[FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: But that was not one of the incidents I was refer- ring to. Nor the technique. :-) Funny thing, though, the initial boast was virtually identical to the one above... I guess you can't know everything by just reading shit on the Internet, eh Judy? :-) What I said to JohnR has nothing to do with the story you continue to distort and lie about in an attempt to get Barry. Unlike you, I learned more than one tech- nique in my life. :-) I was referring to one of the others. And now...back to the point I keep making. :-) What was your INTENT in jumping into this? You said absolutely nothing to defend JohnR. All *that* you did, in fact, was to completely misunderstand what I said to him, relate it to some story it wasn't related to, and think, Oh boy...I've got another opportunity to GET BARRY. That is what this is about. That is ALL that this is about. You never gave a shit about JohnR. You aren't defending him. You read what I said, related it in your mind to something it wasn't related to, and used it as an opportunity to call one of your enemies a sadist and a sociopath. All on the basis of you conflating what I said to JohnR yesterday with something said months or years ago, which you used *THEN* as an excuse to GET BARRY, too. See the trend here, Judy? It doesn't matter what is said. The only thing you look for in what is said is another opportunity to GET BARRY. If there is anything sociopathic goin' down here, I might suggest that it's on the part of the person who has been doing this for sixteen years.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: It all depends on what kind of technologies are being adopted. If the technologies promote the development of consciousness, the change would be good. If not, society or the people would just be buried in more gross matter, even when the technologies appear to be new fangled. We as individuals need to discern the illusion from the real. I just love this guy. :-) OK, dude. We know from your post the other day that you're afraid of boobs. So what is it that makes you afraid of *matter*, enough to consider it gross? I'm differentiating between gross matter, meaning the substances that bind the self to this worldly existence and consciousness, the lively potential of the self. If one is bound to matter, then his/her potential becomes limited to this phenomenal existence. Are you so much of a Dualist that you reject all of even Maharishi's teachings about Unity, and that there is essentially no difference between matter and spirit or consciousness or whatever it is that you call what it is that you prefer over gross matter? Perhaps, I'm not at that stage of Unity consciousness. Next time you think matter is an illusion, drop by my place and I can promise you I'll do something that will convince you that matter is not an illusion. I've done it before for spiritual seekers who tried to lay the olde New Age / spiritual line about the relative world (the world of matter) not existing on me, and *without exception* every one of them admitted afterwards that not only does it exist, it needs to be paid attention to much more than they were paying attention to it before. You misunderstood the whole point. Perhaps, the world of phenomenal existence has taken over you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: It all depends on what kind of technologies are being adopted. If the technologies promote the development of consciousness, the change would be good. If not, society or the people would just be buried in more gross matter, even when the technologies appear to be new fangled. We as individuals need to discern the illusion from the real. I just love this guy. :-) OK, dude. We know from your post the other day that you're afraid of boobs. So what is it that makes you afraid of *matter*, enough to consider it gross? I'm differentiating between gross matter, meaning the substances that bind the self to this worldly existence and consciousness, the lively potential of the self. If one is bound to matter, then his/her potential becomes limited to this phenomenal existence. There is just as much binding influence in aversion as there is attachment. The things you have said on this forum -- and, in fact, the things you say in this post -- lead me to believe that you *averse* to the relative world, especially its pleasures. I -- obviously :-) -- am not. Nor am I overly attached to them. They're just shit that happens. I don't cling to it or desire it to happen again. I just keep on truckin' and wait for more shit to happen. :-) Are you so much of a Dualist that you reject all of even Maharishi's teachings about Unity, and that there is essentially no difference between matter and spirit or consciousness or whatever it is that you call what it is that you prefer over gross matter? Perhaps, I'm not at that stage of Unity consciousness. Aha. But you are *espousing* a point of view and philosophy and interpretation of creation that is *based* on being in that state of consciousness. In other words, you are treating the world around you as if it were something completely different than the way you actually perceive it. You're dealing with an idealized vision of the world and how it works that has been taught to you, and rejecting the world As It Is for you, real-time, every day. Cool, I guess, if you like living a fantasy. Me, I'm gonna stick with reality -- that which I perceive given my current, real-time, here-and- now state of consciousness. Next time you think matter is an illusion, drop by my place and I can promise you I'll do something that will convince you that matter is not an illusion. I've done it before for spiritual seekers who tried to lay the olde New Age / spiritual line about the relative world (the world of matter) not existing on me, and *without exception* every one of them admitted afterwards that not only does it exist, it needs to be paid attention to much more than they were paying attention to it before. You misunderstood the whole point. Perhaps, the world of phenomenal existence has taken over you. I certainly hope so. That would be preferable in my opinion to living in the world but being so averse to it that one can not only not enjoy its pleasures, but feeling that you have the right to badrap those who do. That would also be preferable to perceiving the world one way but living as if it were something else entirely, the way you seem to do. Do you ever have any FUN, John? Other than reading fairy tales (uh...sorry...I meant to say scriptures) and making fictional connections between the things said in the fairy tales (uh...scriptures) and stuff in your head. You know...like there is an actual connection between women dressing immodestly and earth- quakes. That may actually *be* your idea of FUN, and if so may it bring you great pleasure. Me, I'll gaze appreciatively for a moment at the immodestly dressed women and then move on, unattached to them, unaverse to them. On the overall scale of FUN, I somehow think my approach is a bit *more* FUN. And much less binding, too. Unless one of the immodestly dressed women offers to tie me up. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: But that was not one of the incidents I was refer- ring to. Nor the technique. :-) Funny thing, though, the initial boast was virtually identical to the one above... I guess you can't know everything by just reading shit on the Internet, eh Judy? :-) What I said to JohnR has nothing to do with the story you continue to distort and lie about in an attempt to get Barry. Well, you know, I neither distorted nor lied about it. Folks can check the Satsang Fairfield thread if they're dubious. Unlike you, I learned more than one tech- nique in my life. :-) I was referring to one of the others. Maybe you were, maybe you weren't. Color me suspicious. Nobody's going to visit you in Spain to take advantage of your offer, so if it *is* a different technique, it won't be any loss to reveal it here. And it would give you an opportunity to GET JUDY by proving my suspicions wrong. Win-win for you, Barry. Let's remind ourselves of what Barry promised it would accomplish: Next time you think matter is an illusion, drop by my place and I can promise you I'll do something that will convince you that matter is not an illusion. I've done it before for spiritual seekers who tried to lay the olde New Age / spiritual line about the relative world (the world of matter) not existing on me, and *without exception* every one of them admitted afterwards that not only does it exist, it needs to be paid attention to much more than they were paying attention to it before. The technique is also very useful for curing seekers of the notion that they 'create their own reality.' So c'mon, Barry, let's hear it. And now...back to the point I keep making. :-) What was your INTENT in jumping into this? You said absolutely nothing to defend JohnR. Yeah, I did. I pointed out that you had deliberately misrepresented his phrase gross matter. You then went on to misunderstand, possibly inadvertently, his point, based on your misrepresentation of gross. All *that* you did, in fact, was to completely misunderstand what I said to him, Don't think so. relate it to some story it wasn't related to, The similarities were quite striking. Anyone who remembered the first instance would have noticed them and wondered about the relationship. and think, Oh boy...I've got another opportunity to GET BARRY. Well, more like, There goes Barry, trying to GET JOHN again, based on his dislike of John and his inability to fathom what John is saying. I think I'll just make a point of that. That is what this is about. That is ALL that this is about. You never gave a shit about JohnR. You aren't defending him. Yeah, I do, and I was. You read what I said, related it in your mind to something it wasn't related to, and used it as an opportunity to call one of your enemies a sadist and a sociopath. I stand by that, both the relationship and the characterizations. All on the basis of you conflating what I said to JohnR yesterday with something said months or years ago, which you used *THEN* as an excuse to GET BARRY, too. (Two years ago, in early May.) You bet I did. I thought it was appalling then, and I think it's appalling now. Not to mention ludicrous in its lack of understanding, just as Samuel Johnson's kicking the rock was. See the trend here, Judy? It doesn't matter what is said. The only thing you look for in what is said is another opportunity to GET BARRY. If there is anything sociopathic goin' down here, I might suggest that it's on the part of the person who has been doing this for sixteen years. Notice the hypocrisy, folks, of Barry criticizing anybody for going after people they don't like. That's his stock in trade, his modus operandi, his raison d'etre on this and every other forum I've been on with him in the past sixteen years. In this case, he was looking for an opportunity to GET JOHN. He's constantly looking for opportunities to GET JUDY. In his mind, it's perfectly OK for him to do this, OK for him to hurt his psychotic brother, OK for him to try to hurt *his* enemies. But hey, if they go after him, they're sociopaths. He's completely unable to see that he brings it on himself. He should try *not* going after folks for awhile, see if that cuts down on the number of times they go after him. I don't think he can, though. I think the only way he can maintain his image of himself as a highly evolved, superior being is to make everybody else into less evolved, inferior beings. If he stopped doing that, he'd have to accept himself as he is, no better than anybody else, and that would be intolerable, a fate worse than death.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Unlike you, I learned more than one tech- nique in my life. :-) I was referring to one of the others. Maybe you were, maybe you weren't. Color me suspicious. Nobody's going to visit you in Spain to take advantage of your offer, so if it *is* a different technique, it won't be any loss to reveal it here. And it would give you an opportunity to GET JUDY by proving my suspicions wrong. Win-win for you, Barry. LOL. I'm not Curtis. Or Ruth. I can't be taunted into entering into an extended pissing contest with you. Win for me. :-) Besides, it's one of those You had to have been there sorta thangs. It involves the use of occult energies, something you don't know anything about because they were never even mentioned by Maharishi. Come to think of it, you have a You had to have been there relationship with Maharishi, too. You never were. :-) That's 49 for you, Jude. Will you piss away your last post also trying to Get Barry, the way you have pissed away 15 others this week? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Unlike you, I learned more than one tech- nique in my life. :-) I was referring to one of the others. Maybe you were, maybe you weren't. Color me suspicious. Nobody's going to visit you in Spain to take advantage of your offer, so if it *is* a different technique, it won't be any loss to reveal it here. And it would give you an opportunity to GET JUDY by proving my suspicions wrong. Win-win for you, Barry. LOL. I'm not Curtis. Or Ruth. I can't be taunted into entering into an extended pissing contest with you. Win for me. :-) Ooopsie, better be careful about declaring who won. I mean, you might look like a hypocrite (in addition to a liar) when you try to put me down (falsely) for doing the same thing. Besides, it's one of those You had to have been there sorta thangs. It involves the use of occult energies, Uh-huh. Sure it does, Barry. James The Fabulous Randi has a million bucks just waiting for you. something you don't know anything about because they were never even mentioned by Maharishi. Ah, but I've read a great deal about them on the Internet. :-) Come to think of it, you have a You had to have been there relationship with Maharishi, too. You never were. :-) So make a videotape of your technique, Bar. We might not be able to see the occult energies, but we'll surely be able to see the victims admit that the relative world not only exists, it needs to be paid attention to much more than they were paying attention to it before. You know, particularly to the relative world of occult energies. I mean, what a testament that would be to your mastery of the occult, not to mention the Rightness of your view of reality! I don't see how you can resist such a demonstration, especially in the interests of Getting Judy. :-) :-) That's 49 for you, Jude. Will you piss away your last post also trying to Get Barry, the way you have pissed away 15 others this week? :-) Is not being able to count a symptom of impending dementia, I wonder? It's actually 11 (12 counting this one), all but 3 in response to Barry's attempts to Get Judy. And I figure they were all pretty productive, or Barry wouldn't feel he has to inflate the count. Apparently he's lost count of the days of the week as well. It'll be only a few hours before I have another full complement of 50 posts. On the other hand, maybe these types of errors are just indications of how blissfully unattached he is to the relative. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
Bhairitu: I think we are in for about 40 years of the US being a war zone... So, you're thinking that because of the unenforced immigration laws, the U.S. is in a 'war zone'. With hot-head liberals accusing their fellow citizens of being terrorists and 'shitheels'. Liberal protestors have already started throwing beer bottles at the police. What's next - bombs planted in Arizona banks? There are kidnappings and murders almost everyday along the border - and the violence is spreading into the U.S. One rancher on the U.S. side was murdered not long ago. But, the Federal government is failing to enforce the laws, so you've got what, half a million illegals in California now? What are you going to do about that? You were supposed to seal the border years ago! And so it is inevitable that eventually some state was going to take action... Read more: 'Rubio blasts AZ action on immigration' Posted by Ed Morrissey Hot Air, April 28, 2010 http://tinyurl.com/2vm3sdt
[FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
TurquoiseB: It involves the use of occult energies... Uh-huh. Sure it does, Barry. James The Fabulous Randi has a million bucks just waiting for you... So, I wonder how the hidden 'occult' energies fits in with Turq's proof of gross 'matter'. Does the occult have anything to do with the 'spiritual' energies being beyond the forms of 'gross' matter? Turq isn't making much sense today! The term is sometimes popularly taken to mean 'knowledge meant only for certain people' or 'knowledge that must be kept hidden', but for most practicing occultists it is simply the study of a deeper spiritual reality that extends beyond pure reason and the physical sciences... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult
[FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
with whats happening in Europe right now the economic may be coming faster than comfortable. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: Comment I made to a friend. Might stimulate discussion here: We're in the midst of the most fundamental transformation in recorded human history. The pace of change is accelerating faster than we realize. Many societal, economic, and technological systems which most consider rock-solid are already crumbling and will eventually die out, to be replaced by other systems which are already emerging. The trick is to balance the collapse of the old with the emergence of the new in such a way as to minimize disruption and chaos. We're not going back to 19th century technologies, we're moving ahead to entirely new ones. The evolutionary force is quickening.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shukra69 shukr...@... wrote: with whats happening in Europe right now the economic may be coming faster than comfortable. It's happening in all corners of the Planet. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Comment I made to a friend. Might stimulate discussion here: We're in the midst of the most fundamental transformation in recorded human history. The pace of change is accelerating faster than we realize. Now that communism is gone the next to go is capitalism - Maharishi, 1989 It's happening right in front of our eyes and the TM'rs should be the last to be astonished.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
It all depends on what kind of technologies are being adopted. If the technologies promote the development of consciousness, the change would be good. If not, society or the people would just be buried in more gross matter, even when the technologies appear to be new fangled. We as individuals need to discern the illusion from the real. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: Comment I made to a friend. Might stimulate discussion here: We're in the midst of the most fundamental transformation in recorded human history. The pace of change is accelerating faster than we realize. Many societal, economic, and technological systems which most consider rock-solid are already crumbling and will eventually die out, to be replaced by other systems which are already emerging. The trick is to balance the collapse of the old with the emergence of the new in such a way as to minimize disruption and chaos. We're not going back to 19th century technologies, we're moving ahead to entirely new ones. The evolutionary force is quickening.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_...@... wrote: It all depends on what kind of technologies are being adopted. If the technologies promote the development of consciousness, the change would be good. If not, society or the people would just be buried in more gross matter, even when the technologies appear to be new fangled. We as individuals need to discern the illusion from the real. I just love this guy. :-) OK, dude. We know from your post the other day that you're afraid of boobs. So what is it that makes you afraid of *matter*, enough to consider it gross? Are you so much of a Dualist that you reject all of even Maharishi's teachings about Unity, and that there is essentially no difference between matter and spirit or consciousness or whatever it is that you call what it is that you prefer over gross matter? Next time you think matter is an illusion, drop by my place and I can promise you I'll do something that will convince you that matter is not an illusion. I've done it before for spiritual seekers who tried to lay the olde New Age / spiritual line about the relative world (the world of matter) not existing on me, and *without exception* every one of them admitted afterwards that not only does it exist, it needs to be paid attention to much more than they were paying attention to it before. The technique is also very useful for curing seekers of the notion that they create their own reality. Let me know if you're interested... :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: It all depends on what kind of technologies are being adopted. If the technologies promote the development of consciousness, the change would be good. If not, society or the people would just be buried in more gross matter, even when the technologies appear to be new fangled. We as individuals need to discern the illusion from the real. I just love this guy. :-) OK, dude. We know from your post the other day that you're afraid of boobs. So what is it that makes you afraid of *matter*, enough to consider it gross? Barry is a writer. I think we can be pretty sure he knows the term gross has a number of different meanings, not limited to vulgar or icky. With regard to matter in particular, it's much more likely to mean not microscopic or made up of perceptible elements. snip Next time you think matter is an illusion, drop by my place and I can promise you I'll do something that will convince you that matter is not an illusion. I've done it before for spiritual seekers who tried to lay the olde New Age / spiritual line about the relative world (the world of matter) not existing on me, and *without exception* every one of them admitted afterwards that not only does it exist, it needs to be paid attention to much more than they were paying attention to it before. The technique is also very useful for curing seekers of the notion that they create their own reality. The last time Barry made this boast, it turned out he was referring to an incident in which he hit his brother in the solar plexus, knocking the wind out of him, when his brother was in the middle of a psychotic break. The sadism and sociopathy aside, this approach is along the same lines as the I refute it thus! of Samuel Johnson, who is said to have kicked a rock in outrage, injuring his foot, after hearing someone espouse the philosophy of Idealism (the idea that matter emerges from consciousness rather than the reverse). It's not recorded whether the proponent of Idealism laughed at Johnson's inability to grasp the implications of the philosophy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Next time you think matter is an illusion, drop by my place and I can promise you I'll do something that will convince you that matter is not an illusion. I've done it before for spiritual seekers who tried to lay the olde New Age / spiritual line about the relative world (the world of matter) not existing on me, and *without exception* every one of them admitted afterwards that not only does it exist, it needs to be paid attention to much more than they were paying attention to it before. The technique is also very useful for curing seekers of the notion that they create their own reality. The last time Barry made this boast, it turned out he was referring to an incident in which he hit his brother in the solar plexus, knocking the wind out of him, when his brother was in the middle of a psychotic break. The sadism and sociopathy aside, this approach is along the same lines as the I refute it thus! of Samuel Johnson, who is said to have kicked a rock in outrage, injuring his foot, after hearing someone espouse the philosophy of Idealism (the idea that matter emerges from consciousness rather than the reverse). It's not recorded whether the proponent of Idealism laughed at Johnson's inability to grasp the implications of the philosophy. THE CORRECTOR, in her zeal to Get Barry, leaves out the part of the story in which my brother had just beaten the shit out of our 70-year-old father, enough to require hospitalization. I felt a wake-up call was in order. After he sobered up and could breathe again, he agreed with me. But that was not one of the incidents I was refer- ring to. Nor the technique. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
Groovy man. We're back to the beat generation. Coffee shops, and now even pot houses. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: Comment I made to a friend. Might stimulate discussion here: We're in the midst of the most fundamental transformation in recorded human history. The pace of change is accelerating faster than we realize. Many societal, economic, and technological systems which most consider rock-solid are already crumbling and will eventually die out, to be replaced by other systems which are already emerging. The trick is to balance the collapse of the old with the emergence of the new in such a way as to minimize disruption and chaos. We're not going back to 19th century technologies, we're moving ahead to entirely new ones. The evolutionary force is quickening.
[FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Next time you think matter is an illusion, drop by my place and I can promise you I'll do something that will convince you that matter is not an illusion. I've done it before for spiritual seekers who tried to lay the olde New Age / spiritual line about the relative world (the world of matter) not existing on me, and *without exception* every one of them admitted afterwards that not only does it exist, it needs to be paid attention to much more than they were paying attention to it before. The technique is also very useful for curing seekers of the notion that they create their own reality. The last time Barry made this boast, it turned out he was referring to an incident in which he hit his brother in the solar plexus, knocking the wind out of him, when his brother was in the middle of a psychotic break. The sadism and sociopathy aside, this approach is along the same lines as the I refute it thus! of Samuel Johnson, who is said to have kicked a rock in outrage, injuring his foot, after hearing someone espouse the philosophy of Idealism (the idea that matter emerges from consciousness rather than the reverse). It's not recorded whether the proponent of Idealism laughed at Johnson's inability to grasp the implications of the philosophy. THE CORRECTOR, in her zeal to Get Barry, leaves out the part of the story in which my brother had just beaten the shit out of our 70-year-old father, enough to require hospitalization. I felt a wake-up call was in order. It's one thing if you did it as a preventive measure, to keep him from beating the shit out of somebody else he was about to go after. Oh, wait, that's what you added after I initially commented on the sadism and sociopathy of inflicting such a wake-up call on someone who was having a psychotic break. The story sort of came out bit by bit, from the boast about how you taught folks a lesson who didn't agree with you on the nature of reality to where it ended up, that you were trying to keep your disturbed brother from beating up another elderly man. After he sobered up and could breathe again, he agreed with me. But that was not one of the incidents I was refer- ring to. Nor the technique. :-) Funny thing, though, the initial boast was virtually identical to the one above in terms of all the folks you had taught a lesson to about what, right down to the gasping for breath part that these people experienced as the result of the blow. And when I said I doubted you'd ever actually done it to anybody, you came up with the tale about your brother, claiming you had *too* done it, once. And *then* it turned out that the person who had taught the lesson to all these people in this way was a karate instructor you had once studied with. The lesson was that they were supposed to pull their punches so they didn't hurt anybody. Which you then later applied to your psychotic brother after he'd hurt your father. That was a really interesting thread. Ironically enough, it was titled Satsang Fairfield. In any case, the direct parallel to Samuel Johnson injuring his own foot because he couldn't fathom Idealism was the same in both cases. Except that Barry imageines himself demonstrating his disagreement by hurting the Idealist: I refute it THUS!
[FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSpRpOrVEiA --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: Comment I made to a friend. Might stimulate discussion here: We're in the midst of the most fundamental transformation in recorded human history. The pace of change is accelerating faster than we realize. Many societal, economic, and technological systems which most consider rock-solid are already crumbling and will eventually die out, to be replaced by other systems which are already emerging. The trick is to balance the collapse of the old with the emergence of the new in such a way as to minimize disruption and chaos. We're not going back to 19th century technologies, we're moving ahead to entirely new ones. The evolutionary force is quickening.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change?
As gross as it may appear, boobs do matter! From: TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, 29 April, 2010 2:55:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: How fast can we change? --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, John jr_...@... wrote: It all depends on what kind of technologies are being adopted. If the technologies promote the development of consciousness, the change would be good. If not, society or the people would just be buried in more gross matter, even when the technologies appear to be new fangled. We as individuals need to discern the illusion from the real. I just love this guy. :-) OK, dude. We know from your post the other day that you're afraid of boobs. So what is it that makes you afraid of *matter*, enough to consider it gross? Are you so much of a Dualist that you reject all of even Maharishi's teachings about Unity, and that there is essentially no difference between matter and spirit or consciousness or whatever it is that you call what it is that you prefer over gross matter? Next time you think matter is an illusion, drop by my place and I can promise you I'll do something that will convince you that matter is not an illusion. I've done it before for spiritual seekers who tried to lay the olde New Age / spiritual line about the relative world (the world of matter) not existing on me, and *without exception* every one of them admitted afterwards that not only does it exist, it needs to be paid attention to much more than they were paying attention to it before. The technique is also very useful for curing seekers of the notion that they create their own reality. Let me know if you're interested.. . :-)
