[FairfieldLife] Where Have All The Cults Gone?

[PaliGap]

"Why have there been no new religious movements founded in the 
West for the past 20 years?" (Is this true? Ed.) 
http://goo.gl/QxZDt

* The rise of the Internet created new substitutes for 
religion - such as? Otherkin? World of Warcraft? Blogger.com?

* Secularization means less religion in general, and that 
includes less new religion

* What we have now is normal, it was the previous few decades 
that were abnormally rich in new religions and that's what 
needs to be explained. The 1960s gave us rock and roll, drugs, 
hippies, feminism, Civil Rights, etc. Have things generally 
been quieting down since then?

* The Internet / the 24 hour news cycle / Rupert Murdoch etc. 
has led to increasing homogenization of opinion - towards one 
pole in Europe, two poles red/blue states in USA... so there's 
less room for outliers.

* Cults have always been a social club for lonely people. But 
now we have OKCupid.

* The rise of psychiatry, psychiatric medication, and the 
increasing readiness to diagnose of mental illness means 
potential cult leaders and followers end up on Prozac, not

* Religious groups have declined, because all social groups, 
clubs, parties have declined - the Bowling Alone theory

* It's the decline of Western culture - we have lost the 
capacity to dream, to invent, to believe.

* It's the golden age of western culture - we have so much 
entertainment, culture, freedoms etc. compared to the past, so 
less motivation to drop out and create your own culture.

(Then again we have declension:
* I am a rational being
* He/She is a wacko
* They are in a cult)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Followup articles on the sorry state of "science"

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  
> > > wrote:
> > 
> > > > Another thing that annoys me as the amount journals charge to read
> > > > papers, all you can access is the abstract and you can pay $20 for
> > > > a read of the data. Should all be free to make it easier to 
> > > > research things.
> > > 
> > > I agree. One could almost get the impression that the
> > > researchers don't WANT people to view their actual data
> > > and look into the details of their methodology, eh?
> > 
> > One could, if one weren't aware of the fact that one 
> > factor in a researcher's prestige is the number of
> > times his or her papers get cited in other researchers'
> > papers.
> >
> 
> the NIH requires all papers that were published using NIH grants to be 
> available for free online. The Brits are going one step further and requiring 
> ALL research (I think) to be be available free online.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/7/16/british-research-goes-open-source.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dogs in Art

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> A Creative Video That Morphs Through 5,000 Years of Dogs in Art
> 
> https://laughingsquid.com/a-creative-video-morphing-through-5000-years-of-dogs-in-art/
>

A critical appreciation:
http://youtu.be/C_S5cXbXe-4

But you can't beat a cool cat...
http://youtu.be/Te7osuWL7pE

[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open Letter To Robin Vol. 3

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey  wrote:
>
> It is literally the case that I fear the shallow orthodoxies of
> Robin's barbaric form of absolutism. Okay, that's a slight
> exaggeration, but you get the drift. 

Er, no. Sorry mate, you've literally lost me.

WTF?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guess Bruce Cockburn's latest wasn't inaccessible, after all...

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
>
> I was wondering which planet that is - My guess was Jupiter since it appeared 
> in that spot during last year or perhaps two years ago. 

If you have Android - this is handy:

http://www.google.com/mobile/skymap/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Extraordinary Results from Course on Vedic Physiology

[PaliGap]

> Bhairitu:
> > Keep digging your hole and eventually you'll reach 
> > China. 

You live in Chile?

http://map.talleye.com/bighole.php

[FairfieldLife] Re: Wallander

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> I've been watching both versions of "Wallander" 
> lately, having missed them first time around. I
> thoroughly enjoy both, but tend to prefer the
> Swedish version. 

Yes me too - in fact I have enjoyed both Swedish versions 
(Krister Henriksson & Rolf Lassgård as Wallander). Fine
actor he may be, but I think Branagh does Henry V types
better than flawed, non-charismatic 'everymen'.

I was just so shocked when I learnt that the actress
Johanna Sällström, who played opposite Krister Henriksson's
Wallander as his daughter, had topped herself. Even more so
given that she had a miraculous escape from the 2004 tsunami
(and saved her young daughter too). Oddly it seems that her
survival of the tsunami aggravated her tendency to depression,
which led ultimately to suicide.

"...this was only the final, devastating precipitous
psychological decline she suffered in a life-long battle with
depression. She had stated in an interview in 2006 with the
editor of the magazine Tove, "I always thought I would be dead
at the age of thirty." Already battered and weakened by years
of mental illness, the tsunami shattered her fragile psyche,
culminating in her overdose on sleeping pills at the age of 32.
She had made it past 30, but it could be said that her death
was a self-fulfilling prophecy."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Collapse of the Wave Function

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:

WTF - What a wonderful juxtaposition of posts. "LOL"

(Sorry to be so far behind)

> WTF..here I am talking about my beloved, love, sex, hate, pain, bliss,
> longing, separation, oneness and you are talking about this garbage. You
> must be suffering from irrevocable, irreparable, irretrievable brain
> damage, am I correct in assuming this shaim307?
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:37 PM, shainm307  wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shainm307" shainm307@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is anyone else interested in how this works?
> > >
> > > It sure interests me. I don't have a clue how it
> > > works.
> > >
> > > > Anyone else curious on how reality manifests itself
> > > > and what determines differnt outcomes? This is what
> > > > John Hagelin told us
> > >
> > > What's what John Hagelin told us?
> > John told our physics class this when we asked him a few years back.
> > > > but he made it clear that he isn't 100% certain
> > >
> > > That's intriguing. I've never heard him say that
> > > about anything (but then I haven't been listening
> > > to whatever he's said lately).
> > He said something like "You have no idea just how complicated this really
> > is and you're not letting me off the hook here."  Then he also said "It
> > honest to God is random."
> > > and
> > > > it's more comlicated than you can imagine. He said
> > > > that it is an unnatural question but reality will
> > > > provide you with an answer.
> > >
> > > That's pretty cryptic. Any idea what he means?
> > >
> > > > He also said it could be an entity on the other side.
> > >
> > > Whoa. What kind of "entity"? On the other side of what?
> > > And what's "it" referring to?
> > He's probally refering to the Hidden Sector Matter part of the universe or
> > the other side of the equation in Hectoratic E8xE8
> > > > also he said it's just the will of God. Anyone else
> > > > have their speculations on how this works. I have
> > > > my own speculation but I'm probably wrong on something.
> > >
> > > Why don't you post your speculation, give us something
> > > to bounce off of?
> > I think how your reality manifests itself is based off random
> > probabilities with the exception of Maxwell's Daemon which manifests things
> > in an unrandom way. This is all due to the potentiality waves based off
> > probabilities with the height of the wave the most likely outcome; Maxwells
> > Demon just influences the probabilities( John made this clear in his
> > physics class if you ever took it). So you live your day through the
> > probabilities with the collapse of the wave function being determined in a
> > random way(Randomness is my specualtation as scientists aren't sure). Now
> > here comes the unrandom part: your thoughts determine what Maxwell's Demon
> > determines in an unrandom fashion. The random part is the confusing part as
> > it is hard to think how can something be random and what the sequence is in
> > the whole process.  This once again would be my speculation, as I think it
> > is all determined by you.  This is what I think matters in the whole
> > randomness part: freewill, love, what matters, intelligence of the
> > universe, creativity of the universe and of course God, plus probably a
> > lot more.  I havn't captured the whole random process but I imagine it's
> > based off your freewill.
> >
> > > "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how
> > can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain,' into a blind
> > alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like
> > that."--Richard Feynman on the apparent absurdities of quantum behavior
> > >
> > > "The chance is high that the truth lies in the fashionable direction.
> > But, on the off chance that it is in another direction â€" a direction
> > obvious from an unfashionable view of field theory â€" who will find it? 
> > Only
> > someone who has sacrificed himself by teaching himself quantum
> > electrodynamics from a peculiar and unfashionable point of view; one that
> > he may have to invent for himself."--Richard Feynman, Nobel lecture, 1965
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Collapse of the Wave Function

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> I actually created this world. I thought I planned it pretty good but I made 
> a big mistake, I included myself in my creation subject to the same rules 
> which I obviously can't remember. But I know this game has an end so I just 
> ride along. So I know this is all mine, I own everyone's ass, but people 
> think I'm mad and crazy, why?

You stole my donkey - I want it back!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Collapse of the Wave Function

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> But then I get incredibly blissed because I know I'm the emperor that owns 
> this fucking existence, 'cause I fucking created it !!!

Fuck off. I did. I created you you twat. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Anyone tried this?

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardatrwilliamsdotus"  
wrote:
> > > In the context of yoga, 'caNDaalii' fairly probably 
> > > refers to heat...
> > >
> Vaj:
> > It's also a close homophone of kundali (kuNDalI)...
> >
> According to the Cologne Sanskrit Lexicon, the Sanskrit 
> word 'kuNDalin' refers to snake that is 'coiled'.
> 
> If you are a TM practitioner, you would have probably 
> experienced the kundalini rising effect many times. I
> don't know why Vaj is being disingenuous about this,
> since most of us are yogis on this forum and already
> know this.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> According to Swami Sivananda Saraswati, Kundalini yoga 
> is really considered a Laya yoga. 


No one seems much interested in 'karma yoga' do
they. Not sufficiently glamorous, arcane and esoteric
perhaps.


> The kundalini yoga 
> energy can be awakened and a corresponding 
> enlightenment experience can be attained by yogic 
> techniques, such as pranic breathing, kriyas, hatha 
> yoga asanas, and mantra meditation.
> 
> Benson has demonstrated that a deep meditation, like 
> TM practice, is a "conscious mental process that 
> induces a set of integrated physiologic changes 
> termed the relaxation response." 
> 
> In one study a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was 
> used to identify brain regions that are active in 
> simple meditation. In another study, it was recorded 
> that there was "a skin temperature reduction on the 
> palms of the hands during the experience of mental 
> silence", arising as a result of a single 10 minute 
> meditation session!
> 
> Works cited:
> 
> 'Kundalini Yoga'
> By Swami Sivananda Saraswati
> The Divine Life Society, 2007
> Page page 32.
> 
> 'Functional brain mapping of the relaxation response 
> and meditation'
> By Herbert Bensin and Sara Lazar
> Neuroreport, May 15, 2000
> Volume 11, Issue 7; pp. 1581-1585
> 
> 'Changing Definitions of Meditation: Physiological 
> Corollorary'
> By Manocha, Black, Ryan, Stough, and Spiro
> Journal of the International Society of Life Sciences, 
> Vol 28 (1), March 2010
> 
> Read more:
> 
> 'Kundalini Demystified'
> By David T, Eastman
> Yoga Journal, September 1985
> pp. 37–43
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Robin

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardatrwilliamsdotus"  
wrote:
> > > I'm doomed to be a failure, I understand 
> > > and accept that...
> > >
> Vaj:
> > Don't be a mega-pimp Ravi.
> >
> Now we've got Ravi 'nuked', and Vaj calling him 
> a 'mega-pimp', now that Ravi can't post a defense. 
> 
> Man, that's low!
>

Too right.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Internet freedom converning Ravi's posts

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 

> Ravi had been booted before. He came in with guns blazing when
> he first joined FFL and was soon so offensive that we had to let
> him go. 

Doncha just love that expression "let him go".

I was once a naive employer and had never heard of this
expression. Then one of my partners suggested of an 
employee "we're going to have to let him go". 

Euphemism or what!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Aquinas again

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> Every virtuous act has these four traits: controlled knowledge,
> right intention, unwavering purpose, and sense of situation.
> Aquinas

But is every act with those traits virtuous? I would
think not (thinking here of what they say about the
construction of the road to hell - which undoubtedly requires
knowledge of paving, right intention, purpose and 
situation).

If not, then presumably these traits are not 'of the essence'
of Virtue?

And if not that, then... Aquinas hasn't said very much has he?
(unless the heavy lifting is done by the word 'right' in 
'right intention' - which just makes it circular? What IS 'right
intention'?)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Aquinas again

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
 
> By the way, did you not think that France outplayed the All
> Blacks in that final? I did.

It WAS a great game. A thrilling end to the tournament. It's
a tribute to the match, and to both teams, that such a low
scoring match (8-7) was nevertheless such a fine finale. 

I am tempted to go along with you insofar as, had France won,
they would have thoroughly deserved victory 'on the day'. But
admiration for their performance in the final is driven mainly
by contrasting that 'spirit', that 'stepping up to the plate'
with how underwhelming they had been up to that point. One could
not have felt that (as you might say) reality supported the
idea that they were ultimately true and worthy champions. 
They struggled against your lot. And they laboured 
past a Welsh side by a margin of one point. This despite the
referee rather harshly consigning the Welsh captain to the 
bench for three quarters of the game.

The Kiwis on the other hand cruised imperiously to the final,
even though they were sorely handicapped by the loss of Dan
Carter. And what about their unfortunate stand-in penalty kicker
who missed so many chances? I really felt for the guy. By
rights - if that means anything - the All Blacks were entitled 
to more points on the board, no?

Can we look at the 'essence' of both teams? I think we can,
don't you? (A little scholastic realism which would have
pleased your mate Aquinas). In essence, the Kiwis deserved
to win surely. It would have been horrific in rugby-mad
New Zealand if France had 'stolen' victory (again!). One
would fear for the nation's mental stability. This is 
because 'in essence' the All Blacks were clearly better in
this World Cup than any other side by a country mile. 

In fact - I can see your agenda here - a French victory so
much against the odds and all the principles of Natural
Justice would have been firm evidence that God has indeed
left the building. But no...I think *maybe* She stepped in
and made it alright on the night. 

You need to reconsider!

PS. I would though nominate the exotically-named French
flanker Imanol Harinordoquy as my player of the tournament. 

[FairfieldLife] A Critique Of Sam Harris et al Neural Correlates of Religious Belief

[PaliGap]

Brains, fMRI, scientific method and stuff:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4923

"Did you know that "regions" of your brain light up when you
think about Santa Claus or God? And that these "regions" are
thought to be "associated" with various behaviors like excess
emotion, schizophrenia, and other, gentler forms of nuttiness?

It's all true. Scientists regularly stick people's heads
inside machines, ask the people to think of this or that, and
then watch as the machines show "regions" of the brain glowing
orange. The scientists then employ statistical methods guaranteed
to generate over-confidence, but which allow the scientists to
write papers which contain broad, even bracing, claims about all
of humanity and of how everybody's brain functions.

This sort of thing is all the rage, so much so that hardly a
week passes without new headlines about what secrets the Whitecoat
Brigade have uncovered in the brain (this week: Study shows how
scientists can now `read your mind').

It is therefore of great interest to us to examine this
phenomena and see what it means"

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trending Now

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"  wrote:
> turquoiseb:
> > Following up with a few caveats to the below. First, I 
> > am more than willing to admit that everything I posted
> > below is my OPINION
> >
> 1. I do not take it thus; 
> 2. I do not take it the other way; 
> 3. I advance no different opinion; 
> 4. I do not deny your position; and 
> 5. I do not say that is neither the one nor the other. 

> - Sanjaya the Skeptic

There was a chap who didn't do
A lot of things like me and you
He didn't do a lot today
But still found time to have his say!

[FairfieldLife] Re: A moderate-sized solar flare:Aurora Jan 23 2012

[PaliGap]

So I can venture out of my bunker now?

According to human wiki Stephen Fry:

"Everyone expected to die in 1910 because they thought the
nitrogen in the atmosphere would turn into laughing gas.
That year Halley's Comet pasted the Earth and at the time
astronomy was beginning to take shape as a serious science. 
However, some people were worried that the tail would pass
through the atmosphere and turn the nitrogen into laughing
gas (nitrous oxide), causing everyone to die laughing. Some
people put rags in keyholes, over doors and windows and
stop the gas coming in."

http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/qi/episodes/8/6/

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> The anticipated geomagnetic storm caused by Monday's M8.7-class
> solar flare and Tuesday's coronal mass ejection (CME) impact is
> over. The aurora watch has been cancelled for all but the highest
> latitudes around the Arctic Circle.-cardemaister has tuned his
> instrument  and taken some similiar photos we hope
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9xwEqP4sY4
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU4hpsistDk&feature=fvst
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4gRTI5bANA
> 
> 
> http://www.aurora-guide.com/
>  session_token=ZTVe3GLT8s8p7l_WRzKQpdoWTAl8MTMyNzU4MzI3NUAxMzI3NDk2ODc1>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: can I be simple here?

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
  
[snip] 
> But I want to emphasize again, it's not fair to suggest that
> Robin "beat" or deliberately harmed his students

I quite agree. I wish I could get my hands on the person
who aired that idea here and stank the place out.

Anyhoo - now that's cleared up, we can move on, eh? Next!

[FairfieldLife] Re: A moderate-sized solar flare:Aurora Jan 23 2012

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> no you got it all wrong- something good is happening-has happened
> be happy [:D]
> didn't you felt that intense energy over there?

Sorry - am handicapped:
http://youtu.be/toHlMD50eYY

[FairfieldLife] Re: A moderate-sized solar flare:Aurora Jan 23 2012

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
> > >
> > > According to human wiki Stephen Fry:
> > > 
> > > "Everyone expected to die in 1910 because they thought the
> > > nitrogen in the atmosphere would turn into laughing gas.
> > > That year Halley's Comet pasted the Earth and at the time
> > > astronomy was beginning to take shape as a serious science. 
> > > However, some people were worried that the tail would pass
> > > through the atmosphere and turn the nitrogen into laughing
> > > gas (nitrous oxide), causing everyone to die laughing. Some
> > > people put rags in keyholes, over doors and windows and
> > > stop the gas coming in."
> > > 
> > > http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/qi/episodes/8/6/
> 
> I'm still laughing about this. 
> 
> Best. Apocalypse. Ever.
> 
> The thing is that there is a screenplay in this. Imagine
> the scene, as a bunch of upper class English twits and
> twitesses barricade themselves in their house to await
> the apocalypse, all trying desperately not to laugh. :-)
>

Fry's 'QI' TV program is an education. Full of need-to-
know facts. I was a bit of a Bart Simpson at school, but
if I had been taught history lessons like this QI gem, I
might have paid more attention:

"- In 1784, Britons George Biggin and Letisha Sage
performed not only the first hydrogen balloon flight,
but could also be argued to be the first members of the
"Mile High Club" by having sex in their balloon. It was
organised by an Italian called Lunardi who was meant to go
with them, but he got out thinking the balloon would not
support three people. He got out just as it took off in
St. George's Fields, and as the balloon flew over Piccadilly
people could see Sage on all-fours, although she tried to
make excuses claiming she was not having sex. The balloon
traveled 14 miles, landing in Harrow. The incident became
a huge scandal, with people asking whether having sex in a balloon
was possible at all. The wager books, which contain lists of
all the bets made in London clubs, contained one bet which
read: "Lord Cholmondeley has given two guineas to Lord Derby
to receive 500 guineas whenever his lordship 'plays hospitals'
with a woman in a balloon 1,000 yards from the Earth."

[FairfieldLife] Has Science Refuted Materialism?

[PaliGap]

Rupert Sheldrake (he of "morphic resonance") has a new book
coming out - the Science Delusion - which is creating some
interesting discussion.

First, a review by the philosopher Mary Midgely:

"The unlucky fact that our current form of mechanistic
materialism rests on muddled, outdated notions of matter
isn't often mentioned today. It's a mess that can be ignored
for everyday scientific purposes, but for our wider thinking
it is getting very destructive."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/27/science-delusion-rupert-sheldrake-review

Then in the Guardian again: "It's time for science to move on
from materialism"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/28/science-move-away-materialism-sheldrake

And also there is an interesting article by physicist Lubos
Motl. I think he could be characterized as saying: A plague
on both your houses - both materialists, and those who grab
at Quantum Mechanics for fanciful spiritual and religious
speculations.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/01/has-science-refuted-materialism.html

(Motl, brilliant maverick theoretical physicist that he is,
really could do with a web designer friend).




 

[FairfieldLife] Re: [Oldies but goldies?] Baltic Sea UFO??

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73SVXSiEE5U

Thanks - I'm a sucker for this kind of stuff!

[FairfieldLife] Re: There are obsessions, and then there are obsessions...

[PaliGap]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2728595.stm

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> This one strikes me as one of the latter, the benevolent
> and slightly wondrous kinds of obsession:
> 
> "I want to build a clock that ticks once a year. The 
> century hand advances once every one hundred years, and 
> the cuckoo comes out on the millennium. I want the cuckoo 
> to come out every millennium for the next 10,000 years. 
> If I hurry I should finish the clock in time to see the 
> cuckoo come out for the first time." 
> — Danny Hillis, The Millennium Clock, Wired Scenarios, 1995
> 
> He got to build it. It's an ongoing project funded by
> Jeff Bezos called the Clock Of The Long Now. 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_of_the_Long_Now
> 
> http://longnow.org/about/
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The problem Atheists have

[PaliGap]

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

> For example if they found that it was the same area of the brain that 
> generates internal images rather than the external area, would that make a 
> difference in how you thought about this?  What if you knew that whenever a 
> person has the same area affected by stroke, they end up with similar 
> experiences?

Let's say I had a stroke and then started seeing the Empire State
Building form my window (I live in Cornwall, UK). Let's even
suppose that everyone who has just such a stroke also 'sees'
the Empire State Building. Does that imply that the the views of US
tourists in New York are 'internal', and delusional?

Let's say Jim sees an angel and his 'internal brain area' lights
up (are there such areas?). Is that an anomaly for the theory, one
that implies its falsity? Or, as you suppose, evidence for Jim's
seeing 'internal' delusions? How do you decide, without begging the
question? 

[FairfieldLife] Alyssa talking backwards

[PaliGap]

http://youtu.be/4O0ubiI

[FairfieldLife] Re: Richard Dawkins Reveals He's not an Atheist

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> So far no one has not proved Zeus does not exist,

Surely "no one has proved Zeus does not exist"? I would
have thought everyone, not no one, 'has not proved Zeus
does not exist' ;-)

>...That you can create a noun for something does not mean
> there is a corresponding entity, force, or field to which
> the noun seems to refer. There is a class of literature for
> this, it is called fiction.

And Philosophy. Quine 'On What There is':
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_What_There_Is

(IMO showing the proper use of the idea of ontology, one
that rescues it from the 'first person ontology' latter-day 
kidnappers).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Testing clickable link

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pall  wrote:
>
>  Frankly I don't want to be bored to death by some
> British poet reading one of his works in a monotone.   
> I did just fine in 4th grade, thank you, and didn't
> need to repeat it.  Or stay developmentally arrested
> there.

Ha!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXYMNDu-qxo

"...a shadow man. He's a man to correct Man. But of course
he's not a man - he's a crow, and he never does quite become
a man...

...The crow is the indestructible...bird, who suffering
everything, suffers nothing"

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Sandals

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb 
 wrote:

> I am told that Adi Da once got five figures for 
> a used Q-tip still containing some of his holy 
> ear wax. Really. And that's a lot more difficult
> to put in a glass case and pass around to the
> brothas and sistas before a meal.  

Round my parts a cafe owner has created a 'museum of 
celebrity leftovers' (and is now auctioning them for 
charity).

http://goo.gl/2HnBc

Guide to the estimated value of items in the Museum of 
Celebrity Leftovers:

Prince of Wales, heir to the throne – Small lump of 
bread pudding, made to Mrs Bennett's traditional 
Cornish family recipe, good condition – £300

David Bailey, photographer – Crust from cheese and 
tomato sandwich on Cornish speckle bread, some seeds, 
mould-free – £100

Hugh Dennis, comedian, star of popular sitcom 
Outnumbered – Shell fragment from egg used in his 
sandwich; crumpled, otherwise good condition – £100

Sharron Davies, Olympic swimmer – Single blackcurrant 
from Cornish-made Callestick blackcurrant and cream 
ice cream, dry but in good condition – £100

Michael Winner, film director, restaurant critic, car 
insurance advert star – Uneaten piece of lemon drizzle 
cake, small – £100

Eddie Marsan, actor, appeared with Jude Law and Robert 
Downey Jr in the film Sherlock Holmes – Fragment of 
Cornetto wrapping, good condition – £60

John Woodvine, actor in more than 70 theatre 
productions including the RSC's 1976 production of 
Macbeth with Dame Judi Dench and Sir Ian McKellen – 
Single flake from a croissant; smallest exhibit in the 
museum, requires careful handling or will blow away, 
otherwise good condition – £60

Jan Leeming, ex-newsreader – Piece of crystallised 
ginger from Cornish ginger ice cream, good condition – 
£60

Mia Wasikowska, Austrian actress, star of Tim Burton's 
film Alice in Wonderland – Courgette slice from her 
mixed Mediterranean vegetable soup. Blackened, some 
shrivelling – £60

Mark McGann, actor – Brown sugar packet, contents 
consumed in his large cappuccino. Scrunched – £60

Paul Heiney, TV presenter and journalist – Anchor 
wrapper from butter consumed with toast and scrambled 
egg. Crumpled – £60

Pete Goss MBE, sailor – Chocolate sprinkle from his 
cappuccino, good condition – £60

Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, First Sea Lord from 2006 to 
2009 – Raisin from Mrs Bennett's home-made fruit cake, 
excellent condition – £60

Steve Swindells and Jerry Richards, from US rock group 
Hawkwind – Grounds from their coffees, crumbs from a 
shared chocolate brownie, good condition – £60

'Shanks', musician from dance music duo Shanks and 
Bigfoot – Small piece of potato from Cornish pasty, 
hardened to pebble- like consistency but no mould – £60

Katie Carmichael, Coronation Street and Waterloo Road 
actress – Ice cream cone end. Good condition – £50

Tristan Sturrock, actor, starred in the film Saving 
Grace – Used decaffeinated coffee packet, signs of 
tearing – £50

Mary Woodvine, former EastEnders actress and daughter 
of John Woodvine – Coffee grounds from her cappuccino. 
Excellent condition – £50

William Tyler, musician from the US band Lambchop – 
Baked bean from cooked breakfast. Entirely black, 
mould hair removed – £50

Johnny Rutherford, reporter from the BBC regional news 
programme Spotlight – Pepper grains sprinkled on 
sandwich, good condition – £50

Craig Rich, retired local BBC weatherman – Pastry 
corner of Cornish pasty, excellent condition – £50

Patrik Fichte, 'heart-throb' actor, big in Germany – 
Tomato skin and salt granules from cheese, tomato and 
salt sandwich. (He insisted on the salt). Some 
blackening on the tomato – £50

Ursela Monn, German actress and singer, has co-starred 
with Fichte – Scone crumb from her cream tea, taken in 
the company of Fichte. Good condition but small – £50

Peter Knight, musician from 1970s folk rock group 
Steeleye Span – Napkin, stained brown from spilt 
coffee drops – £50

Stephanie Creek, former member of café staff who 
appeared on The Weakest Link – Chickpea from a mixed 
salad enjoyed during her lunch break. Dry, but in 
excellent condition – £50 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra 
wrote:

> Reincarnation has never been accepted in Western
> Civilization—except after LSD and the
> invasion of the alien gods of the East, and MMY—because
> it dose not fit into the philosophy, the art, the science,
> the music, the psychology, the literature, the
> history, the personal experience of each individual inside
> the Western Tradition. Reincarnation got prestige from 
> Plato, but after that, starting with Aristotle, and going 
> through everyone after that (name one prominent philosopher
> or thinker in the West who has ever—before the 1960's that
> is—made reincarnation the central position it has always
> assumed in the religion of the East).

I think this is quite wrong. The excluson of Plato is just ad 
hoc. ("All western philosophy consists of footnotes to 
Plato." - Alfred North Whitehead). And the Platonists 
certainly did not end at Plato.

It is surely much, much harder to find support for RC's grand 
Christian/Summa Theological scheme amongst western 
heavyweights than it is for reincarnation. If there is a 
consensus though it is probably for neither (Hume, Spinoza, 
Russell for example). Not that a "consensus of western 
philosophers" amounts epistemically to anything more than a 
hill of beans (as I'm sure, without exception, they would all 
admit).

But what about Nietzsche's 'eternal recurrence'? Or better, 
Schopenhauer? Wagner (no lightweight) was deeply under the 
influence:

"Wagner was especially attracted to the story's secondary 
theme of reincarnation as a vehicle for his compositional 
technique of Emotional Reminiscence, usually referred to by 
the term 'leitmotiv'. "Only music", he said, "can convey the 
mysteries of reincarnation". Die Sieger was never developed 
beyond a sketch but some of its ideas were used again in 
Parsifal, and Prakriti [the outcast maiden] reappeared 
(transformed) as Kundry. Wagner's fascination with Buddhism 
intensified as the years went by and coloured his general 
philosophy. It is seen most vividly in Parsifal and Tristan 
und Isolde (where, for example, one finds a correlation 
between Truth, Nirvana and Night) but there are also traces in 
Der Ring des Nibelungen. In 1856, the same year as Die Sieger, 
Wagner drafted a Buddhist ending for the Ring, with Brünnhilde 
achieving enlightenment (becoming a Buddha herself) and 
attaining Nirvana. That ending was subsequently replaced by 
the present one"
http://www.monsalvat.no/exegesis.htm

And are we to ignore the American Transcendentalists Henry 
David Thoreau, Walt Whitman and Ralph Waldo Emerson? 

http://www.reincarnation.ws/famous_people.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra 
 wrote:

Dear Robin,

> It would have been better for me to just admit that in 
> the most profound sense I feel and intuit it is a lie.

That's fine Robin - but our intuitions differ.
 
> From every point of view since I rejected Maharishi and
> all things Eastern I have had the deepest kind of
> repugnance for the idea of reincarnation. 

Again our intuitions differ.

> Let us say that reincarnation *is* true, that it really
> is the case that we have lived many many individual lives
> before this one, and that we will continue to incarnate as
> different individual persons until we realize that we are 
>just the Self.
> 
> Where does this truth make itself known inside our life in
> some natural or empirical way? Compared to the implicit
> sense that reincarnation is *not* true, it seems to me the
> notion that reincarnation *is* true just so much weaker of a
> proposition—weaker, for instance, inside the context of how
> a child senses who he is and what the world is.

Well no belief about death is EVER "going to make itself known 
inside our life in some natural or empirical way", no?

And again our intuitions differ. 

But, and here's what I want to get at, you seem in your 
writing to hint at a curious theory of knowing. The best sense 
I can make of it is "what makes sense to RC (at some sort of 
intuitive level) is what is True". Just look at the use of 
these words in your paragraph above: "natural", "implicit 
sense", "weak". I feel those are the joists that take the 
entire load of your epistemology. I have to say, I don't think 
they are fit for purpose.

> I believe that if reincarnation were actually the case,
> the evidence for it would be undeniable, 

You mean it would be "self-evident"? To whose intuition, yours 
or mine?

...
> I don't think — just spontaneously, unthinkingly, 
> naturally — we live our lives as if this—reincarnation—must
> be true.

And again our intuitions differ.

Exactly why does "spontaneously, unthinkingly, naturally" play 
a role here? (actually I couldn't disagree more in any case. I 
find reincarnation a completely *natural* idea).


> Aquinas teaches that the soul is the form of the body.
> If this is true (and it comes from revelation), it would
> make reincarnation impossible, because the only body we
> could ever have would be one that in a definitive sense has
> determined the very quality and nature of our soul.

I can't say I'm impressed with this. 

That the "soul is the form of the body" comes from Aristotle 
rather than revelation I'd suggest. 

You (Aquinas) appear to be saying: The body determines the 
soul, therefore a different body would be a different soul. So 
reincarnation *in a different body* is impossible (as *you* 
would be a different individual).

Well the obvious question is: sez who?

But are you not aware that even during your present lifetime 
not one part of your body stays the same? The body of RC at 
age 3 is not the same body as the body of RC many decades 
later (or so we are told)? Do you deny your *reincarnation* 
from little RC to big RC? If matter determines individuality, 
how many RCs have there been in this one *incarnation* to date?

I wonder if you saw the post by Yifu on the "Ship of Theseus"?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/282718

Or maybe I have misunderstood your point. 

Incidentally, I see Aquinas says: "In the resurrection, 
however, both the numerically same soul will come back again, 
since it is incorruptible, and this numerically same body 
restored by divine power from the same dust into which it had 
disintegrated; and thus will the numerically same man rise 
again".

Now if God can take the "same dust" and resurrect you, why 
couldn't he "take the same dust" and reincarnate you?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Visualizing the US national debt

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> This graphic does what numbers simply cannot; it gives
> us a feeling for what the term "national debt" means,
> and why there might just be a resistance to increasing
> it. 
> 
> It starts with one $100 bill, and then contrasts that
> visually with $10,000, $1 million, $1 billion, $1 trillion,
> and finally with the $15 trillion national debt the US has
> run up on its credit card and the $114.5 trillion it has 
> in unfunded liabilities. The last figure is the amount of 
> money that the US government knows that it does not have 
> to fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription Drug 
> Program, Social Security, Military and civil servant 
> pensions. It is the money the US knows it will not have 
> to pay all its bills. The pile of $100 bills, in a stack 
> that measures a football field on each side, is taller 
> than the Empire State Building or the former World Trade 
> Center. 
> 
> http://www.wtfnoway.com/
> 
> The smaller national debt figure will this year surpass 
> 20% of the entire world's combined GDP (Gross Domestic 
> Product). In 2011 the national debt will exceed 100% of 
> US GDP, and venture into the 100%+ debt-to-GDP ratio 
> that the European PIIGS (bankrupt nations) have achieved.
> 
> Big pile 'o bucks. Big pile 'o trouble.
>

Fascinating. Great graphic. 

The thing is - how much stuff is being kept "off balance
sheet" by banks/governments through fancy accounting? 

Here in the UK (and in other countries such as your erstwhile
debt-troubled Spain), we had a thing called a "PFI Initiative"
which allowed previous governments to increase liabilities
without it appearing on the accounts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_finance_initiative#Debt

We saw what happened when the too-clever-by-half financial
instrument chickens of the banks came home to roost. are
we now seeing the same for Government debt?

Richard M (aka PaliGap)'s Diagnosis In A Nutshell? 

"We're all paying for hubris"

[FairfieldLife] Re: Reincarnation

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra 
 wrote:

Dear Robin

I am sure all of us who are in receipt of your lengthy replies 
are most flattered. I for one am not used to it. Like many 
here I usually push my shit out to be greeted mostly by  
silence. To puff myself up a bit in the small hours I 
sometimes turn to a comforting joke of an old friend: "A 
lonely genius swimming against the tide of popular opinion". 
But dawn soon dispels that delusion.

There is so much to respond to in your post. But if I may, 
instead of focusing on points of difference, perhaps I can 
highlight where I think you are absolutely spot on. 

"This is what is means to have a subjective sense of who we 
are, to experience life in a way that no one else has ever 
done, and to know that what it is like to be me, and *to 
exercise our free will*, is not the experience nor has it ever 
been the experience of any other human being. All this points 
towards the holiness of personal experience, and the 
importance and primacy of the individual person".

Great stuff! And the Gerald Manley Hopkins you have quoted:

"..when I consider my selfbeing, my consciousness and feeling 
of myself, that taste of myself, of *I* and *me* above and in 
all things, which is more distinctive than the taste of ale or 
alum, more distinctive than the smell of walnutleaf or 
camphor, as is incommunicable by any means to another man (as 
when I was a child I used to ask myself: What must it be to be 
someone else?). Nothing else in nature comes near to this 
unspeakable stress of pitch, distinctiveness, and selving, 
this selfbeing of my own. Nothing explains it or resembles it, 
except so far as this, that other men to themselves have the 
same feeling, But this only multiplies the phenomenon to be 
explained so far as the cases are like and do resemble. But to 
me there is no resemblance:searching nature I taste *self* but 
at one tankard, that of my own being, The development, 
refinement, condensation of nothing shows any sign of being 
able to match this to me or give me another taste of it, a 
taste even resembling it."

I know poets are more fun, but I wonder if you have come 
across the modern philosopher Thomas Nagel's "What is it like 
to be a bat?". 
http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

Mind you I am curious as to whether you would be happy 
allowing the same God-given 'i-ness' of humans to be granted 
to animals? I have to tell you in all my life I have never 
*gotten* the Christian attitude to Nature and her creatures.
If we are to go with this "for-itself", this irreducible
subjectivity as the ultimate unit of spiritual currency - 
why is Christianity so exclusively focused on humans? 

[FairfieldLife] Well who'd have thunk it?

[PaliGap]

Ever wondered what could be a more important 
determinant of GDP growth than a country's political 
regime type?

Some Finnish whitecoats think they have the answer:

Male Organ and Economic Growth: Does Size Matter?
-

"This paper explores the link between economic 
development and penile length between 1960 and 1985. 
It estimates an augmented Solow model utilizing the 
Mankiw-Romer-Weil 121 country dataset. The size of 
male organ is found to have an inverse U- shaped 
relationship with the level of GDP in 1985. It can 
alone explain over 15% of the variation in GDP. The 
GDP maximizing size is around 13.5 centimetres, and a 
collapse in economic development is identified as the 
size of male organ exceeds 16 centimetres. Economic 
growth between 1960 and 1985 is negatively associated 
with the size of male organ, and it alone explains 20% 
of the variation in GDP growth. With due reservations 
it is also found to be more important determinant of 
GDP growth than country's political regime type. 
Controlling for male organ slows convergence and 
mitigates the negative effect of population growth on 
economic development slightly. Although all evidence 
is suggestive at this stage, the `male organ 
hypothesis' put forward here is robust to exhaustive 
set of controls and rests on surprisingly strong 
correlations."

https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/27239?show=full

(A hoax? ed.)

[FairfieldLife] More Rennes-Le-Chateau

[PaliGap]

I read and enjoyed the Holy Blood & The Holy Grail (and
its follow-up whose name I forget). 

It seems though that many of the claims made about
the 'Priory Of Sion' have been shown to be
flimsy at best. But today I see the story still has legs:

"Indiana Jones meets The Da Vinci Code in tiny French
village"

http://goo.gl/rDgNk

"...researchers have revealed the entrance to a cave
they insist contains King Solomon's gold, and possibly
the Holy Grail".

(Hey Barry - you're into the Cathars and all that stuff.
And not just in this life, no?. I wonder what you make
of the Rennes-Le-Chateau saga?)

[FairfieldLife] Re: More Rennes-Le-Chateau

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> I've read HBHG, I've read a great deal about that area 
> and its spiritual traditions, and I've actually been 
> to Rennes-Le-Chateau. 
> 
> HBHG is laughed at by real historians, and its authors 
> considered charlatans of the highest order. One of the
> reasons people so dumped on Dan Brown for the Da Vinci
> Code book is that they simply couldn't believe he would
> rip off something that was already a ripoff, and a 
> discredited one. :-)
> 
> The legend itself, as far as I can tell from what real
> scholars have said -- combined with my own intuition 
> and the "feel" of having been there and meditated 
> there -- is that the original story of the priest in
> question magically making money appear was a hoax,
> funded by those who wanted to turn their sleepy and
> above all poor village into a place of pilgrimage,
> and thus profit from the pilgrims. I am far from
> alone in this belief.

Ah, yes a little Googling reveals that that HBHG was
inspired by a book that involved a monsieur Pierre
Plantard:  

"Plantard was influenced by the story of hotelier Noël
Corbu, who, in order to promote his isolated restaurant,
started claiming in 1956 that a treasure had been discovered
in the area of Rennes-le-Château by a previous occupant
of his property, Father Bérenger Saunière, whilst renovating
his church in 1891"

Those perfidious French!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi stopped using OM and started using Aaaa.

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u"  wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert"  wrote:
> > 
> > > From what I heard, M told the Mother Divine course, that Om (Aum) was not 
> > > to be used as a mantra, as it's use would cause you to lose everything 
> > > you had, to lose your wealth...
> > > So, in any reading of the Vedic Literature which Mother Divine used, that 
> > > contained the sound Om (Aum) would be avoided, or taken out of the 
> > > reading...
> > > Just what I heard...
> > 
> > MMY believed OM was a recluse Mantra only and did not recommend it for the 
> > householder. I believe he blamed the poor of condition of India on the 
> > passive inducing OM mantra, although the pundits always start their 
> > chanting with OMmmm...
> >
> 
> FWIW:
> 
> As I've told before, 'om' is a rather common word in Swedish
> (preposition: about,etc. / adverb: again / conjunction: if).
> "Despite that", Sweden seems to be amongst the wealthiest countries
> in the whole world, eh? 
> 
> Furthermore, there are words like 'kom' (came), som (as, etc.)
> dom (colloquial 'them'), and stuff... :o
> 
> Om hon sku veta, som dom... (If she knew [sku veta!] as do those...)
>

You need to get some Platonic smarts Card!

It's the reference of the word, not the word itself
that counts. 'Om' (pa Svenska) is the same "token' as 'om' in
New Age English, but these linguistic tokens refer to quite
distinct abstract entities.

Just as, for example, the Swedish linguistic token "baksida"
refers (I think) to "rear" in English (as in the rear of a 
building, and not to your backside, your 'arse').

Or 'fart' - which most amusingly for little minds such
as mine is (I think) in Swedish 'Jazz' (or speed, velocity,
pace, start, go, going, force, energy, push, impetus, verve,
clip, swing, snap, pep, zing, zip, ginger, trade). 

Or "Naturen" - which in Swedish refers to the Platonic entity
'countryside', and not "The Nature".

No?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Different experience of dying ignorant or enlightened

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra 
 wrote:

> Imagine presenting this idea to the doctors at The
> Harvard Medical School—or to Socrates—or to Wittgenstein...

Here you go again RC - coercing those Western big guns into 
your hockey team. (Why do you try to do that?).

Are we also permitted to try to imagine what, say, 
Wittgenstein, would have made of this piece of dogma? (take 
your pick of Wittgenstein 1.0 or 2.0):

"There is no safety in meeting one's Creator. How did I first 
come to exist as the person that I am? In death we meet the 
author of our life—not the author of our transcendental 
consciousness; we meet the author of the person that we are" 
RC, FFL 2011

Wittgenstein:
"Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience 
death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal 
duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those 
who live in the present. Our life has no end in just the way 
in which our visual field has no limits'' - Tractatus Logico- 
Philosophicus

Socrates:
"For anything that men can tell, death may be the greatest 
good that can happen to them but they fear it as if they knew 
quite well that it was the greatest of evils".

What MMY had to say about death might be thought to fit quite 
well with that. Viz."...by gaining familiarity with that level 
of your being that is beyond corporeal, you may be able to 
free yourself to some extent from this unnecessary fear". Not 
unlike the way a modern-day allergy sufferer may be invited to 
very gently, and in tiny, tiny steps, expose themselves to the 
allergen that discomforts them. And just as in this case, it 
is not the allergen 'per se' that is the health problem, 
rather it's the panic in the immune system that creates the 
damage, I find it not unreasonable, and not so obviously 
unscientific as you assert, that our suffering in death might 
be similarly alleviated. If, that is to say, we could avoid 
the panic in our biology that is probably triggered when death 
approaches.

Then again Socrates might have wished a plague on both your 
houses (RC & MMY) for excessive 'knowing':

"And what is this but that shameful ignorance of thinking that 
we know what we do not know?"

[FairfieldLife] Two Angels With One Back

[PaliGap]

Iago:
"I am one, sir, that comes to tell you your daughter
and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs."

http://youtu.be/GXJiBVGHU5s

I feel mystical union really gets going at around
1:20

[FairfieldLife] Re: Different experience of dying ignorant or enlightened

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
 
> A few hours of dying, having the senses removed and all that, especially if 
> you are habituated to loosing everything during real meditations anyway is 
> nothing compared to having to spend 9 months in a dark and damp place only to 
> be pushed out through a slimy, bloodful channel into a place full of bright 
> lights where the people babble in a language you don't even understand.
> 
> I can die anytime. But being born, not so much.

Belly Button Window
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGuzvPpTCgg&feature=related

[FairfieldLife] Re: Let me go; Jimi Hendrix

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ft23qDRmOo&feature=related

No way! That's never Jimi - unless he was twiddling in his sleep?
 
> Going is a natural theme.
> 
> Does Jyotish have a technology to reveal when to come into this world ?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuThNm_iLRs&feature=related
> 

Yeah, that is. Thanks!

> Jimi on "Born under a bad sign" I guess the socalled "Buddhists" helped him 
> in his understanding of suicide. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: partial Sidhi

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> A partial Sidhi may be defined as an enhanced ability, perhaps 
> "extra-ordinary" but by no means miraculous; that is facilitated by 
> techniques such as mantras.  Thanks to a certain Kali mantra, I've finally 
> surpassed 4,000 entries (sequences and comments) in a certain mathematics 
> encyclopedia: http://www.tinyurl.com/4zq4q

Congrats Yifu! (Not sure what you've done or what it means, 
but it sounds impressive).

Two a day or so? What's involved in creating a 
sequence? ("Comments" sound easier. Some folks here
must have turbo-charged Kali mantras...)

> (my pics in there somewhere but not on this page). Took me about 7 years.
> ...
> I'm only revealing this should it engender some "amusement" in some; perhaps 
> leading eventually in myself and others, to a genuine level of the 
> miraculous...some day; with more development.  But until that day arrives, I 
> can attest to the power of TM (or your favorite meditation techniuqes); but 
> more so to chanting techniques. Foremost, I give credit to Kali.  All power 
> to the Goddess! Praise!
> ...
> http://oeis.org/100k.html
>

[FairfieldLife] How to say no to your banker?

[PaliGap]

On the AA+ downgrade:

'In a comment article the official Xinhua news agency
said China had "every right now to demand the United States
address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety
of China's dollar assets. International supervision over
the issue of US dollars should be introduced and a new,
stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an
option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country."'

[FairfieldLife] Re: Billy is not one of my favourite drummers, but...

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:

> Cobham's breakthrough with the Mahavishnu Orchestra around
> 1970 was a defining moment in drum history. 

I really liked the Mahavishnu Orchestra

In particular I thought this piece was particularly
*spiritual* and beautiful ("FWIW", "read it and weep",
etc etc):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d08lMTHzYdY

[FairfieldLife] Re: Paean to Ingegerd Engfeldt

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra 
 wrote:
 
> Any person, therefore, reading over your answers will
> be struck, not merely by the sense of the opinions
> you express there. What they will be struck by is the
> aura of truth and and sensitivity that is there (that
> is, apart from the mere content) in each and every
> response—perhaps excepting those questions which you
> chose to answer directly out of your own philosophy
> rather than out of your experience.
> 
> What this means is, your reflections, perceptions,
> opinions re: Maharishi *can be seen and known to be
> essentially authentic and definitive*—even if the reader
> who is more sympathetic to Maharishi than you are,
> attempts to resist receiving into himself or herself
> the conviction of your answers.

Now this is what is known in the business as "dodgy 
codswallop". Strip out the fancy padding and you get:

X has an "aura" of truth (whatever kind of fricking thing that 
is!). Therefore X is *true*.

Fail.

I'm with Barry on this. It needs to be called for what it is
(manipulative IMO). Where's our epistemology man when you need
him?

[FairfieldLife] Re: TM: a Sufi meditation technique?

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans  wrote:
>
> I am not commenting on your post below, just noting that Rick Ross has a 
> mission in life to expose all "cults."  I read a number of his postings when 
> doing my "internet research" on Amma and he can be quite vitriolic, to the 
> point that it undermines his credibility in my mind to some degree.
> http://www.rickross.com/

My PC uses some anti-malware software (www.malwarebytes.org/).

Rather amusingly, when I try to access any page at 
www.rickross.com I am blocked by this: "Malwarebytes
successfully blocked access to a potentially malicious site
88.80.7.8".

[FairfieldLife] Re: Paean to Ingegerd Engfeldt

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, haarvi@... wrote:
>
> Agree that as a syllogism, MZ's conclusions regarding Mark's
> truth, sensitivity, and authenticity
> are a 'fail'.
> You parsed the illogic exactly.
> But why take this formal approach to reading MZ?
> His reasoning in just about all of his crucial trends of thought
> - as I read him, anyway - is impressionistic
> and subjective rather than deductive.

OK - I take your point. Look I love poetry, music
etc and when push comes to shove I'd say there's more
*meaning* there than you'll find in logic and reasoning
(I've got hippie-itis)

But if you're going to write philosophy, shouldn't it
be *good* philosophy? Isn't it a tad ironic to invoke
the gods of the West, of Western philosophy in particular, 
and Socrates specifically, and then say "what's a little 
fallacy or two between friends"? Is that how the gods of
the West (shades of Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Descrates
Leibniz, Spinoza, Peirce, Wittgenstein, Popper et. al. 
descending in clouds of glory) would see it? "Oh, my dear
David Hume, what you had to say was completely fallacious,
but it was SO beautifully 'impressionistic'. It was
*your* Truth and you put so prettily".

Aquinas for one didn't see it like that - of that I'm
quite sure. (Doh!).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Paean to Ingegerd Engfeldt

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> It's like listening to pre-teens talking about how Godlike
> Justin Bieber is because he gets them wet.

Bieber gets more God-like:

http://www.huliq.com/12079/justin-bieber-gets-big-boost-jimi-hendrix

[FairfieldLife] Re: Paean to Ingegerd Engfeldt

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> Dear PaliGap,
> 
> I am sure my assumption is indefensible from any logical or objective point 
> of view. Granted. But what I found in Mark's answers was the evidence of 
> someone who was responding out of the very depths of his experience, with a 
> determination to do justice to his sense of the truth about Maharishi as it 
> had formed inside of him independent of his own will or desire.
> 
> In this sense, his answers carried "an aura of truth"—by which I mean that 
> when someone is actually making contact with truth (this ain't in any 
> philosophy texts) what they say, what they write, tends to create a slightly 
> different effect upon one, than when their own subjectivity experience isn't 
> [we are proposing a hypothetical here] aliging itself with reality/truth.
> 
> When we as initiators gave Intro Lectures in the early and mid-seventies, 
> there seemed to be "an aura of truth" about us, about we said. And this could 
> be felt in the atmosphere. This was quite apart from what we were actually 
> saying.
> 
> Make any sense to you? Mark's answers to that questionnaire kind of stopped 
> me. Forced me to examine my experience. They were credible. They were 
> serious. They were pristine.
> 
> Now this is what Bob Price calls subtext. Mark's answers held a lot of 
> subtext and that subtext seemed to contain mostly Maharishi and not 
> predominantly Mark Landau.
> 
> Jesus, if he showed up and went to visit Christopher Hitchens (as he is dying 
> of cancer), and told him: "There is a God, Christopher." And Christopher 
> replied: "I know who you are and there is no God. And certainly you aren't 
> him."
> 
> Well, perhaps Jesus's words (imagine this in a literary sense) might might 
> carry more of an "aura of truth" than the rebuttal of Christopher.
> 
> But, if there is no God, then again, Jesus might be outdone in this very 
> measure: the "aura of truth" favouring Christopher not Jesus.
> 
> Did you try, PaliGap, answering the questions yourself—say going against the 
> answer that Mark gave? I would be interested in your experience of this.
> 
> Does your child have an 'aura of truth" when he or she says, "I love you, 
> Daddy?"
> 
> Or do you question the epistemic reliability of this claim of your child?

Well I am not a father Robin. But sure, if my wife or
other loved ones were to say this, then, no doubt, I would
not "question the epistemic reliability of this claim".
(Then again, pace Bob, if it's my wife we're talking about,
it's Saturday afternoon, and a shopping trip is in the offing
then I might have my doubts).

But how is this the point?

Let me put it this way: Try re-writing all the above
in the context of an apologist for Adolf Hitler:

"What I found in Hitler's answers was the evidence of
someone who was responding out of the very depths of
his experience, with a determination to do justice to
his sense of the truth (about the Jews) as it had formed
inside of him independent of his own will or desire"

"In this sense, Hitler's answers carried 'an aura of truth'
— by which I mean that when someone is actually making
contact with truth what they say, what they write, tends
to create a slightly different effect upon one, than when
their own subjectivity experience isn't [we are proposing
a hypothetical here] aliging itself with reality/truth."

I think you think that Truth can wear its verification on
its sleeve. I think you're quite wrong - and that way
all kinds of fanaticism lie.

[FairfieldLife] Re: (The) Think Tank

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jpgillam"  wrote:
>
> Watching it was fun! Thanks for the link.
> 

Hear, hear.

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > I have been trying, but I really haven't been able to find
> > > out the genesis of this wonderful short video. I first saw
> > > it as an intro to a friend's "Inner Parts Work" seminars, 
> > > and I can see why he likes it. I can see why all of his
> > > he's like it. You won't get this until you watch the video. 
> > > 
> > > http://vimeo.com/8893511
> > > 
> > > Whoever did it, it's a remarkably good short film in my 
> > > opinion. Professional from top to bottom, and at times 
> > > hilarious along the way to an even more hilarious ending.
> > 
> > Dropping the "The" from the film title I found it
> > on the IMDB, and find that it's as professional as
> > it looked, a short 11-minute film done by the writer
> > of a TV series called "Brothers and Sisters" (which 
> > I never saw. The guy supposedly produced a 2010 series 
> > called "Hellcats," which I may look into because it's 
> > about "the competitive world of college cheerleading." 
> > After getting up to speed on "Breaking Bad" I kinda 
> > need a break. :-)
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] From Child of Nature to Jealous Guy

[PaliGap]

I didn't know about this original version...

http://youtu.be/TNI5Y7vTZLY

Rejected for the "White Album" apparently!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hello FFL -

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 10, 2012, at 6:51 PM, iranitea wrote:
> 
> > In these dialogues I found Lawson and most of the pro TM-ers here  
> > extremely dense and blocked by their typical TM concepts. (concepts  
> > I can still use for teaching, but in a less dogmatic way, and with  
> > more openness.)
> 
> 
> If there's one thing you can say about TMers, they are locked into  
> their paradigm and have a hard time stepping outside that box.
>

Dhammapada Verse 252
Mendakasetthi Vatthu

Sudassam vajjamannesam
attano pana duddsam
paresam hi so vajjani
opunati yatha bhusam
attano pana chadeti
kalimva kitava satho.1

Verse 252: It is easy to see the faults of others, but difficult
to see one's own. A man broadcasts the fault of others like 
winnowing chaff in the wind, but hides his own faults as a crafty
fowler covers himself.

(What's this then O Pali Gap? The falconer stands exposed in
the field. D'oh!)

[FairfieldLife] Re: My TM mantra dilemna--- help requested...

[PaliGap]

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

> Philosophy is also a science, or should be. 

That's quite some statement salyavin808! Could you elaborate
on that? What do you mean?

> Consequently I've never even considered that there
> is even such a thing as eastern philosophy and stick
> to religion as the best term to sum it up. I await
> convincing!

I am wondering whether you have a quaintly 19th century
(and early 20th century) idea of what Philosopy "is"?*

Is it that you think that traditional problems of Philosophy
(such as 'the one and the many', 'the reality of universals',
'how do I know?', 'what ought I do') are now best answered
by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Brian Cox rather than
tired old non-scientific ranters such as Plato, Kant,
Heidegger, Popper et.al.?

* Positivism**

** News flash: Postivism is a very dated and discredited
philosophy judging by peer-reviewed philosophival literature***

"Most philosophers consider logical positivism to be, as John
Passmore expressed it, "dead, or as dead as a philosophical
movement ever becomes."[18] By the late 1970s, its ideas were so
generally recognized to be seriously defective that one of its own
main proponents, A. J. Ayer, could say in an interview: "I suppose
the most important [defect]...was that nearly all of it was false."
[Wiki]


*** The significane of 'peer-review' is a relatively recent 
addition to the vocabulary of the philosophy of science. It is
generally deployed by proponents of politicised and post-modern
'science'. Memo to self: 'You should not have used this concept'.

[FairfieldLife] Eastern Philosophy (was My TM mantra dilemna)

[PaliGap]

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

>>> Philosophy is also a science, or should be. 

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

>> Could you elaborate on that? What do you mean?

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

> That it should be approached logically, rationally and
> empirically and that it isn't the preserve of any old
> daydreamer

Now there's a claim! "Philosophy should be empirical". It is 
of course a claim that is itself philosophical. So (you can 
see what's coming next) - what is the empirical evidence for 
your claim? It's not an idea borne of a daydream is it?

There is an experiment that suggests itself: Hot foot it round 
to your nearest library and grab one or two of the classic, 
dusty old tomes of Western philosophy. Why not try Kant's 
'Critique of Pure Reason'? Or Sartre's 'Being & Nothingness'? 
Now if we are to do this properly, we probably need to agree 
sample sizes and so forth. But let's just do a quick and dirty 
test... Pick a few pages at random. Do you see evidence of any 
of the paraphernalia of the empirical method? Take dear old 
Jean Paul. Do we find him busying himself in his laboratory, 
trying this or that test, taking this or that measurement, 
documenting this or that experiment? Perhaps peering into some 
philososcope through his thick, gauloise-tarred glasses to try 
and catch a glimpse of a 'being-for-itself' that will match 
his earlier sighting of a 'being-in-itself'? 

No? I thought not. The claim that 'proper' philosophy (i.e. 
Western, as opposed to the Eastern version that you say does 
not live up to the name) is distinguished by being empirical 
fails the empirical test.

Unless that is you would be equally dismissive of both 
geographical wings of philosophy? That is to say your 
assertion (below) needs generalising to: "I've never even 
considered that there is even such a thing as philosophy and 
stick to religion as the best term to sum it (all) up"?

 
> Consequently I've never even considered that there
> is even such a thing as eastern philosophy and stick
> to religion as the best term to sum it up. 

[FairfieldLife] Well Begun Is Half Done

[PaliGap]

Wake up with music that changes with the weather.

http://youtu.be/9kQCeAxe_aI

(What odd times these folks set their alarms to)

Now you see I think they've got this all wrong. You need
the jingly, cheerful music when "today is cloudy"; And the
downer stuff when it's "scorchio". 

http://youtu.be/kZMUAd7OJc8

Balancing the doshas and all that?

I think this June if I'd had this alarm where I live 
I'd be suicidal by now... 

"Hello! It's 10.0am. Today is grey, wet and windy. Again".
Cue dismal music - Dong,dong,da,dong,ding,da,dong,da,dong,
da,dong.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris Book

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it
> exists." [Tractatus 6.44]
> and
>To view the world sub specie aeterni ["from the viewpoint of
> eternity"] is to view it as a whole - a limited whole. Feeling the world
> as a limited whole - it is this that is mystical.
> 6.45
>   There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make
> themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.
> 6.522
> Ludwig Wittgenstein
> 1921

And...

6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands
me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out
through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw
away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)
He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world
rightly.

7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wayback71@ wrote:
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
>  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Sam Harris is writing a book, with the working title 'Waking Up: A
> Scientist Looks at Spirituality' due to be finished sometime near the
> end of the year. This one should be interesting.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/look-into-my-eyes
> > >
> > > The video segment on Osho speaking on the link is a reminder of how
> especially young people can follow and adjust their their own beliefs to
> those of someone who really has only basic wisdom to offer, and combines
> that with being exotic, having an accent, and being a touch different or
> odd or provocative. Osho never blinked in the few minutes that I watched
> it!! Creepy, really.
> > >
> > > I will read this new book when it comes out, because this is the
> stuff I think about and care about - the science of those experiences.
> But a part of me misses the mystery of it all that went along with the
> sureness of faith. I have some trouble reconciling the two ways of
> looking at awakening - scientific and mystical. I think ignorance of the
> mind is where the bliss is. What I wish for is that on the other side of
> that understanding of exactly where and how our brains create spiritual
> experience, there is a Reality or Presence that causes the brain to
> behave in that way. That that Reality is the cause, not simply some
> shift in brain functioning and that is it.
> >
> > I do not think the mystery goes away; instead of believing it, or
> looking for it, one eventually just lives it, not thinking about it so
> much. The philosopher Wittgenstein put it that the mystical is 'that the
> world is, not how it is'. These spiritual practices we engage in are for
> the purpose of closing the gap between faith, which is believing in
> something we do not experience (in other words, pretending to say we
> know something when we do not), and our experience. If that does happen
> eventually, believing and faith is redundant. I have always thought
> people have had it backwards: if you could actually know something, then
> you have faith, if you just believe something, you are acting on
> ignorance. The real question is, 'is there anything we can really know?'
> We tend to think this is possible.
> >
> > In the early 20th century Bertrand Russell was talking about mature
> sciences, that they do not deal with causality, they deal with
> relationships. I think this is like the idea behind meditation.
> Meditation gradually simplifies our experience of relationships until
> there are none left. Very much like how physicists attempt to discover
> how all things are related in a single equation, which would be a
> unified field theory.
> >
> > I always thought Maharishi, in using the word 'wholeness', was
> employing a cop-out to hide the religious nature behind TM, but in fact,
> I now think it is an elegantly simple and accurate description, much
> better than the metaphysical claptrap that accompanies spiritual
> movements.
> >
> > As for the scientific and mystical. It is like a recipe and the
> wonderful meal that it may become. You need both, but not necessarily at
> the same time, and they are not in conflict with one another, they both
> represent the same thing.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris Book

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:

>> 6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who
>> understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when
>> he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He
>> must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed
>> up on it.)

> now
> hanging in the air
> not knowing where
> flying
> shying
> away

"...after he has climbed up on it."

Hmmm...

http://knot.krisp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/escher-mobius_strip_ii.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'You're Gonna Lose That Girl!'...

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert  wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQB9po6YmcU&feature=related
>

I share your attachment Robert.

Recently I saw a Beatles tribute band. 
http://www.carnglaze.com/cavern-beatles-2012.html

They were really good. The Paul 'character' even played
bass left-handed. But my missus (brought up within a
stone's throw of Penny Lane) saw through their accents!

There must be a lot of money in the tribute band business 
these days. I think that means you need a lot of talent to
apply. These guys had that. I particularly enjoyed the live
rendition of A Day In The Life (not easy as you can imagine).

[FairfieldLife] The PC Wars & Brain Scans

[PaliGap]

It seems that..."the software used to analyze medical
images of your brain gives wildly different answers
if it's run on Mac or PC."

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/your_brain_scan_looks_different_on_mac_and_pc

"in the parahippocampal and entorhinal cortex, the answers
diverged by as much as 15 percent. A 15 percent variation
just because of a Mac OS update"

"...it's a terrifying idea that a single piece of software
that can be used to measure parts of the brain—including
tumors—can throw up different results after even a simple 
operating system update.

That means that not only might different hospitals choose
to treat patients differently, but the same hospital could
in theory change its diagnosis as a result of an IT upgrade."

If anyone ever offers to scan me, I think it's going to be
"Linux if you don't mind, thank you". 

[FairfieldLife] Re: How British are you?

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > To provide some background on this, conservative elements
> > in the UK have been saying that they need to revise the
> > official Citizenship Test, to make it more accurate and
> > up-to-date. If you tend to read the last phrase of that 
> > statement as "...to make sure only the people we want
> > to call worthy of British citizenship are so considered,"
> > you would be correct.
> > 
> > That said, this parody revision of the Test is hilarious.
> > I scored a big, fat zero. I didn't even get the George
> > Orwell and Shakespeare questions right. Bloody hell.
> > 
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/quiz/2012/jul/02/how-british-are-you-citizenship-test
> 
> I got 8/15, I must have been paying attention at school after all!
>

A dismal 7/15 (with some lucky guesses) 

[FairfieldLife] Jets Shatter Windows In The Supreme Court Building

[PaliGap]

No, not yours dufus - Brazil's!

"Nothing says bombastic display of national pride like two
symbols of national pride breaking all the windows in another
symbol of national pride."

"Ceremony of exchange of the national flag"

http://gizmodo.com/5922825/supersonic-jets-shatter-brazilian-supreme-court-building

[FairfieldLife] Omnisubjectivity (Was: The Stagirite Beats Up on The Veda and SCI)

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:

> He also said: Robin, will you please STFU? I told him:
> lookee here, Daddyo: I was sticking up for you—like your 
> omnisubjectivity. 

Robin - Can I book some CPU time with you?

I am interested in this idea of "omnisubjectivity" that gets 
bandied about a bit. That is to say "God's omnisubjectivity". 
Here is an example of the genre:

"No one can know what this experience was like, and yet, since 
all of what we are has a cause - we did not cause ourselves to 
exist in the first place, our first person unique sense of 
subjective experience: what it is like to be Emily, this was 
caused too. Thus the idea of God's omnisubjectivity: the 
perfect sense that God has of what it is like to be Emily, 
this, without becoming you."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/299960

You see I have a big, big problem with this. To those who get 
impatient with Philosophy it's a problem that might seem to be 
all about semantics and stuff. But I don't think that's right. 
If you look, really *look* at the issue, it's as real as real 
can be. IMO.

The issue I'm thinking about is analogous to the one in 
Hegel's "Master & Slave" dialectic: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_dialectic. 

The key thing is that the very essence of our humanity is our 
consciousness of our limitation, our suffering, and, 
especially, our mortality. And it is simply impossible - 
absolutely, logically impossible (I'd suggest) for God to 
enter into that, or to comprehend that (without *forgetting* 
that She is God?). 

So I am saying it is impossible for God to have "the perfect 
sense of what it is like to be Emily". In other words: 
God's omnisubjectivity cannot be, cannot exist. 

That something should be impossible for God, well that's
a statement which raises issues of its own of course.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Omnisubjectivity

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"
 wrote:

Thanks for posting Zagzebski's article on omnisubjectivity 
Robin.

Having said that - I can't see how she addresses my difficulty 
with the concept at all. 

My issue is not the same one as is alluded to by Merudanda's 
comment: 

"Then a question like "Does God know what it's like not to 
know?" could assert that some experiential knowledge gained 
through, let's say paranoiac emotions, does not constitute 
knowledge at all because it's actually a distortion of what 
would constitute true knowledge only God is "essentially" 
capable of". 

Now THAT problem does concern her and she does address it. The 
answer lies in her idea of empathy as involving a 'copy', 
albeit a perfect copy, of the thing God empathises with:

"My suggestion, then, is that God does "get" what it's like to 
feel anger, lust, vengeance, and perverse pleasure, but God's 
copies of those states are not directed at anything and God is 
aware of the copies as copies".

So let me try again with my gripe. If we start with some 
common ground, that'd be good. And some common ground presents 
itself: Zagzebski is clearly influenced by Thomas Nagel and 
his excellent "What is it Like to be a Bat?" 
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/nagel.htm

I suspect many here would go along with this as defining the 
'hard' problem of consciousness rather well. So let's agree to 
accept this idea of the "first person perspective" (much 
better than "first person ontology" IMO!).

Now Robin, suppose you woke up tomorrow to find some vestige 
of a previous state of consciousness has manifested 
temporarily. It is a sidhi, one that enables you to achieve a 
limited form of the omnisubjectivity God is supposed to have. 
It's the same thing, only confined to your pet cat, not the 
entirety of creation. It allows you to go beyond the partial 
empathy an ordinary Joe might have for their pet. It is 
*total* empathy of the kind described by Zagzebski. It allows 
you, whilst remaining 'Robin' to experience "What is it like 
to be your cat" in the full Thomas Nagel "first person 
perspective" sense. 

Whether or not such a thing is possible or not, I don't know. 
But I don't think that is *essentially* impossible - at least 
not in the way that I think God's omnisubjectivity is 
essentially impossible. 

So you see that seems to put you on a pedestal above God, no? 
How can that be?

The answer can be put quite simply: God cannot 'be' what God 
essentially is not. And God is essentially NOT mortal. And God 
knows this (or so we are supposed to suppose). This means that 
whilst God might be able to get inside Robin's "first person 
perspective" of Robin eating a doughnut, God cannot do the 
same for Robin's "first person perspective" of Robin's 
mortality. 

Sure God could try to empathise with you. And God could 
perhaps acquire a copy (in Zagzebski's sense) of all your 
thoughts and emotions as you contemplate your own death. But 
the set of all this interior psychic furniture is *not* your 
"first person perspective" of your mortality unless it comes 
packed with the *fact* of your mortality. And God, do what She 
may, can *never* acquire that. Never.

Randy Newman wrote that great song "God's Song": 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEKuGcmW70I

"You must all be crazy to put your faith in me
That's why I love mankind"

Well suppose this God said: "OK humanity. I want to feel your 
pain. Lo, there! I see a thief awaiting crucifixion. What 
might *that* be like?! What I'm going to do is send myself 
(well my 'son' actually, whatever that means) as a gesture of 
solidarity. Not only that, through experiencing your 
suffering, my son will (in some strange way!) take on your 
sins".

If you consider this, I hope you may see my point. Leaving 
aside the question of whether or not the Son of God can truly 
suffer (with all his powers) in the same "first person 
perspective" manner as the thief, what we can say is that the 
Son Of God *knows* the meaning of death to himself (viz. that 
it is nothing), whereas the thief does *not* know that, and 
could never truly *know* that (though he might entertain 
beliefs about it).

Now I'm not very au fait with my Bible. But there is I think 
the puzzling point where Jesus (for it is he) exclaims "My 
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!". Surely this shows 
the depth and power of the omnisubjectivity God achieved here? 
He got so far 'into character', he forgot who he was and lost 
sight of his essential nature!

But that's my point you see. If God goes for omnisubjectivity, 
She forgets herself. Which may explain a lot.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mankind makes another giant leap.

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason"  
wrote:
> >
> > > > ---  "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Higgs boson discovery: now the real work begins
> > > > >
> > > ---  turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Subtext: "Send money."  :-)
> >
> > As usual, Bariatric has simply no clue to what he is 
talking
> > about.
> >
> > His views of Science as another 'ism' is similar to a
> > Christian fundi's view of science.
> 
> Science *is* just another "ism." Plus, it's an expensive one.
> It's no secret that CERN's funding is in jeopardy, and has
> been for quite some time. A good "discovery" being touted
> in the papers *has to be seen* as a response to that. It may
> actually be a real breakthrough, or Just Another Subatomic
> Particle being found. Either way, all this press is going to
> generate revenue, which IMO is the *reason* for all the
> press.

We do have such a very high regard for the Science 'brand'. 
No doubt (from the past) with some justification. 

The same might be said for Bankers - but look what's happened 
to their reputation. (Personal note: My late father was a 
banker. And at Barclays topically, and of all places. But he 
would simply not recognise the culture of banking that is 
being exposed these days. I think he would have been less 
suprised (had he lived) had the headlines been about an 
invasion from Mars than about the current banking crisis).

Since WWII, the role of goverernment in funding Science (and 
the role of big corporations) has increased enormously. It 
seems to me to be likely that this risks compromising the 
integrity of the whole thing. "He who pays the piper calls the 
tune". And he who depends on being paid for his livelihood 
will try to hype the tune as much as possible. Naturally. 

The more practical sciences will produce endless headlines on 
the lines of "Red wine is good for you", "No wait, red wine is 
bad for you", "Hang on, perhaps it's OK after all".

The more remote, hard-to-understand-but-expensive-to-run (but 
perhaps moe rigorous) research projects will be forced to 
engage in hyperbole such as "We are now on the brink of a 
theory of the origins of consciousness, of life, of why there 
is anything rather than nothing". When in fact they are not.

But who's going to pay them to just keep exposing the Russian 
doll within a doll?

I say: Let's support their exaggerated claims. 'Cos cutting-
edge research is *a good thing*. But let's not take them too 
seriously!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Omnisubjectivity

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Pali wrote:
> He got so far 'into character', he forgot who he was and lost 
> sight of his essential nature!
> 
> But that's my point you see. If God goes for omnisubjectivity, 
> She forgets herself. Which may explain a lot.
> 
> My reply:
> YES!  Exactly!  laughing because like I really know!

It seems to me maybe you do Share. Yes, maybe you really
do! ;-)

> Anyway, the Divine forgetting Its nature like how we play peekaboo with a 
> baby.  It's for fun, lila.  
> 
> Maybe our only task, then, is to join in on the fun.
> 
> At the end of the Gita, Arjuna says, "I have regained memory."
> Maybe it's up to the women to regain the fun.
> 
> Maybe Cyndi Lauper was onto something:  girls just wanna have fun...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: PaliGap 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:50 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Omnisubjectivity
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"
>  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for posting Zagzebski's article on omnisubjectivity 
> Robin.
> 
> Having said that - I can't see how she addresses my difficulty 
> with the concept at all. 
> 
> My issue is not the same one as is alluded to by Merudanda's 
> comment: 
> 
> "Then a question like "Does God know what it's like not to 
> know?" could assert that some experiential knowledge gained 
> through, let's say paranoiac emotions, does not constitute 
> knowledge at all because it's actually a distortion of what 
> would constitute true knowledge only God is "essentially" 
> capable of". 
> 
> Now THAT problem does concern her and she does address it. The 
> answer lies in her idea of empathy as involving a 'copy', 
> albeit a perfect copy, of the thing God empathises with:
> 
> "My suggestion, then, is that God does "get" what it's like to 
> feel anger, lust, vengeance, and perverse pleasure, but God's 
> copies of those states are not directed at anything and God is 
> aware of the copies as copies".
> 
> So let me try again with my gripe. If we start with some 
> common ground, that'd be good. And some common ground presents 
> itself: Zagzebski is clearly influenced by Thomas Nagel and 
> his excellent "What is it Like to be a Bat?" 
> http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/nagel.htm
> 
> I suspect many here would go along with this as defining the 
> 'hard' problem of consciousness rather well. So let's agree to 
> accept this idea of the "first person perspective" (much 
> better than "first person ontology" IMO!).
> 
> Now Robin, suppose you woke up tomorrow to find some vestige 
> of a previous state of consciousness has manifested 
> temporarily. It is a sidhi, one that enables you to achieve a 
> limited form of the omnisubjectivity God is supposed to have. 
> It's the same thing, only confined to your pet cat, not the 
> entirety of creation. It allows you to go beyond the partial 
> empathy an ordinary Joe might have for their pet. It is 
> *total* empathy of the kind described by Zagzebski. It allows 
> you, whilst remaining 'Robin' to experience "What is it like 
> to be your cat" in the full Thomas Nagel "first person 
> perspective" sense. 
> 
> Whether or not such a thing is possible or not, I don't know. 
> But I don't think that is *essentially* impossible - at least 
> not in the way that I think God's omnisubjectivity is 
> essentially impossible. 
> 
> So you see that seems to put you on a pedestal above God, no? 
> How can that be?
> 
> The answer can be put quite simply: God cannot 'be' what God 
> essentially is not. And God is essentially NOT mortal. And God 
> knows this (or so we are supposed to suppose). This means that 
> whilst God might be able to get inside Robin's "first person 
> perspective" of Robin eating a doughnut, God cannot do the 
> same for Robin's "first person perspective" of Robin's 
> mortality. 
> 
> Sure God could try to empathise with you. And God could 
> perhaps acquire a copy (in Zagzebski's sense) of all your 
> thoughts and emotions as you contemplate your own death. But 
> the set of all this interior psychic furniture is *not* your 
> "first person perspective" of your mortality unless it comes 
> packed with the *fact* of your mortality. And God, do what She 
> may, can *never* acquire th

[FairfieldLife] Re: Malware pandemic!

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57466474-83/security-firm-android-malware-pandemic-by-years-end/?part=pulse&subj=latest-news&tag=title&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
>

How about this for scary:
http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/2377.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Cat ladies develop psychiatric problems

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason  wrote:
> Cat ladies develop psychiatric problems
>  
> http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/327953

I saw this in my newspaper (but withheld it from
'she who must be obeyed' as she is a 'cat lady' for
sure, and would have blown a gasket.

But why the emphasis on cats? 

"A new scientific study says that women infected with
Toxoplasma gondii, a parasite spread trough contact with
cat feces, through eating undercooked meat or unwashed
vegetables, are at an increased risk of attempting suicide."

I mean why not:
"Wash your veg or you DIE!"
"Order 'well done' or you DIE!"

After all which is more likely: You rub your face
in cat faeces, or you fail to scrub your carrots properly?

[FairfieldLife] Re: End of the PC now in sight

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> The end at least as we know it.
> Welcome to the USB stick PC.
> 
> $25 buck dollars and will
> do what many people need.
> 
> No wonder HP is jumping ship.
> 
> http://www.geek.com/articles/games
> /game-developer-david-braben-creates-a-usb-stick-pc-for-25-2011055/
>

"David Braben is a very well-known game developer who runs
the UK development studio Frontier Developments, but is just
as well known for being the co-developer of Elite."

I don't play any PC games. Except...back in the day, I so 
loved Elite running on an Electron (as I recall):

http://www.frontierastro.co.uk/Elite/electron.html

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=121

(Why did I bin that?)

(Oh, there was one other game now I think of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leisure_Suit_Larry_in_the_Land_of_the_Lounge_Lizards
 )

[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
 
> The only thing that is deficient in your atheism (...) is
> that it leaves out the truth that: At one time God *did*
> indeed exist, 

Ain't that just something? 

(I have removed the lengthy stuff between the parentheses to
restore clarity to the form of this assertion).

Try the opposite:

"The only thing that is deficient in your belief in God
is that it leaves out the truth that: At no time did God
indeed exist"

A meeting of minds? Not!

> and the experience ontologically of existing in the
> world before you and I were born, did, up until one
> chronological point, ideally required one to know that
> God exists. That is not, according to my own original
> perspective, the case anymore. So, then, Curtis, if you
> were not an atheist, you would somewhere be soft in the
> head, and incapable of objectively acting—here comes
> Maharishi—"in the benefit of the truth" of the metaphysics
> of the universe in this very moment. Somehow you, personally
> and intellectually, embody—beneficently—the truth of the
> universe at this time—without knowing it.
> 
> And I am exploiting this extraordinary truth.

These are required: "". i.e. "truth". An "IMHO" would
not be amiss.

(But then good on you Robin for challenging the naivety 
of the brain reductionist viewpoint!)

And can we not reserve "ontologically" for some 
proper use? Words were given to us by God, no? Did
She want us to abuse them and debase their currency?
Is such abuse sufficient grounds to be sentenced to
hell in the Final Reckoning?

What is the difference between:

1) "the experience ontologically of existing in the
world"

and

2) "the experience of existing in the world"?

[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]

[PaliGap]

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

[snip]

> I appreciate that McGinn is leaving a shelf open for the things which are 
> beyond our cognitive limits.  It seems wise and is in line with my own 
> articulation of my pet phrase "epistemological humility".   But one of the 
> things that we also don't know is if neuro-science will crack the mystery of 
> consciousness.  I am more optimistic and see no reason to rule it out ahead 
> of time.  They have already breached many areas thought to be reserved for 
> philosophy and religion.
> 

Really? Could you enumerate? 

Doesn't this idea (reeking of scientism) that "they
(neuro-scientists) have already breached many areas thought
to be reserved for philosophy and religion" - doesn't that
idea smack of the opposite of epistemological humility? Viz.
Hubris over scientific method, and its tentative conjectures?

[snip]

Then you say: "..And as long as we know that we can measure
brain activity impulses a full second (eons in neruo-time)
before an experimental subject decides to push a button
exhibiting his so called "free will", we are left with the
realization that our conscious mind is not the initiating
factor in our decisions".

"Know"? Really, we "now KNOW" this? Colour me sceptical!

I can see so many methodological difficulties with an
experiment such as this. I admit I don't know a lot about
this research, but I see it referenced regularly. It seems
to have become seminal in some quarters, and assumed "as
fact". (Yet I see it it is criticised by the likes of Daniel
Dennett. I found this too that I'll try to wade through:
http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/9652/Default.aspx
This even references our old friend "Summa Theologica"!)

Apart from anything else, the logic of the experiment seems
to depend on a common-sensical notion of linear (Newtonian)
time? And yet, as I'm sure you know, some speculative theories
of consciousness pull in quantum mechanical stuff. And at that
level, why should we assume a simple linear notion of time
is relevant?

But in any case, how is it possible to measure the decision
point, as opposed to the "awareness of the decision" point 
(which may of course be delayed)?

All I'm saying is - it just seems very iffy. Very interesting,
worthwhile and all, but fraught with difficulty. I'd suggest
one could only see  stuff such as this as "solving the age-old
debate over free will" if you have already imbibed a large does
of faith of some kind i.e. faith in a naturalistic, materialistic
reductionism. 

But is such a faith consistent with epistemological humility?

[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
>
> By the way, PaliGap, are you responsible for getting this on youtube:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24gi8iXyuYg
> 
> JH at his utmost.

Ha! Outed.

[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]

[PaliGap]

> Nevertheless, I continue to believe that God once did exist,
> but *it is as if* (nowadays) he no longer exists, even though
> what he amounts to must somewhere still be present in (and
> outside of) the universe.

This is certainly a distinctive and unusual belief
that you have. But here's a problem I have with this:

It seems we do nothing but disappoint God. First there
was the Fall. Didn't God start retreating from the 
world at that point? We were all tainted sinners from then
on - all of us were subsequently 'born into sin'. 

But where's the justice in this? Why are we, born many aeons
after the fact, saddled with this dismal inheritance?
Isn't it as if we're being held accountable for something we
didn't do?

And now you introduce Fall 2.0: After some fighting around a
special place in Italy, God is so fed up he has withdrawn 
from the world.

But why should God distance himself from the likes of you
and me (his creation after all) when we weren't even around
at the time this happened?

This God does seem somewhat perverse and petulant!

And what do you thing of "revolt"? (I think I'm vaguely
entering Camus territory here). Suppose we say "there is no
God, that 'God is dead'". This might be thought to leave us
lost and alone in a cold and uncaring Cosmos completely 
devoid of 'value'. But nevertheless, because we are free,
we can rebel against our existential situation and create
value (justice, beauty, goodness), even though the Universe
stands aloof and indifferent to this aspiration, and will
one day consign it to nothingness.

But just such a revolt is possible too against an unjust and
unattractive God. What if we disapprove of him and his
creation? What if, for example, we think he is a scoundrel
for creating little children whose only 'life' is to be
prematurely snuffed out by disease or disaster? (I see
Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations
of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized
infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin).

Or what if cannot generate any respect for a God who thinks
we should love him because our sins have been washed away
owing to the fact that his only 'son' was tortured to death
a long time ago? 

> The outing via Hendrix I find interesting.

But this is where you've gone wrong with Fall 2.0 Robin.
You see here is conclusive proof that God was still hanging
around after WWII:

http://youtu.be/k2RhrwyWtXQ

But yes, I suppose that following 9/70 I can accept that our
ontological experience of our relationship to Existence has
shifted. 

[FairfieldLife] FFL For Androids

[PaliGap]

Patent infringement?

http://youtu.be/WnzlbyTZsQY

[FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy]

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
 
> I am currently watching the Rugby World Cup from New Zealand, where the All 
> Blacks (New Zealand) are the heavy favourites.

You and me both, O Great Zebra.

> I use to play rugby. I came to the game late, so I never really developed the 
> skill set that I did in a few other sports. But I came to love the game, and 
> eventually to recognize that it transcended every other sport.
> 
> Now why am I bringing up the topic of rugby here?
> 
> Because reading this post of yours three times put me in the mind (and body) 
> of someone who had been perfectly tackled by an All Black blind-side flanker 
> (that's the position I used to play). 

Ah so - you're really more of a lion than a zebra?

In my youth I was a winger, an unmasked zebra - one
of the 'girls' out on the wing. I used to try to run like the
wind to escape the crunching clutches of the likes of you. 

http://youtu.be/C3_008814Eo

[FairfieldLife] Re: *Sun*, now blamed for Global Warming! (Gore wrong?)

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "richardwillytexwilliams"  
wrote:
>
> WilliamG:
> > Gore wrong?
> >
> "the evidence is incontrovertible." LoL!
> 
> 'Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming'
> http://tinyurl.com/6zewkv2

"Ivar Giaever (Giæver, born April 5, 1929, in Bergen, Norway) is
a physicist, who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973 with
Leo Esaki and Brian Josephson "for their discoveries regarding
tunnelling phenomena in solids""

Brian Josephson =(was) TMer of course. Was on my Siddhi course (or
was it just rounding? Perhaps I need to take "memory of an elephant"
for a spin).

[FairfieldLife] Re: “Transcendental Meditation is back in a big way” – The Independent (UK)

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:

> TM reaches far into the rational and skeptical world, too;
> the American  philosopher Daniel Dennett does it.

I see this:

"I like to do a simple version of "Transcendental" meditation,
and it is measurably good for my blood pressure and my clarity
of thought. I highly recommend it. It has no more to do with
religion than my two hours plus a week at the gym. If praying
a few hours a week, or a day, helps you operate better, keep
your perspective, stay humble, fine. But the praying by itself
doesn't make you a good person, and it's no substitute for good
works."

http://www.c4chaos.com/2007/12/the-american-conservative-daniel-dennett-does-transcendental-meditation/

I wonder what the "simple" version is?(!) 

The article says: "He's been experimenting with transcendental
meditation in the Brook-Farm style". Not sure where you can
go to get that...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Watch movies and TV-series directly on your phone.

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 09/15/2011 11:46 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >> On 09/15/2011 06:38 AM, Alex Stanley wrote:
> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister   wrote:
>  http://store.ovi.com/content/187345
> 
> >>> "Sorry, this item is not available for your country."
> >>>
> >>> Over to you, David...
> >>>
> >>> http://youtu.be/wKiIroiCvZ0
> >> Uh David, my Android tablet has HDMI out so I can watch movies on my 53"
> >> HD set.  The only thing that "may" be lacking is 5.1 surround to my
> >> Klipsch speakers.  Also some phones may have HDMI out.  Currently
> >> Netflix doesn't have 5.1 sound unless you're running *some* movies on a
> >> Sony PS3.  Vudu has 5.1 though.
> > If you use an external monitor, then you are not actually watching the 
> > movie on a fucking telephone. The fucking telephone is merely the media 
> > player.
> 
> The term "fucking telephone" reminds me of back in the early 90s when I 
> was one of the few with a cellphone, female friends were amused with the 
> "vibrate" function. :-D
>

https://market.android.com/details?id=com.youkaicountry.massage&feature=search_result

Reviewer Sophie says pithily "Sucks". I guess you'd
have to try the app to know what she means.

[FairfieldLife] Uh-oh, Space Junk Alert

[PaliGap]

Heads up! (last words heard by King Harold Godwinson
at the Battle Of Hastings)

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/uars/index.html

"It is too early to say exactly when UARS will re-enter and
what geographic area may be affected, but NASA is watching the
satellite closely and will keep you informed...[little bit
sinister? Ed.]

...If you find something you think may be a piece of UARS, do
not touch it. Contact a local law enforcement official for
assistance. "

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:
 
> Promising, however, that you will try to get to Le Fanu's beautiful book 
> (prominent physician and science writer).

I took the first, easy step some time ago of ordering
this from Amazon - but have yet to read it. So seeing
your references to this I am berating myself with "must
try harder". 

Le Fanu has a regular column in my daily paper 'qua' doctor 
which is quite fascinating. In it he catalogs curious and
unexplained symptoms of real-life patients. A 'wonder' 
generator, and a scientific hubris deflator.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra  wrote:

> Hope you are keeping well there in Great Britain, PaliGap.

Very well thanks Robin.

I was watching a bit of France v Canada. Les Bleus came
through strong in the end (a fitness issue?). But your guys
gave them a bit of a fright I reckon.

I'm afraid I feel our chaps (England) are struggling. We
have a very exciting winger in Chris Ashton. But on the 
whole I feel they are over-coached, and as a result, rather
dull. Just about our best player is Martin Shaw - who, 
amazingly, is 38. 

But what about Ireland upsetting the Aussies, eh? Marvelous.

Back to business, and the subject of science and scientism.
I wonder if you've read the enormously influential and fascinating
"Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn? And I wonder if 
Curtis has, and if not, whether he would think again about
his faith in 'peer review' if he digested it?

The way I see it Science has changed greatly in the latter
part of the last century. It has become heavily dependent on
public funding - and this has strengthened the hand of what
Kuhn calls 'normal science'. As a consequence the concept of
'peer review' has come to be seen as the gold standard for the
scientific method. This seems like a step backwards
to the dark times of the middle ages - i.e. a time when the
accepted institution (i.e. your lot) would come down like a
ton of bricks on mavericks and geniuses questioning the status
quo (such as Giordano Bruno). 

;-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Dalai Lama a machine avatar in his next incarnation?

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
> >
> > Weird how our cars develop personalities, or appear to, based on how they 
> > respond to our travel related desires. That being the most obvious example, 
> > I find that I develop a two way relationship with every object I use.
> 
> Very interesting. I know people who insists that cars have
> a delicate soul

Yes indeed. Or what about boats. There's many a no-nonsense,
salty old sea dog who seems convinced of their vessel's self
and personality (sod the Turing test!).

[FairfieldLife] Re: A little treat for Curtis

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
 wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" 
 wrote:
>> Back to business, and the subject of science and scientism.
>> I wonder if you've read the enormously influential
>> and fascinating "Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
>> by Kuhn? And I wonder if Curtis has, and if not, whether
>> he would think again about his faith in 'peer review' if
>> he digested it?

> As I'll bet you are aware,it would be an improper 
> interpretation of Kuhn's brilliant analysis to be an
> indictment of value of the peer review process in science. 

There is a lot in your post that we can agree about (I've 
snipped it for brevity).

Peer review is a part of what Kuhn called 'normal science' (as 
opposed to revolutionary science). As you say, normal science 
is essential for progress (though the big leaps come from the 
revolutionary aspect). But the question I'd put to you is 
this: Is it essential as a necessary evil, or essential 
because it's a core value? It's difficult to read Kuhn without 
accepting the former.

Perhaps the idea of representative democracy is analogous. We 
want the core value of democracy. But we can't put every least 
little issue and decision to the vote. As a practical solution 
we elect representatives every so often - and they in turn 
will elect the leaders and committeee members that are 
required to create manageable, decision making groups (Your 
Political System May Vary).

But just as it's the word democracy in the concept of 
"representative democracy" that is fundamental, and that 
expresses our ideal, so too it's the word "review" that counts 
in the concept of "peer review".

I'm enough of a Popper fan to believe in the principle that 
*THE* core, primary value of science is that ideas, beliefs, 
theories (whatever) should be held up to criticism in complete 
freedom. It's "the arguments and experiments that count, 
stupid!" - not at all who makes those arguments, what club 
they're in, what background they have, what dissolute private 
practises they may indulge in etc. etc. (Note to Robin - you 
notice the old-fashioned, even scholastic realism about 
abtract entities there, as opposed to the nominalism and 
subjectivism that comes naturally to the modern mind? It was 
Popper after all who wrote a paper "Epistemology Without A 
Knowing Subject" ;-) )

"Peer review" is a quite transparent compromise of this ideal. 
(Knowledge "by authority").

So how does this fit in with Behe & your discssion with Robin? 
I'm thinking of this kind of thing of yours:

"But in this discussion we were talking about the assertions of
Behe in context with the biological sciences, and it is just a 
fact that he has not made his case to his peers. That isn't on 
me, it is on him"

This is where I think you are invoking 'normal science' to do 
something it just can't do.

Let's distinguish two cases for a discussion of a theory 'P':

1) A discussion of the scientific, philosophical, or religious 
merits of P. I would put it to you that 'peer review', or the 
fact that most scientists agree/disagree with P says NOTHING 
whatsoever about the truth of P. The ONLY thing that reflects 
on the truth of P is the logic and evidence for P. 

2) A discussion in which people who are not up to speed with 
the evidence for P (people who cannot review that evidence, or 
people who are unwilling to review that evidence) nevertheless 
have to make important decisions that depend on the truth or 
falsity of P. In this case it seems to me to be entirely 
rational to go with some such as "90% of scientists in the 
field believe in P, so therfore we'll go with P".

What I'm saying then is that against Robin and Behe, you were 
going with (2), when the context of the discussion dictated 
that you should have been focused on (1).

On the other hand, if you had been discussing as, say school 
governors (do you have such things?), "what should be taught 
in our school curriculum?", then I'd say (2) would have been 
completely to the point.

[FairfieldLife] For The New Age Man Who Has Everything...

[PaliGap]

Pregnancy simulator:

http://youtu.be/uqYaOmeXy98

[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open Letter to Bevan Morris

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
>  Which raises the question: How can you tell how many people
>  have read it?

Ah, well now you can tell how many folks click on links
in your post. If you have a Google account and use
the Google URL shortener (which, naturally, you can
Google), you can get some stats.

If my posts are any guide (and I would suggest they
probably are not), the audience seems small and the
interest levels are, well, minimal. A link might garner
a handful of clicks at most.

But I did make a post once that referenced the rather 
attractive and exotically named guitarist Tatyana. That
saw a big traffic spike - 30 odd clicks!

Conclude from that what you will.

(I think you should be able to see Tatyana's stats
here, including browsers, countries & platforms: 
http://goo.gl/info/2VXIZ . But be sure to click
on "all time").

[FairfieldLife] Re: CERN joke

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7"  wrote:
>
> just found these:

> Credits:
..

Debits?

[FairfieldLife] Re: An Open Letter to Bevan Morris

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Thanks for the tip. That's really neat. I think I
> clicked on Tatyana's link twice, because she looks
> remarkably like a former girlfriend of mine. Sigh,
> for both.  :-)

This poor biddy - focuses her entire life on her art,
on playing angelic music on a difficult instrument, and
all you can think about is... well, never mind.

On the subject of reviews, I'm eagerly waiting the FFL
reviewers' take on "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" (or
did I blink and miss it?). I absolutely loved the 
original TV version with Alec Guinness as George Smiley,
and Ian Richardson as Bill Hayden. My expectation is
that this can only disappoint by comparison. But I do
so hope to be proven wrong.

Next up - a remake of my other TV fave "I Claudius"?

[FairfieldLife] When Shankaracharyas Attack

[PaliGap]

Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati tenants dusted up
by bunch of heavy seers:

http://goo.gl/2PMoi

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Shankaracharyas Attack

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
>
> Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati tenants dusted up
> by bunch of heavy seers:
> 
> http://goo.gl/2PMoi

And it seems the alleged bad guys were associates of
Swami Vasudevanand. This self-same? => 

FFL #242635

"The first speaker on the first night of the yagya was
Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Jyotir
Math"

[FairfieldLife] Re: When Shankaracharyas Attack

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
> >
> > Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati tenants dusted up
> > by bunch of heavy seers:
> > 
> > http://goo.gl/2PMoi
> 
> 
> That's the fellow behind the hiedous attacks on Maharishi, no ?
>

Well yes, but it's his tenants being attacked it seems. And
by Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati's goons apparently. Whether,
as Vaj would say (at the drop of a hat), Vasudevanand 'has
blood on his hands' we can't really say. Perhaps it's a put-up
job by Swaroopanand!

[FairfieldLife] Re: David Wants to Fly

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:

> An interesting detail from Swarupananda is that Mahesh never
> entered into the guru-shishya relationship with Brahmananda. 

I am shocked. Truly shocked. What no "guru-shishya"? What
is wrong with these people?

> He was simply an administrative aide. 

Oh my dear. How very, very common. 

> How pure can the line be if permission (upadesha) never
> existed in the first place?  

Not just any common-or-garden permission - "upadesha" no less. 
That sounds really big and important. So... it must be!

> And he again disputes the reality of Mahesh-as-yogi in
> that to his knowledge he was never so trained 

What - never went to guru university! I am shocked, deeply
shocked. 

> "I was the desciple of Gurudev and had [been] taken into his
> fold through a ceremony called Dand Sanyaas which Mahesh Yogi
> could not get done as he was not a Brahman. 

You're joking surely. No one, but no one can do anything
highfalutin unless they're a brahman. I thought that was taken
as read?

> Also Mahesh was his secretary and he was not Gurudev's disciple
> in any way but was a part of the administrative staff."

Oh, (again) how common. You just can NOT be a disciple if you're
an administrator (I'm very 'correct' so I hesitate to use
'mere administrator', but you know what I mean, wink, wink,
nudge, nudge). 
 
> "So far as I know he did not know anything about yoga
> so I have no idea how he became Yogi". 

No opportunity to revisit one's assumptions there, oh no.

> But he was very smart and shrewd. 

Not patronizing. No, definitely not.

> He was responsible for the controversy over Shankaracharya's
> here in Jyotirmath. He wanted to put up here a Shankaracharya
> who would listen to him. That was his motive behind dividing
> the Jyotirmath."

Amazing that a common administrator could get so many
Brahmans' nickers in a twist.

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: This is your brain on God.

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=religious- 
> experiences-shrink-part-of-brain
> 
> No surprise here: just listen to right wing ideologues and you can  
> tell: it's as if a part of their brain was missing. But now there is  
> proof Jesus and God are shrinking their brains.

A fine example of what constitutes "proof" for a Vajster
(Precious little as long as it suits. Ed.). 

The same stuff with no SciAm pay wall:
http://www.philly.com/philly/health/132456883.html

A critique:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5509

[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:

> At the level of PC the body no longer requires a physical 
> nervous system. 

ooo sez? U?

Science? Faith? Hogwash?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:

> I just see it as a practice with no real pedigree,

Oh nos - it's a MONGREL! Look down our noses!

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said
it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your
own reason and your own common sense." ~ Buddha

[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:

> Certainly. That's why intact lineages of experience are
> so important and fabricated lineages are always potentially
> dangerous.

This? http://www.royal.gov.uk/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:

>  Who do you want guiding you, a current lineal exemplar with
> an understanding of all the pitfalls and their solutions from
> across time or someone making it up as they go along?

Clue: The answer lies in the way the question is phrased.

Would you prefer:

1) http://www.bertweedon.com/

or

2) http://www.jimihendrix.com/us/home

?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Asana, Sitting up in the Dome meditation

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
 
> -Buck in the Dome

Now there's a handle I'd thought I'd never live
to see. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > >  Who do you want guiding you, a current lineal exemplar with
> > > an understanding of all the pitfalls and their solutions from
> > > across time or someone making it up as they go along?
> > 
> > Clue: The answer lies in the way the question is phrased.
> > 
> > Would you prefer:
> > 
> > 1) http://www.bertweedon.com/
> > 
> > or
> > 
> > 2) http://www.jimihendrix.com/us/home
> 
> I'm gonna have to go with Jimi when it comes to guitar
> advice. If he starts lecturing me on how to safely mix
> drugs, I may switch over to the Weedon channel.  :-)
>

As you probably know, old Bert has just popped his clogs.

I did not mean to denigrate the old boy! Like Clapton,
Richards et.al. I too had his "Play The Guitar in a Day".
In my case "many decades (or even lifetimes)" might be more
apt than 'just one day'. 

The exaggerations of pedagogy, eh?

PS. My Yahoo web interface is screwing up. It's continually
making HTTP request to an ad server, and that's making the
interface almost unusable.  Same for you?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> What browser are you using? I have seen no such
> behavior, but that's because I'm a long-term 
> Firefox TB, and use the Adblock Plus add-on.

It's Chrome - but I also have FireFox with the same 
problem. I'd better get an ad blocker!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation Can Speed Up the Brain

[PaliGap]

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > 
> > > I just see it as a practice with no real pedigree,
> > 
> > Oh nos - it's a MONGREL! Look down our noses!
> > 
> > "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said
> > it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your
> > own reason and your own common sense." ~ Buddha
> 
> Both of my dogs -- both fully possessed of Buddha-nature,
> but both rescued pedigreeless from the Santa Fe Animal 
> Shelter many years ago -- are wagging their tails and 
> woofing heartily in the background. I would interpret 
> this behavior as them psychically agreeing with your 
> point...if they didn't act like that most of the time 
> anyway. :-)

Now that IS proof of enlightenment!

To pedigree, or not to pedigree? Seems a no-brainer.

On the other hand, our neighbour has the most beautiful pedigree
dog that, despite her lineage, nevertheless had to be rescued
from a souk in Cairo. 

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

She has a very sweet & gentle personality, despite the hardships
and cruelties of her early life. And yet...

I sometimes see my neighbour walking her dog in the lane between
the farmer's fields. Well. not exactly walking her dog - she
actually carries the animal in her arms for a walk. It seems the
dog is so highly strung she'll only follow certain paths. I'm
guessing your hounds would not be so picky? 

(On second thoughts, as is often the case with dogs, perhaps it's
the owner that's the issue! And no, I'm not hypothesizing that
that explains your dogs' Buddha-nature).

[FairfieldLife] Re: "The Bridge" (Spoiler Alert)

[PaliGap]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:

> There's a new Scandinavian crime drama starting on UK TV
> that I look forward to, especially after Wallender and the
> original The Killing and Borgen. It's called The Bridge 

Saw the first episode...

[small spoiler alert - though I don't think I give
away anything here]

One sees a number of 'persuasion techniques' used by
the good guys in detective series. But it's not often that 
you see a bit of philosophy wheeled out to get the informant
to open up. So I was most impressed by the 'existential'
persuasion technique of the Swedish, somewhat 'one-pointed'
detective Saga Noren...

So the guy's locked in his car with a bomb about to go
off. As it happens Saga knows of the guy, and knows he's
an atheist. So just as he's thinking he only has a minute 
or two remaining in this life, she nevertheless gets on the
phone to him to see if he's up for a little chat about how
his car got appropriated by the bad guy[s].

Well there's nothing he can do (he realises that).

She reminds him that he believes in 'nothing', so he need
have no anxiety about dying. And it will be instantaneous,
and therefore painless.

On the other hand, if he can just focus on Saga's questions,
rather than the ticking bomb, he might be able to help out.

Just how 'enlightened' does he have to be to co-operate?

Would/could you? I rather think I could not.