just say We don't know but the event is analyzable . . . then go home and have
dinner with the SO. Instead of calling it 'random' - which is just woo for
science folks who are afraid the conversation might degrade into talking about
spirits or the soul. But then, I'm a hard ass : )
Claiming some event is random just means the event is too complicated and we
don't understand it yet. So there is no calling a thing random, that is only
being lazy.
the article isn't asking Why? but How How or from where does consciousness
arise? Or, what is the fundamental reality - which might have something to do
with the What we do now/
What sucks for the vacuum cleaner is that it was created from other stuff - and
it's in a constant state of flux - meaning it's subject to modification, and in
fact, is falling apart right before your eyes. Imagine sitting on the edge of
a wild camp fire where flames and sparks are sporting
01010011011001110010011100100001
A few thoughts that may lead nowhere . . . At least some of the experiences we
have, for example looking at the moon, are stored somehow in the brain. We
know they are stored because we can recall them later.Also, if I first wish
for a turkey sub but then prefer a veggie burrito, these
We can (and maybe should, that's not for me to say) hold all sorts of beliefs,
but when the rubber meets the road, are those beliefs reinforced or undermined
by experience as we live our lives micro second by microsecond? IOW, I take a
realist approach to the question re the existence of god:
Words have meanings from dictionaries and various wiki's, and words have
meanings from convention; but in any case, words are defined by other words . .
. unless one is lucky enough to get a gesture thrown in as well. As such, much
of what goes on here in FFL is semantics. I could build a
I don't think Niz is making an appeal to truth, especially any truth with a
capital T - - but certainly he's making an appeal to honesty - honesty as to
what if anything persists and what can one say about the here and now . . . and
BTW, this is an honesty that no Mother would share with a
My first meetings with Maharishi were unplanned and pleasant. I was on TTC
Arosa in '75
Being a country-boy from WI and in Arosa in June it was like a second spring
and I took opportunities to go gallivanting in the Alps. One time I returned
from a walk to find Maharishi had flown in on
I also began by watching the What is the Self VDO and two thoughts come to
mind. Firstly, Tony is sticking with the Shankara traditional
presentation/philosophy that Maharishi employed. Now, whether MMY packaged his
message in vedic iconery out of compassion, as in, that's what we were
I didn't make it all the way thru the video - did Hammond mention the George
Burns / John Denver project and if it was considered a success or not?
I commented on this last week - I have no idea who 'Barry' or 'Jim' are posting
under (for example) It really only matters for folks who are referred to by
names other than their user/post name. If I told you my real name it wouldn't
mean a thang - I didn't make the Most Wanted List.
You are very good at quoting scripture and contents of text books (and there is
a value to that), but when you look to the honesty of your moment to moment
experience - What do you find? Put aside traditions and ancient wisdom - they
are not relevant today - today its What are you bringing to
I've been around FFL a while, but don't post often as conversations quickly
become too personal (I don't know folks by their given names) - and although I
can wade thru muck and mire, way too much bandwidth is used up on folks dealing
with their own emotions.
and I can't figure out the forum
This may be above my pay-grade, but if one is a transcendentalist/idealist,
then belief in classic cause and effect is incompatible with that belief . . .
or one has to significantly qualify what is meant by cause and effect. Many
folks who refer to them selves as transcendentalists/idealists
there seem to be 2 questions running through this thread: 1) is a belief in
God a mental illness and 2) is a belief in God justifiable.
the first question is too cumbersome for me - having the notion of mental
illness imbedded in the question . . . and I can't speak as to what a mental
Yes you got the spirit of my thoughts, and thanks for chiming in.The heart
of it was this sentence: ' I include anything that is physical/material, or
anything that interacts with the physical/material.'
especially the . . . and anything that interacts with the physical/material
because
these studies, should they be valid claims - - - how are these 'astrology'?
How are these claims tying planetary and lunar movements as cause and effect to
events on earth?For example, we don't need Astrology to explain the seasons.
Buck thanks for observation - I've been thinking similar recently that it's not
about the sutras or powers but the locating of awareness between - so I mix up
the order of sutras and make up a few of my own because as Hillary would say
what difference does it make? It's easier and more clear
It comes down to this: When we get 'to the bottom of this' what do we find . .
. a brute fact, an inert material process, or, will we find value, a nature, an
innate disposition . . .
Has anyone commented on this George Hammond? Anyone know him? I'm from
Madison WI and I think he hails from the vaulted Hammond family in these parts.
In order to make the statement that mind is an emergence of physical
matter/energy - one has to make the inference there is physical matter/energy -
and this is an inference that can not be proven . . . thus, why the notion mind
is an emergence of matter/energy is 'dogmatic'. Perhaps its a
Kali Yuga?We've been in the Age of Enlightenment since 1975.
A few years back they were looking for a volunteer to drive Bevan from
Milwaukee or Madison or vice verse and I sure was tempted to sign up and get up
to speed, lock the doors and get the grillin' on but then I realized that could
back fire and get stuck with 2 hours of cookie-dough
A long winded stawman argument . . . that others are idolizing one state of
attention over another state is in your own head. For example, if you go to
the doctor 50 lbs over weight and a smoker, your doctor may recommend 'a
different state of attention', whether you want to make a change or
26 matches
Mail list logo
