Aries too).' --- At least Western astrology, with its positioning flaws, is investigating new information unlike Vedic astrology, which remains in the Iron Age. If we had Vedic physics, we perhaps could allow atoms, but eschew sub-atomic particles as not being
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: Do tell us about the actual principles that I haven't understood in all these years reading about it. That's been done already hasn't it? To repeat: The positions of the heavens at a particular moment in time, by reflecting the qualities of that moment, also reflect the qualities of anything born at that moment. [...] One does not cause the other; they are synchronous, and mirror each other. http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_pa_synchro_e.htm In reading your objections to astrology, I fail to see anything except objections to the *causal* way of looking at it. An Aunt Sally. My impression is that you are *not* familiar with the synchronicity approach. Or are you? If you are, what has all the wittering on about missing planets, bronze age astronomy and the like got to do with it? (By the same token, this also addresses the issue of induced birth I would have thought). I am suggesting that astrology subscribes to a metaphysics of the World as a totality. It *is* a metaphysics (but then so is your naturalism). But quite an appealing one. FWIW, my experience of astrology is that I have been convinced that there is something going on. But its practical use may be zero.
[FairfieldLife] Re: For MJ and the Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: If you can watch the Twin Peaks series and NOT say that son of a bitch is ill in his feeble mind then there is something seriously wrong with you. Proud to be in the legions you decry. Loved it (well series one anyway). http://youtu.be/RFPLk5mJ1D4
[FairfieldLife] Re: Another Voice in the Argument about Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: This reminds me of the classic scenes from Dark Star. In the first, Sgt. Doolittle tries to talk the AI bomb out of exploding while still attached to the ship: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29pPZQ77cmI In the second, we see the results of his efforts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9-Niv2Xh7w Thanks for posting this. I'd seen it ages and ages ago and forgotten about it. Excellent!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Repost: what is science?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card cardemaister@... wrote: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. -- Richard Feynman Wonder what he would have thought of peer review?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Another Voice in the Argument about Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: I've had no formal training in philosophy... Philosophy's loss.
[FairfieldLife] Re: For MJ and the Turq
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: If you can watch the Twin Peaks series and NOT say that son of a bitch is ill in his feeble mind then there is something seriously wrong with you. Must be something wrong with me, then. I thought much of Twin Peaks was brilliant. Some comments require no response, because not only is one not necessary, it would detract from what the poster in question already said. :-) So I will merely repost Alex's comment on the subject, which kinda says it all: http://youtu.be/QdO9orWQ-Nk You know I tried. I really DID try. Just couldn't *get* it. http://youtu.be/-wGcFofX7Hc
[FairfieldLife] Re: Another Voice in the Argument about Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Did you read David Albert's review of Krauss's Universe from Nothing in the NY Times? It's a thing of beauty: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe- from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html http://tinyurl.com/d84oev8 I hadn't seen that - many thanks. Poor old Krauss. Perhaps there could be more to his view than is being credited here? I don't see it myself. As suggested in the article, it *does* seem to be that Krauss has simply confused the question of where does matter come from? with that ancient hard problem: Why is there something rather than nothing? David Albert touches on another perhaps equally hard problem: The reality of abstract entities (in this case the laws of quantum mechanics). Worrying about the reality of abstract entities is pretty alien to the modern mind. And just as you point out that Dennett simply doesn't seem to *get* the hard problem (of consciousness), so too I would suggest that this other hard problem tends to just get brushed aside.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Another Voice in the Argument about Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Question for you: In the paragraph from Philosophy Always Buries Its Undertakers that begins We are also told that physics mishandles time, what does the locution abstracts from mean? And in the post Why Do We Need Philosophy? what does time is not exhausted by the B-series mean? (I understand what the B-series is, but I don't get exhausted by. Well I'll give it my best shot! What I think MavPhil (Maverick Philosopher) is doing is trying to preserve his patch. That's to say I think he sees the proper place of Physics as being Nature - the realm of space- time-matter. But the latter is not a complete description or understanding of Reality, which also includes consciousness (at least) and (maybe) other proper subjects of a rational metaphysics such as God, universals, and goodness knows what else. Rational metaphysics is the province of Philosophy. Physicists should *keep out!* (qua physicist). I think MavPhil is fully signed up to recognising our favourite, the hard problem of consciousness. But I also think he rules out the possibilty of a naturalistic solution of that problem. It's not just that we haven't yet solved it (by science); we can never solve it. (Caveat: I have been dipping in and out of MavPhil's stuff a bit casually and may be getting him quite wrong!). In this context we can see him deploying this little locution of his - abtracts from: Physics cannot be said to fail to accommodate consciousness for the simple reason that that is not the job of physics to do any such thing. Physics abstracts from consciousness. Conscious beings such as me and my cats can be studied from the point of view of physics since we are physical objects, though not just physical objects. In other words Science can study our minds as brains (and bodies) only. But a complete description of a brain may well be true, and may well be of great value, but it is not a study of consciousness. Or, put it another way, physics can describe and theorise about the quantitative properties of the world, but is forever locked out of its qualitative nature. It abstracts from the non-quantitative. When he talks about time, I think he is doing exactly the same thing. Time is another hard problem (like the problem of consciousness). Just as with consciousness it is possible to reduce time to something that can be expressed objectively (the 'B-series' e.g. the year before 2013). This can only be done by abstracting from, by removing the aspect of time that is observer-dependent (the A-series e.g. last year). So to say time is not exhausted by the B-series is to say that the B-series way of describing time is only a partial view of Time's real nature (just as brain activity is only a partial view of the reality of consciousness). It's not the full monty. Can you have an A-series without there being Nagelian entities viz. things such that there is something that it is like to have a perspective on the world?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Another Voice in the Argument about Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: John Searle at CERN (TEDxTalks) http://youtu.be/j_OPQgPIdKg [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=j_OPQgPIdKg ] Searle, Dennet Zombies: http://goo.gl/K6NsO http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/04/searle-dennett-and-zombies.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Another Voice in the Argument about Consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sjn99YTh4U Oh, yes - one of the classics. This zombie issue is an interesting one, eh? Xeno posted an objection from Dennett, but I couldn't really follow his thinking. It felt a bit like bluster. I subscribe to Maverick Philosopher's RSS feed. I think he's very good - although I think you would not care for his politics! Here's another post of his in response to a recent UK Guardian article. I thought this may be appropriate given our resident 20th century positivist's recent claim that Metaphysics explains nothing, it is tripe. Philosophy Always Buries Its Undertakers http://goo.gl/xQ29E http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/05/philosophy-always-buries-its-undertakers.html On neo-atheist Lawrence Krauss, this seemed spot on I thought: The author is right, however, to smell 'conceptual confusion beneath mathematical sophistication' when it comes to attempts by Lawrence Krauss and others to explain how the universe arose ex nihilo from spontaneous fluctuations in a quantum vacuum, as if those fluctuations and that vacuum were not precisely something. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: John Searle at CERN (TEDxTalks) http://youtu.be/j_OPQgPIdKg [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=j_OPQgPIdKg ] Searle, Dennet Zombies: Oh, very nice indeed! I liked his response to the newbie's comment: You are getting at a tension between philosophy as metaphysics, as the attempt to penetrate appearances to arrive at ultimate reality as it is in itself, and philosophy as phenomenology, as the attempt to describe and understand the world, not as it is in itself, but as it is i[n] its human involvement. Scientism could be understood as an extreme form of the metaphysical tendency. It suffers shipwreck on the reef of certain appearances that are simply undeniable. http://goo.gl/K6NsO http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/04/searle-dennett-and-zombies.html
[FairfieldLife] Homage To Materialism
Or For Salyavin808. Headline grabber: I weaved through a jumbled Picasso of bellybuttons, nipples, sagging breasts, hairy backs and jiggling thighs Or for FFL readers whose minds are obviously focused on higher planes: Plato says in one of his dialogues, Soul is the master, and matter its natural subject. I Am Not This Body -- http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/i-am-not-this-body/ So, too, pry behind the rich graphics flashing across the screen of being...and you arrive at the imbecilic machinery of it all All the same - I think he is wrong.
[FairfieldLife] Dear FFL TV Reviewers
I did a search for American Gothic on FFL and failed to come up with much. The reason I ask is that my wife and I saw this ages ago - and the better half was most impressed. But I believe the series got cancelled? Anyhoo, I discovered it was available on Amazon's LoveFilm and so I reserved it some time ago. Yet it has never shown up (as a DVD) - even though I set it to high priority. And now I get this from Amazon: We are currently experiencing higher than expected demand for the series 'American Gothic - Series 1' and we are currently working to get our hands on more copies. In the meantime we have moved 'American Gothic - Series 1 - Disc 1' into your reserved list. When we have more copies available we will move it back onto your rental list. Am I suffering from the problem of trying to access a cult classic?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: We see other people, animals, and by their behaviour we deem them to be conscious. Yet if the brain of these beings is damaged in certain ways, that conscious behaviour departs. Injection of certain drugs, such as Propofol (the one that killed the singer Michael Jackson) causes consciousness to slip away, even when death does not occur. On this basis a scientist will conclude that the physical world, and the brain in particular, by virtue of its organisation, causes consciousness. Otherwise consciousness would not depart if the brain were destroyed. I would hope that a scientist would NOT on this basis conclude that the brain causes consciousness. Or, as Salyavin808 would have it, creates consciousness (using a similar form of reasoning). You both seem to be saying that because damage to X results in damage to Y, and the destruction of X results in the destruction of Y, *therefore* X creates Y or X causes Y. This appears to me to be an obviously flawed line of reasoning (Judy has made this point previously). For example, take a statue made from marble. If you chip the marble, you damage the statue. If you destroy the marble you destroy the statue. On this basis is a scientist to conclude that the marble causes or creates the statue? And it gets worse. Even Supposing that we took your reasoning to be valid after all and accepted as a consequence that the brain causes consciousness. That does not mean (in itself) that consciousness is nothing but the brain and can be reduced to that particular material object. For example, when I flick a switch, that causes my light to come on. But that doesn't mean the light is nothing but the light switch. Perhaps it's the word cause that is creating difficulties here. What you and Salyavin808 are saying might make more sense within an Aristotelian understanding: The brain is the material cause of the mind. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes) But what that gains in plausibility it sacrifices in significance I would have thought. And in any case, scientistic types would hardly wish to resurrect a primitive ancient like Aristotle to bolster their scientific reductionism, would they? To add to the gaity, perhape we mysterians could lob a few of our own ordnance into the fray. If you belive that mind is reducible to brain, what would you predict would be the result of the amputation of a full half of a person's brain? Well, such hemispherectomies do happen (though mostly with children). And the results? Studies have found no significant long-term effects on memory, personality, or humor after the procedure, and minimal changes in cognitive function overall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispherectomy And what are we to make of a case such as the 44 year-old French civil servant with a huge pocket of fluid where most of his brain ought to be - as reported in the Lancet and Nature: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/07/20/us-brain-tiny- idUSN1930510020070720 http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070716/full/news070716-15.html Or again, what about when the direction of causality is reversed? That is to say, if the influence of the brain on the mind is put forward as evidence for reductionism, what are we to conclude when the tables are reversed and the mind causes the death of the brain? As in pointing the bone: The condemned man may live for several days or even weeks. But, he believes so strongly in the curse that has been uttered, that he will surely die. It is said that the ritual loading of the kundela creates a spear of thought which pierces the victim when the bone is pointed at him. It is as if an actual spear has been thrust at him and his death is certain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdaitcha Finally, if, following Descartes (and now David Chalmers in the video Judy posted) we conclude that the one indubitable fact (for me) is my being me, my existence. How, as reductive materialists, can we account for the fact that my existence has remained constant throughout my life, whereas every part of my body and brain has changed? There is very little sense in which the brain I have now is the same as the one I had at age five. But there is plenty of sense in saying that I am the same individual now as my self when I was five. In fact the entire emotional, social, intellectual, ethical, judicial and religious fabric of our lives is based on this simple idea of individuals - their concerns, their histories, their rights, their duties and so forth. Brains don't have such attributes. Ergo, individuals are not brains.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: We see other people, animals, and by their behaviour we deem them to be conscious. Yet if the brain of these beings is damaged in certain ways, that conscious behaviour departs. Injection of certain drugs, such as Propofol (the one that killed the singer Michael Jackson) causes consciousness to slip away, even when death does not occur. On this basis a scientist will conclude that the physical world, and the brain in particular, by virtue of its organisation, causes consciousness. Otherwise consciousness would not depart if the brain were destroyed. I would hope that a scientist would NOT on this basis conclude that the brain causes consciousness. Or, as Salyavin808 would have it, creates consciousness (using a similar form of reasoning). Hardly *just* that basis. You both seem to be saying that because damage to X results in damage to Y, and the destruction of X results in the destruction of Y, *therefore* X creates Y or X causes Y. This appears to me to be an obviously flawed line of reasoning (Judy has made this point previously). For example, take a statue made from marble. If you chip the marble, you damage the statue. If you destroy the marble you destroy the statue. On this basis is a scientist to conclude that the marble causes or creates the statue? That's an astoundingly weak argument. Quite so. As evinced by e.g. this: As it's brains that cause consciousness (get someone to hit you on the head with a heavy object if you don't believe me) salyavin808 Apart from statements such as this, I don't feel I have seen any OTHER reasoning hereabouts to the effect that brains cause consciousness. Plenty of assertions though. As an aside I would say that in these discussions we may be muddling up some quite separate ideas too: 1. Awareness as consciousness. The kind that we lose when hit on the head. 2. Consciousness as in deep sleep is a form of consciousness 3. Consciousness as a privileged perspective (as in what it is like to be Dexter, my cat). 4. Consciousness as being-in-the-world as in Heidegger's dasein a form of being that is aware of and must confront such issues as personhood, mortality and the dilemma or paradox of living in relationship with other humans while being ultimately alone with oneself (I'm not well up on Heidegger!). This may be the same, or similar, to (3) above. But for me, it is the idea of not just Nagel's being a bat, but also being-a-bat-through- time. Ie. Being an Individual (or a soul if you prefer).
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: It doesn't contradict anything I've said about consciousness anyway. Placing of brain structures is well understood, it can be predicted what functions people will lose or have difficulty with after a damage to the brain. I'm not convinced by your bravado here. On the contrary, it seems to me that our expectations have been confounded, not confirmed. I am not a brain scientist (and I take it neither are you). But here we have Scientific American: Neurosurgeons have performed the operation on children as young as three months old. Astonishingly, memory and personality develop normally. Why do they say astonishingly? Or: Remarkably, few other impacts are seen. If the left side of the brain is taken out, most people have problems with their speech, but it used to be thought that if you took that side out after age two, you'd never talk again, and we've proven that untrue, Freeman says. The younger a person is when they undergo hemispherectomy, the less disability you have in talking. Where on the right side of the brain speech is transferred to and what it displaces is something nobody has really worked out. Why do they say Remarkably?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: The condemned man may live for several days or even weeks. But, he believes so strongly in the curse that has been uttered, that he will surely die. It is said that the ritual loading of the kundela creates a spear of thought which pierces the victim when the bone is pointed at him. It is as if an actual spear has been thrust at him and his death is certain. Anxiety is a powerful thing. So it seems. The cause of the anxiety was of course a purely mental thing (or a thing in the realm of meaning), and NOT a physical thing. And the anxiety was the effect, not the cause. Why do you think this proves something pertinent to the argument here? It's like you've just googled odd stuff about the brain and drawn some whoppingly unnecessary argument out of it. It's about the world of the mental and the world of meaning (the latter I think I'd prefer), and about how those worlds can, sometimes, extinguish the world of the merely physical. Because they are equally (or maybe more) real.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Free Man In Paris, v2.13
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: You pay a paltry 19 Euros per year for a pass. Then you walk up to a Velib bike rack, swipe your card, take the bike, and ride it. If you ride for less than half an hour, when you check it in at the next Velib site there is no charge. If you ride that particular bike for longer, there is a very reasonable charge. So I went out bike riding in Paris. Any of these for hire? Yanks can always do it better - wave your freak flag high, and all that. http://vimeo.com/64653759#at=0
[FairfieldLife] Re: NCAA Men's Basketball Championship Tonight!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: On Apr 12, 2013, at 8:11 AM, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I've heard that one game of cricket can go on for hours and hours! Five days for a proper international match. Then again, the golfers at the Masters will be playing for four days. But you will at least have a result. Very often a five day cricket match will end in a draw. Five or so hours with a break for tea and cakes is par for the course for a friendly match between pub teams. Hey how about T20 - do you watch IPL? There aren't many English players around this season - of course KP's injured, he was in Delhi the other day cheering his team - I saw Eoin Morgan playing. I've seen a bit of T20 on the TV - but not live. Very dramatic I expect. Have you played much Ravi? It was my main sport in my youth. I wonder...I can imagine you as perhaps a left arm quickie. Maybe a whippy action off quite a short run? Bowling over the wicket you'd be slanting it across the orthodox right-hander, perhaps creating a little doubt in their mind as they reach to play or leave just outside the off stump in the 'corridor of uncertainty'. And maybe trying to get the odd one to hit the seam hard, rear alarmingly, and come back in at them? Just the thing to dislodge a stone-walling opening pair who are starting to look a bit too comfortable at the crease.
[FairfieldLife] Being Nothingness
Sad, old Hendrix obsessive that I am, I came across this excellent version of Little Wing: http://youtu.be/1W6xawlcvNU Some SRV influence there, but also some very nice original input. But then I saw this: http://www.truthinshredding.com/2012/03/camila-simont-murdered-on-her-birthday.html Jeez, what a terrible thing. Camila plays country - Faiska http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwszZNPRDisfeature=sharelist=UUNq_GQuUwlE__XI2kBRJe2Q Albert Lee would have been happy with that!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Undiagnosed celiac disease
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: Gawd... that's TMI even for me. If my memory serves me well, Card's dick refuses to stand idly by during his flying sutra. Those Vikings... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card cardemaister@ wrote: After hearing on TV a young M.D. tell, that all his allergy symptoms had disappeared after his starting gluten free diet, I decided to give it a try. Some of the results: 1. Within two days of starting it, became so horny that had to spank the monkey in the night because couldn't sleep due to that. I gather that might somehow be associated with the liver and its production several hormones?? Usually I only jerk off for fun, not because I have no choice! Also my armpits and balls started sweating much more than they usually do. Somehow felt like a teenage chap for those reasons. 2. The irritation in my lungs caused by room dust became over 80% less, I'd say. 3. (Unstressing?) The worst lower back pain for years, but mainly only positional(?). That might be just a coincidence... 4. During the night my hands became so hot I thought I'd done g-tummo without realising it, LOL! Prolly associated with number 1. So, for undiagnosed celiac brahmacaarins that gluten free diet might be extremely challenging. Even they need sleep, y'know? :-) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2796.1999.00403.x/full
[FairfieldLife] Re: NCAA Men's Basketball Championship Tonight!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: I've heard that one game of cricket can go on for hours and hours! Five days for a proper international match. Then again, the golfers at the Masters will be playing for four days. But you will at least have a result. Very often a five day cricket match will end in a draw. Five or so hours with a break for tea and cakes is par for the course for a friendly match between pub teams.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: Well now you have. It refers of course to the way the brain unifies sense data into a coherent picture of the world as a theatre that we are witnessing but when you look inside the brain, no such theatre exists. It's all a clever bit of wiring and sleight of hand. Or mind. Damn clever that. Very damn clever. For wires. Who (or what) is fooled by the sleight? It is undoubtedly the case that if I gaze at a picture of Barry in a Parisian cafe some events occur in my brain. But from that it doesn't follow that what I *really* see are some events in my brain rather than Barry au cafe? The persuasive imagery of the Cartesian Theater keeps coming back to haunt us laypeople and scientists alike even after its ghostly dualism has been denounced and exorcized :: The often unacknowledged remnants of Cartesian dualism in modern materialistic theories of the mind :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater
[FairfieldLife] Re: A TM poster boy's eulogy for Margaret Thatcher
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: Well now you have. It refers of course to the way the brain unifies sense data into a coherent picture of the world as a theatre that we are witnessing but when you look inside the brain, no such theatre exists. It's all a clever bit of wiring and sleight of hand. Or mind. Damn clever that. Very damn clever. For wires. Who (or what) is fooled by the sleight? Why, more wires of course! Not turtles all the way down? It is undoubtedly the case that if I gaze at a picture of Barry in a Parisian cafe some events occur in my brain. But from that it doesn't follow that what I *really* see are some events in my brain rather than Barry au cafe? The persuasive imagery of the Cartesian Theater keeps coming back to haunt us laypeople and scientists alike even after its ghostly dualism has been denounced and exorcized :: The often unacknowledged remnants of Cartesian dualism in modern materialistic theories of the mind :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Iron Lady' Prime Minister, Dead at 87
Cher fans on Twitter were agitated apparently: #nowthatchersdead http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-dead-worried-cher-1818681 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@... wrote: http://abcnews.go.com/International/margaret-thatcher-britains-iron-lady\ -dead-87/story?id=13644011#.UWLN90oozDk http://abcnews.go.com/International/margaret-thatcher-britains-iron-lad\ y-dead-87/story?id=13644011#.UWLN90oozDk It is with great sadness that Mark and Carol Thatcher announced that their mother Baroness Thatcher died peacefully following a stroke this morning, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBEREJpOvNo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBEREJpOvNo
[FairfieldLife] Re: More on Nagel's Mind Cosmos
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Interesting, yes, but I think it misses the point. The first comment on that post does a good job explaining the real point, but Feser's response to it completely misses it again! Well at first I thought no, it's commenter Ingx24 that has mised the point. Then hang on, maybe not. That's because there do seem to be two closely related issues: * The existence of mental stuff (the itch sensation experienced by Judy) - qualia * The existence of things that can *have* qualia (Judy) Whether this is a good distinction, I don't know. But I think Feser is primarily focused on the first issue in his blog post, whereas Ingx24 is interested in the second. Having said that, I wonder if Ingx24 just set Feser going by putting it in these terms: Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does. That seems to be about the first issue. And in putting it like this he/she wears her Cartesianism on her sleeve. She seems to be saying that we *know* that the self, the person, consciousness *is* physical processing, thereby signing up 100% to the materialist side of the Cartesian dualism. Feser (I assume) would not grant that assumption. To put it another way, the question isn't why things-- including mental experience--seem to us the way they do, but *why should there be such a thing as seeming* in the first place? Feser or no Feser, that particular itch just won't go away. I think Feser's route would involve navigating through a very tangled thicket of Aristotelean ideas of 'matter', 'form' and 'substance'. Oh, Lordie! http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/ So much philosophical discussion of consciousness takes seeming for granted, when it's the very thing that requires explanation. Indeed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: This is an interesting blog post IMO: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/nagel-and-his- critics-part-viii.html Or http://goo.gl/QulfS How much of our existential anguish can be laid at the feet of Monsieur R. Descartes? From the concrete material objects of everyday life, Descartes and the moderns who have followed him derived two abstractions (as I discussed in an earlier post). First, they abstracted out those features that could be captured in exclusively quantitative terms, reified this abstraction, and called that reified abstraction matter, or the physical, or that which is objective. Second, they abstracted those qualitative features that would not fit the first, quantitative picture, reified that abstraction, and called it the mental, or that which is subjective. Once this move was made, there was never in principle going to be a way to get mind and matter together again, since they were in effect defined by contrast with one another.
[FairfieldLife] Re: La Mer [Was Majorca Spain]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: (snip) A decade or so ago a friend of my Mum's went on such a trip and had a fabulous time. She is the town's ex-vicar's ex- wife. Following her divorce she discovered a love for the sea and for many years sailed a 26' yacht around the English South West coast (where the Spanish Armada began to get unstuck) and around the Med. Now, that's what I'd *really* like to do. Sadly, a 26-foot yacht ain't in the budget. Motor or sail? Sail. Her boat Kate was I think a Westerly Centaur 26. Such as this: http://goo.gl/F4BJJ *sigh* I've never been on a sailboat, except a Sailfish on a lake once many, many years ago. They were sturdy boats built in the seventies. Many are still seeing action and trading hands for not such big bucks. For an inanimate object, Joan had a pretty profound relationship with Kate. I believe failing health finally forced her to sell up in the end; but that was just a few years ago in her eighties. I'm sure she was gutted. Memories of Kate... On one occasion Joan took Kate out for a day trip from her home port of Salcombe with a few friends (including my mother). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salcombe. Unfortunately a thick sea fog descended just as they were heading back. In those days no one had GPS - you had to plot your course on a chart and use dead reckoning. Everyone had the utmost confidence in Joan, who was both highly experienced and proficient in navigation. But even so they all got a bit of shock when the fog lifted slightly and revealed that they had just inched through an extremely narrow gap between a large rock and the headland. You can just make it out here: http://goo.gl/tXU4q Ai! Did she do that deliberately, or by very lucky accident? If deliberately, why?? Oh, no, not deliberately. Even with all her experience and skill, navigation by dead reckoning is very fallible.
[FairfieldLife] Europe Freezes, But Help Is At Hand
http://youtu.be/oJLqyuxm96k
[FairfieldLife] More on Nagel's Mind Cosmos
This is an interesting blog post IMO: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/nagel-and-his-critics-part-viii.html Or http://goo.gl/QulfS How much of our existential anguish can be laid at the feet of Monsieur R. Descartes? From the concrete material objects of everyday life, Descartes and the moderns who have followed him derived two abstractions (as I discussed in an earlier post). First, they abstracted out those features that could be captured in exclusively quantitative terms, reified this abstraction, and called that reified abstraction matter, or the physical, or that which is objective. Second, they abstracted those qualitative features that would not fit the first, quantitative picture, reified that abstraction, and called it the mental, or that which is subjective. Once this move was made, there was never in principle going to be a way to get mind and matter together again, since they were in effect defined by contrast with one another.
[FairfieldLife] Some Varieties Of Meditative Experience
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5432713 (See comments)
[FairfieldLife] La Mer [Was Majorca Spain]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: (snip) I could indeed. What I'd really like to do is to take a cruise on a freighter (container ship). Many such ships these days have a cabin or two for folks who want a quiet, relaxed ocean voyage but can't stand the idea of one of those monster cruise ships. You're one of only a handful of passengers, and you get treated like royalty, eat in the officers' mess, have the run of the ship, get friendly with the crew, stop at non-touristy ports of call. No frills, but supposedly very comfortable accommodations. A decade or so ago a friend of my Mum's went on such a trip and had a fabulous time. She is the town's ex-vicar's ex- wife. Following her divorce she discovered a love for the sea and for many years sailed a 26' yacht around the English South West coast (where the Spanish Armada began to get unstuck) and around the Med. Now, that's what I'd *really* like to do. Sadly, a 26-foot yacht ain't in the budget. Motor or sail? Sail. Her boat Kate was I think a Westerly Centaur 26. Such as this: http://goo.gl/F4BJJ They were sturdy boats built in the seventies. Many are still seeing action and trading hands for not such big bucks. For an inanimate object, Joan had a pretty profound relationship with Kate. I believe failing health finally forced her to sell up in the end; but that was just a few years ago in her eighties. I'm sure she was gutted. Memories of Kate... On one occasion Joan took Kate out for a day trip from her home port of Salcombe with a few friends (including my mother). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salcombe. Unfortunately a thick sea fog descended just as they were heading back. In those days no one had GPS - you had to plot your course on a chart and use dead reckoning. Everyone had the utmost confidence in Joan, who was both highly experienced and proficient in navigation. But even so they all got a bit of shock when the fog lifted slightly and revealed that they had just inched through an extremely narrow gap between a large rock and the headland. You can just make it out here: http://goo.gl/tXU4q In my student days I would return to Salcombe to work in the local hotels and sail (dinghies). One day the call came from Joan - would I like to join her for a three day trip around the coast to Teignmouth? As per usual she had a couple of English language students staying for the summer. One was a Dutch guy, whose name escapes me. The other was a French girl, Sylvie, whom I remember somewhat better (funny that). Both would be on the voyage, but neither had had any sailing experience. How flattering to think I may have been called up for my expertise! So I accepted without a seond thought. We set off in the evening to 'catch the tide'. And as I recall it was a beautiful, calm night with a full moon as we crossed the Salcombe bar and headed out to sea. The bar here is not the kind that Sinatra sang about in One For My Baby; it's a sand spit lurking close to the surface at the harbour entrance where waves can break at low tide (and turn very ugly in a strong southerly). If my mind had been on higher things, instead of trying to impress Sylvie, some words of Tennyson might have come to mind - a poem inspired by the Salcombe bar, at least if we are to believe the local tourist office: Sunset and evening star, And one clear call for me! And may there be no moaning of the bar, When I put out to sea, But such a tide as moving seems asleep, Too full for sound and foam, When that which drew from out the boundless deep Turns again home. Twilight and evening bell, And after that the dark! And may there be no sadness or farewell, When I embark; For tho' from out our bourne of Time and Place The flood may bear me far, I hope to see my Pilot face to face When I have crost the bar. Maybe the climax of our little voyage was less sublime, but our spirits were restored just the same by some fish and chips and an overnight stop in Teignmouth. Coming back the weather turned against us. It was chilly and grey with a bit of rain. The wind had freshened a bit, and was now against us, meaning that we had to tack back (perform a series of zig-zags) with the sails sheeted in as hard as possible to get Kate to sail as close to the wind as she could. All went well until it came to getting around the final headland - Start Point: http://goo.gl/VJMbh Of those on board, only Joan knew that it was going to get a bit fearsome as we stood out to sea the necessary few miles in order to make our final turn for home. This is because with the outgoing tide, all the water in The English Channel piles up at Start Point in order to escape to the Atlantic creating a tidal race. With wind against tide you can get
[FairfieldLife] Re: La Mer [Was Majorca Spain]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: - I love the water. Am more the passenger than sailor now. Had a sailfish beached at Repulse Bay, HK, early 70's, and downsized to a boogie board. Is that an Alcort Sailfish? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailfish_(sailboat) That looks very similar to the first boat I had and learned to sail in, a Sea Bat like this: http://homepages.which.net/~rosgo/sailing/seabat.jpg That was about 1971, which is also the year I learned TM (lives running on parallel tracks and all that?). I got her for £70 by mail order ($106). I imagine your missus would have some good sailing yarns?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Questions and answers by Benjamin Creme
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: Q. Is the skeleton that was exhumed in a carpark in Leicester, England,in September 2012, really that of King Richard III? A. Yes, it was King Richard III, maligned by Shakespeare and of course the Tudor dynasty. Who puts these questions? This latter is now de rigueur for anyone with a newspaper or TV. But if Creme had come out with Richard's location a few years ago - now that would have been something. [Jeez, I'm channeling Sal-Vin now. Having said that, I believe the lady who was the driving force behind the body's discovery has attributed her success to woo-woo, at least in part.] Can't we ask... Q[Supplementary 1]: Did he murder the princes in the Tower? A: Q[Supplementary 2]: Just who was Shakespeare anyway? A:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Questions and answers by Benjamin Creme
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: Q. Is the skeleton that was exhumed in a carpark in Leicester, England,in September 2012, really that of King Richard III? A. Yes, it was King Richard III, maligned by Shakespeare and of course the Tudor dynasty. Who puts these questions? This latter is now de rigueur for anyone with a newspaper or TV. But if Creme had come out with Richard's location a few years ago - now that would have been something. [Jeez, I'm channeling Sal-Vin now. Having said that, I believe the lady who was the driving force behind the body's discovery has attributed her success to woo-woo, at least in part.] It was Phillippa Langley http://www.emmines.co.uk/blog/2013/02/a-queen-in-a-carpark/ OMG, a comment there... Was it a *hunch* that led Phillipa to Richard III's body?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Balloon of Ignorance Punctured by Needle of Scientific Curiosity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: If you want to have a go at convincing us go ahead. Start wherever you like on the diagram. There are many things I don't believe in. Maybe I don't believe in more than you (take Scientism for a start). Scientism? Ah yes, that weird sickness creationists like to accuse the rational of suffering from. Ah, the rational. http://youtu.be/cAgAvnvXF9U Is this your thought process? :: Creationists make accusations of scientism. :: Creationists talk bollocks :: This is an accusation of scientism :: So this is bollocks Hardly an advertisement for the rational higher ground? Susan Haack: Six Signs Of Scientism: 1. Using the words science, scientific, scientifically, scientist, etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise. 2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness. 3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and pseudo-scientific imposters. 4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the scientific method, presumed to explain how the sciences have been so successful. 5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope. 6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art. From: http://goo.gl/9K7hS (pdf) Professor Haack ain't no stinkin' creationist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Haack
[FairfieldLife] Re: Balloon of Ignorance Punctured by Needle of Scientific Curiosity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: If you want to have a go at convincing us go ahead. Start wherever you like on the diagram. There are many things I don't believe in. Maybe I don't believe in more than you (take Scientism for a start). Scientism? Ah yes, that weird sickness creationists like to accuse the rational of suffering from. Ah, the rational. http://youtu.be/cAgAvnvXF9U Is this your thought process? :: Creationists make accusations of scientism. :: Creationists talk bollocks :: This is an accusation of scientism :: So this is bollocks Hardly an advertisement for the rational higher ground? Susan Haack: Six Signs Of Scientism: 1. Using the words science, scientific, scientifically, scientist, etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise. 2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness. 3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and pseudo-scientific imposters. 4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the scientific method, presumed to explain how the sciences have been so successful. 5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope. 6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art. Is this what you are accusing me of? Ho ho, does she think poetry can prove reincarnation? Yes and no and neither do I. And neither did Wordsworth. Can you imagine that - writing verse about something that *can't be proved*? What a waste of time! Why bother? Do you think that only what is provable is a worthy candidate for what we might suppose to be the case? (I suspect that very little, if anything, is provable). If you do think that, or something like it, is that belief in itself provable? Or should that faith of yours be consigned to the Venn diagram of unproveable bollocks (religious bollocks presumably)?
[FairfieldLife] Balloon of Ignorance Punctured by Needle of Scientific Curiosity
Re: The Venn Diagram Of Irrational Nonsense http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/339067 Fowarded to FFL by a shade I met in a dream: My dear FFLers Until my eyes died and gave me all-seeing vision I was unaware of your august journal. But what a shock to my ethereal system! My life's work, what? Bollocks? BOLLOCKS? And all neatly classified too: Religious BOLLOCKS, Quackery BOLLOCKS, Pseudoscientific BOLLOCKS (now there's irony, ed.), and (Lord preserve us) Paranormal BOLLOCKS. I am deeply humbled. Poor chap, eh? It seems the deceased was a Professor Archie Roy: A fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and professor of Astronomy at Glasgow University, Roy was the world authority on the mechanics of orbits, on which he carried out research long before computers were capable of doing the work for him. In the 1960s and 1970s he worked as a consultant to Nasa, helping to put the first man on the Moon. He also had an asteroid, 5806 Archie-roy, named in his honour. But he became better known among the general public for his research into the spirit world. This began in the 1950s after he lost his way in Glasgow's old university library and found shelves of books on spiritualism and psychical research. My first ignorant reaction was 'What is this rubbish doing in a university library?', he recalled. But curiosity made me open some of the books. I was surprised to recognise some of the authors of this 'rubbish', such as Sir Oliver Lodge, Professor William James, Professor Sir William Crookes, and so on. My balloon of ignorance was punctured by the needle of my scientific curiosity, and I found myself called up to a new career. Professor Archie Roy, born June 24 1924, died December 27 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9946847/Professor- Archie-Roy.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Balloon of Ignorance Punctured by Needle of Scientific Curiosity
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: If you want to have a go at convincing us go ahead. Start wherever you like on the diagram. There are many things I don't believe in. Maybe I don't believe in more than you (take Scientism for a start). It's not my point that any of those things are true, or justifiable. But I'm inclined to think that the they're all bollocks reaction is, well, just a little bit ...I don't know, perhaps crass is the word I'm looking for. Reincarnation was on the BOLLOCKS list. Avert your eyes: Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting: The soul that rises with us, our life's star, Hath had elsewhere its setting, And Cometh from afar. What a load of bollocks THAT was! Jeez - who writes this crap? Any in-depth study of New Scientist or Scientific American shows there is just no bit of the brain that gets reincarnated. Quod Erat Demonstrandum! Or take astrology. You would probably be inclined to mock the idea of stars influencing our lives. Or deploy your big guns viz. that the astronomy astrology is predicated on is false and/or incomplete. If so you would fail to appreciate the metaphysical subtlety of (some) believers: Astrology is based on the principle of synchronicity. The 'influence of the stars' does not exist in a causal sense. There is no causal influence at all. Astrology works - if this is the right word - in the way inscribed on the tabula smaragdina: What is below is like what is above. And what is above is like what is below, so that the miracle of the One may be accomplished. http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_pa_synchro_e.htm This is a metaphysics that can co-exist quite peacefully with any aspect of modern science I would have thought. It just posits the idea of reality as a totality. I'm not saying I believe in it myself. I'm not sure what I believe in. Or that it has any practical value (I called it a metaphysics after all). I'm just suggesting Respect, man...
[FairfieldLife] Hey Nabby...
Some of them there hillbilly music for y'all.. http://youtu.be/b0eknUtEMWw Damn can he play! Erich Arvidson: Well it looks like the devil lost that round of the guitar duel Just business as usual... http://youtu.be/tnepPZChA5U
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Nabby...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: Some of them there hillbilly music for y'all.. http://youtu.be/b0eknUtEMWw In the world of strange guitar playing Enver Izmailov - tapping guitar virtuozo from Ukraine takes the price Enver who is a jazz-guitarist, seems to have become more commercial with the years, but have a listen to this, from about 1:0: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCzETvRJMoM don't miss this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-D0cLnZZk4 Marvelous stuff. A virtuoso. I prefer the second one - the first seemed a bit Eurovision Song Contest-ish. I don't know about you, but these guys fool my brain into a bit of an optical illusion. As I watch, it seems as though the player is a ventroliquist's dummy, and there'e another player behind who is reaching around with one arm to play one of the guitars. Perhaps 'cos my silly old grey stuff simply can't believe one person can be doing all that? So, hillbillies versus Euro-trash. What's it to be? Well I'm still rather taken by that 'Dueling Banjos' I have to say.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Majorca Spain
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@ wrote: (snip) turquoiseb: The Judyborg lives in fuckin' New Jersey, ferchrissakes, So, you're thinking that living on a dank, man-made canal rates higher than living on the beach of an ocean? Go figure. I don't live *on* the beach, I live a block away (but within sight of the ocean). and probably leaves only to visit relatives in the US. Maybe, but if she wanted to, Judy could probably afford to visit anywhere in the world. I could indeed. What I'd really like to do is to take a cruise on a freighter (container ship). Many such ships these days have a cabin or two for folks who want a quiet, relaxed ocean voyage but can't stand the idea of one of those monster cruise ships. You're one of only a handful of passengers, and you get treated like royalty, eat in the officers' mess, have the run of the ship, get friendly with the crew, stop at non-touristy ports of call. No frills, but supposedly very comfortable accommodations. A decade or so ago a friend of my Mum's went on such a trip and had a fabulous time. She is the town's ex-vicar's ex-wife. Following her divorce she discovered a love for the sea and for many years sailed a 26' yacht around the English South West coast (where the Spanish Armada began to get unstuck) and around the Med. A very intrepid lady. If anyone here has any recommendations or suggestions along these lines, I'm all ears (eyes). It is also the third-wealthiest U.S. state by 2011 median household income. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey And most of the state is beautiful. Tourism is one of its leading industries.
[FairfieldLife] Much Ado About Nothing
No longer can you take your seats for Krauss v Albert - the Rumble In the Ontological Jungle. http://tinyurl.com/cmx9dfw Among the speakers will be several leading physicists, including Lawrence M. Krauss, whose book A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing became a cause célèbre in the scientific blogosphere last spring after a scathing review in the New York Times Book Review by the philosopher David Z. Albert. But Mr. Albert will not be onstage, having been abruptly disinvited by the museum several months after he agreed to take part. The tone of the dustup between Mr. Albert and Mr. Krauss summed up by one blogger as an ongoing cosmological street fight that had broken out broad media daylight would have certainly left those who saw both men's names on early publicity material anticipating something closer to a wrestling match than dispassionate scholarly discussion. In his review Mr. Albert, who also has a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, mocked Mr. Krauss's cocksure claim to have found in the laws of quantum mechanics a definitive answer to the vexing question of the ultimate origins of the universe. (So where did those laws come from? he asked.) Mr. Krauss countered with a pugnacious interview in The Atlantic, in which he called Mr. Albert moronic and dismissed the philosophy of science as worthless.
[FairfieldLife] Think your vegetable spring roll is safe from the sea gulls?
Think again! http://youtu.be/ol8c9bdp7YI
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full brain development until they are 25. And I think the part of the brain that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part which evaluates the future consequences of our actions. I am just putting that out there as one thing to consider. Yes I see that has been mentioned here. There must be something wrong with my brain though, 'cos this idea seems to me to be off-the-wall bonkers beyond belief. Do you *really* believe this? Really? Einstein published his first paper at the age of 22. It was on Conclusions from the Capillarity Phenomena - But his brain had not yet reached the stage where it evaluates the future consequences of our actions? Then again perhaps it was 23 year old war hero Frank Edward Young (VC)'s brain that was at fault: On 18 September 1918 south-east of Havrincourt, France, during an enemy counter-attack and throughout intense enemy fire, Second Lieutenant Young visited all posts, warned the garrisons and encouraged the men. In the early stages of the attack he rescued two of his men who had been captured and bombed and silenced an enemy machine-gun. Then he fought his way back to the main barricade and drove out a party of the enemy assembling there. Throughout four hours of heavy fighting this officer set a fine example and was last seen fighting hand-to-hand against a considerable number of the enemy
[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and its Rock Stars
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full brain development until they are 25. And I think the part of the brain that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part which evaluates the future consequences of our actions. I am just putting that out there as one thing to consider. Yes I see that has been mentioned here. There must be something wrong with my brain though, 'cos this idea seems to me to be off-the-wall bonkers beyond belief. Do you *really* believe this? Really? Einstein published his first paper at the age of 22. It was on Conclusions from the Capillarity Phenomena - But his brain had not yet reached the stage where it evaluates the future consequences of our actions? Why would his brain have had to be fully developed to write a scientific paper? Well it's not clear to me what a brain's being fully developed means. But it seems to me to be a reasonable starting point to suppose that being able to get published qualifies prima facie. Then again perhaps it was 23 year old war hero Frank Edward Young (VC)'s brain that was at fault: On 18 September 1918 south-east of Havrincourt, France, during an enemy counter-attack and throughout intense enemy fire, Second Lieutenant Young visited all posts, warned the garrisons and encouraged the men. In the early stages of the attack he rescued two of his men who had been captured and bombed and silenced an enemy machine-gun. Then he fought his way back to the main barricade and drove out a party of the enemy assembling there. Throughout four hours of heavy fighting this officer set a fine example and was last seen fighting hand-to-hand against a considerable number of the enemy Why do you think a 'not fully' developed brain is at fault? Well I don't (of course). This person's brain (if we are to talk this way) seems to have been capable of the highest functions. A counter-example to the brain theory we are considering here? Yet there is a response: Perhaps Frank Edward Young's bravery and heroism can be explained away in our brave new world of brain- talk. If only he had been twenty five he would have had sufficient cc's of grey matter to have understood the consequences of his actions. He could have laid low instead of rushing about getting shot at* (it seems we are to suppose that neither Einstein nor Young had the presence of mind/brain to realise that if you stick your head above the parapet the consequence of the action is that you come under fire). In other words these qualities of courage and bravery are a brain defect. They can be explained away. No doubt I am missing something of the theory I am criticising. But I'm just calling it as I see it. * As I think I would have done at any stage of my brain's development. Which suggests that even when puny, my brain had enough horsepower to make calculations of the form If I do x, y is likely to happen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A lie is only a lie when it's about Judy or someone she likes
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: If I may say something more esoteric here, for me Judy is still a young soul, despite of the age of her physical body. There will be always a conflict with older souls here, who draw from a wider field of experience and thinking, who have come a longer way, and that manifests usually early on in this life. If it wasn't a sad and arrogant statement from the above I'd say it will qualify for: JOKE of week ! No, no, no. get it right Nabby. BOLLOCKS of the week. Jeez, talk about self-aggrandisement... Then again, this is quite common in debate these days, no? You don't just *disagree* with someone. You also wheel in some pseudo- crappy theory about WHY they disagree with you. e.g. The wrong bits of the brain light up, or they are in denial, etc etc. It's a nice short cut to avoid dealing with the very messy nitty-gritty of logic, argument and evidence. PaliGap's Thought-de-Jour: Treat with great suspicion anyone who uses the word brain when any perfectly serviceable English word such as me or mind is available to do the job at hand. And also watch out for the word epistemology. It does NOT mean how we justify belief (Karl Popper would be rotating in his grave at a rate of knots). It means the theory of knowledge (as Emily correctly ascertained). Just sayin' BTW Is Virish (or whatever his name is) guilty until proved innocent? I say this as someone who whilst once running a small organisation, got accused of sexual harrassment myself. It's not nice. In my case the biddy was a nutter, we were not in the public eye, and it came to nothing. At least that's my story!
[FairfieldLife] Re: TV review: House Of Cards
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: BTW, I found a way to watch episodes of Utopia. I would think the only outlet for this in the US would be streaming on Netflix. The accents are too strong for most Americans to understand. I just *love* the beautiful sing-song Welsh accent of Becky (Alexandra Roach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Roach) I like the cinematography in it Yes, me too. The series has good 'bad guys'. A key ingredient IMO. (e.g. Alan Rickman, especially his voice, in Die Hard). Speaking of good baddies, I wonder what you and Barry would make of the original House Of Cards which featured a tour de force by the late Ian Richardson? It may be a little to localised (read 'localized') to British politics I suspect. I haven't yet seen the new version, but, good as I'm sure it is, I just can't imagine anyone topping Richardson's original performance (whose You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment subsequently entered the British vernacular).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Health benefits of Xanthohumol
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu wrote: http://www.xanthohumol.com It is 200 times more powerful than Resveratrol, the world renowned Antioxidant found naturally in Red Wine. Yes but...red,red wine...mmm... http://linsiloo.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/mmm-red-wine-cheese-platter/ virtual reality 3-D neosurrealism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbeSKFoKx1Y
[FairfieldLife] Re: Serious Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: The problem is compounded in those who carefully stayed away from him and never met the man. They got to base their fantasies on what he wrote in books and said on videotapes, and carefully stayed far, far away so that they'd never have to encounter any reality that might contradict their fantasies. What is reality and what is fantasy Barry? (Uh-oh). Is the reality the 'particular' (the hunch in the back of Richard III), or the 'universal' (the abstract, the teaching). Which is *more* real? Take me. I'm a Hendrix freak. So, just as one example, I absolutely love The Wind Cries Mary. It means a lot to me (and to a lot of others to be sure). http://youtu.be/zNps6k7oVG4 Now I discover that the occasion for the creation of this gem by the force-of-nature Voodoo Chile was in fact some badly prepared mashed potato: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21292762 If you're of a nominalist persuasion I think this would be a bit of a downer. Philosophical realists are not bothered. If you emphasize as *the* reality MMY the man (who ate, shat, copulated and all the rest), you are (perhaps uncritically) taking the former view. Perhaps ideas are more important than bags under the eyes? Perhaps Einstein's equations are more real than his hair style? (PS I read MMY's books *and* met the guy. I was not disappointed in the flesh as it happens).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on History Chan to Carol Emily
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Thanks for posting this laughinggull. Carol and Emily, this is a good overview of the whole TM world, with 2 comments: TM is absolutely NOT about repeating a mantra; and yogic flying does not involve TRYING to fly or bounce. Part of it is. The mantra and repetition have to begin the process Actually not, not if repetition means more than one iteration of the mantra. You could conceivably think it *once* and immediately transcend, even go through the whole mantra-transcend-thoughts cycle multiple times during a meditation without ever thinking the mantra twice in a row. Share, the words repeat and repetition *are* used in several places in the checking notes. In most cases, repetition of the mantra does occur, but it's correct to say TM is not *about* repetition. Subtle but crucial distinction. (Caveat: I am not a TM teacher. I took checker training, but I never got around to being certified. If I've gotten anything wrong, corrections from teachers are welcome.) and hopping around involves energy and effort whether you realize this or not. On my siddhis course my friend and I were the last to hop and the instructor sat with us until we did so. Having languished for days watching my friends in my pod plop around on foam and make strange noises my friend and I finally looked at each other and let 'er rip. We had to try or we weren't going to graduate from that summer course. Finally we gave in and joined the crowd. It was never that effortless to bounce and I certainly never flew. So at least on my siddhis course we had to do whatever it took to move off our butts and it involved trying or at least exerting an intention. Maybe it is all in the semantics. The sutras *are* intentions, according to Maharishi. FWIW, on my flying block there were several women who never hopped, and they graduated with the rest of us. They weren't bullied into faking it (as it sounds like you may have been). I can report the same (but 'men'). They weren't happy about not hopping, but the Sidhis administrator (Georgina Wilson) told them not to worry about it, they would still get the benefits of the practice. Trying to hop was most definitely a no-no. Definitely. Certainly hopping involves muscular effort (although the extent to which one is aware of that varies); the question is how the signal to contract is sent to the muscles. For me, it's involuntary--it would take effort *not* to hop. Indeed. It's probably off the program but I would often try forcibly 'not to hop'. But hop I did. It's like a yawn or a sneeze or the knee-jerk reflex. The signal to the muscles originates somewhere other than it would if I hopped without using the sutra. I remember when I first started to hop, after a couple days. I had found myself bouncing--involuntarily--without getting off the foam. After awhile, I let go of something somehow mentally, and then I immediately began to hop. Let 'er rip describes it, but I don't know whether that's the same as what you experienced. It's as if I had not been letting the sutra do its job, rather than that I had started voluntarily to push myself up off the foam. Experience does vary from individual to individual, and it's impossible to know what it's like for anybody else. I don't think I am a 'TB'. On the other hand the facts is the facts. I find it hard to 'explain away'. Believe me - I've tried (though coward-like I remain agnostic).
[FairfieldLife] Brave New World: Better Than Dieting?
http://youtu.be/WfBE_DIR2Jo http://www.healthhabits.ca/2013/01/10/aspire-assist-medically-assisted-bulimia/ From the the inventor of the Segway apparently.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Lincoln
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: Bbut...wha wha wha what if we had us some visions of our past lives? What do we think then? (Happened to me at MIU - he he!) Gosh, when I think about how you were so ripped off... From: Ann awoelflebater@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 9:30 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lincoln  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, srijau@ no_reply@ wrote: PVR Narasimha Rao says that it looks like Lincoln is re-incarnated right now based on the birth chart of a well-known individual but I would imagine that person does not know it or believe it himself. So then what does it matter? Who says it matters ? Who says, you ask? Why, the people who take the time and trouble to conjecture on such things obviously think it matters. Seems a complete waste of time to me. No one could ever prove something like this and even if someone was Lincoln in one life it has no bearing on who they are currently, what they remember, what they will do in this new body. How does one possibly come up with these theories anyway? Much better to figure out who we are in this lifetime since there isn't even a way to prove we live multiple, reincarnated lives and all we really have is the 'what's happenin' now'. It never ceases to astound me the things people think up to spend their time pursuing. Lincoln, my ass. It's a simply fact that people die and later gets a new body. Same will happen to you, so make hay when the sun shines :-) My God, some of you live in a dream world. Assertions are made and not a hope in Hell of proving anything. Lincoln one day, some bum the next. All in a day's work. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Scorsese in his commentary on Gangs of New York talked about Lincoln not being a popular as our school history books would have made out. Some of those facts come out in the film. Similarly his HBO series Boardwalk Empire mirrors much of the corruption we see in modern day politics. I'll get around to seeing Lincoln probably the way I watched The Dark Night Rises on Bluray as I did last night. First off I was pissed that the was mostly 16:9 instead of 2:35:1. Gives me pause to ever rent another WB title again. Second, the story seemed to telegraph to the audience that it is bad to go up against the rich and be for the people. That seemed to be some social engineering that wasn't needed. Afterward I found a Netflix indie to wash my palette. The incarnation of Lincoln is today a highly developed individual living in Washington DC were he works for the government. I wouldn't be surprised if Scorsese, a long-time TM meditator, interviewed Lincoln.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Dec 21
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: I'll let Barry or may Curtis respond to that if they so choose. Me not B/C, but humbly suggest food for thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/oct/30/world-improving-say-american-authors Then again DY he suggest I *AM* B/C? From: srijau@... srijau@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 9:51 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Reflections on Dec 21  Crime is declining markedly in all these areas influenced by these groups, and other social indicators like rates of poverty are also showing unprecedented improvement. Its now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@ wrote: Please tell you friend's friend's friend not to hold their breath till this happens - its the same old TM Movement schtick - hanging on till the Rapture comes, always dealing in futures. Sort of like waiting for Elijah. From: Rick Archer rick@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 11:34 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Reflections on Dec 21  From the friend of a friend of a friend:  Reflections on the events of Dec 12, 2012  As the Global Mother Divine director for Guatemala, I thought Iâd pass on some reflections I had from the events on December 21 this year in Monte Alban. I donât really know that much about it and certainly shouldnât be taken as an authority. Much of this is just what I have gleaned from glimpses I have gained while trying to keep in touch with it in spare moments over the last few years.  The first part is meant to be fact. I hope Iâve got all the details at least mostly right. Many of you may know most of this and more.  The Mayans never actually thought that Dec 21 was going to be the end of the world. In fact, until 2010 the Mayans never even talked about the ending of their calendar at all. The Mayans are, in general, quite happy and comfortable to stay to themselves. Not many are welcome into their world and very few ever leave. So there has not been much communication of what they believe or donât believe, until the last couple of years, with anyone.  But more than a decade ago some Mayans apparently did come to the US to college here and mentioned that their calendar ended on Dec 21. They had no idea what that meant or what was going to happen after that. So the Judeo-Christian apocalyptic habit of thinking in this country turned it into the end of the world. And that concept went around the world. EVERYONE around the world, as far as I can tell from my travels and living with so many of other cultures, knew that Dec 21 was âThe Dayâ.  But 2 years ago, the Mayan elder who is the Prophesy Keeper and Day Keeper, Don Alejandro, did start to talk about the end of the calendar, and in order to quell the fear, he did go as public as possible with the help of new age friends through internet and travels to other countries. His message was, âDonât be afraid! The world is not going to end. It is the end of the current cycle of time and the beginning of a new one.â The ending cycle started about 5000 years ago, about the time Kali Yuga started.  The thing that amazes me was that he describes it in the same way and even with the same words that Maharishi describes the new age he worked towards for so many decades. Don Alejandro said the new time will be Heaven on Earth (those words were used on the internet, at least), a time of peace and harmony, where there will be no sickness or suffering. It will be a time when people will fly through the air like clouds. The world will be without boarders, and everyone will be able to travel anywhere without passports. He described it as a beautiful new time to very much look forward to. He also predicted that the day would be like any other day, like New Years eve. A new year is beginning, but it doesnât feel immediately any different from the old year. These are prophesies that, as I understand it, have been around for 5000 years, but have been passed on from father to son, or keeper to keeper, silently. The Mayan people didnât even really know. No one did until 2 years ago.  There is no TM Movement in Guatemala, no local teachers. Raja Louis imported two Spanish Governors to teach there a number of years ago, and they have been knocking on doors, and knocking on doors for many years, and for so long found the doors all locked. Finally they found some openings, and finally they reached the Mayan elders. I have no idea how long it took for the elders to âgetâ what the Governors were saying, but when they finally
[FairfieldLife] Re: Heaven on Earth for Marshy's Kin Folks
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74 mjackson74@ wrote: A comment on the article about the 8,000 flyers in Mexico I too am a former TM sidha. I gave thousands of pounds to the organisation over many years, but had no more to do with it after I got close to an Indian working for the organisation at a senior level. He confided in me that the top people close to Maharishi had asked him to smuggle gold during his trips from Europe and USA back to India!! When he refused they pressured him and made him break down, threatening he would have no future in the organisation if he didn't comply. Thus was back in the 90's when Maharishi was still alive. No wonder the movement in India is rich! http://www.mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=broadcastbroadcastid=366529 No one brought charges against Maharishi for smuggling gold. Hearsay is not proof. Quite so. Something for which we should all be immensely grateful. Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit I live in the UK. Here employment law does not follow this principle. That is quite some shock when you come up against it. As a small business owner/manager you can suddenly find yourself 'in the dock' without this ancient guarantor of your rights (i.e having to *prove* your innocence). Quite disturbing. I once employed a fruitcake who accused me of 'touching her up' (and this person accused others of other dramatic violations, e.g. racist abuse). So now I *really* appreciate the importance and value of innocent until proved guilty. And I'm inclined to thank my lucky stars no one has yet realised what a wonderful guru I could be, and come knocking on my door and putting me on a grand pedestal (as per MMY/MJ?). Crucifixion isn't the half of it. It is a racing certainty that the fruitcakes will gravitate to anyone with an ounce of charisma (like moths to the flame that obscure the light) and create mayhem. My MMY predicted as much. How awful it must be to have to cope with TB fanatical followers and their inevitable disappointment. The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges. He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party. Wikipedia: Burden of Proof
[FairfieldLife] Re: Heaven on Earth for Marshy's Kin Folks
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... wrote: Some of your assertions seem suspect to me. Like crazy people flocking to the supposedly enlightened or as you say those with an oz of charisma. If he were so sattvic and enlightened, no crazy people could get within a mile of him - they wouldn't be able to stand the purity. That's the way it works - You *know* that? How? It seems to me much more natural that the positive should attract the negative. The old 'cosmic balance' thing and all that. so if he said they would flock sounds to me like a fraud knowing what kind of energy he's putting out So going by your example we are to ignore the testimony of the skin boys who witnessed him chasing women right and left Not at all. Did I say that? But it's sensible to retain your critical faculties over all testimony, no? I have read JB - I don't see *him chasing women right and left*. It seemed to me to be a love story. Frankly I'm not sure I'd care if he did anyway. He has lovely skin. Poor man, no sex.' Brian Blessed on the Dalai Lame. What a waste? and also saw first hand the financial manipulations? If true, could that not be established in court? Go ahead and keep your fantasy of who you believe he was - he's only been dead a few years - as time goes by more and more truth will surface until only the truly die hard TM fanatics will ever believe he was anything other than a top notch con artist. Could it be the world is not so starkly black and white as you portray? Perhaps even... relative? I think I am a stranger to MMY TB. I think you are not. The negation of the negation as they say...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Subjective vs. Objective Experience
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: My friend said that he often had to interview 20 witnesses of a homicide, and take down their testimony. He looked at me deeply, possibly hoping for some compassionate understanding (and luckily finding it) and said, More often than not, it is 20 different stories. Everyone sees it go down differently, sometimes radically differently. http://youtu.be/E3h-T3KQNxU
