But Xeno that's what I mean by a meta belief: you believe that it's important to find a way to see through beliefs. Anyway, thanks for the NIH article. Of course I wondered what would happen if the subject were experiencing the deep rest of TM (-:
A Buddhist by the name of Tara Bennett Goleman compares neural pathways to ruts in a dirt road. The more you go down them, the more likely you are to go down them the next time. Conversely, when breaking a habit for example, it only takes one time of doing a different behavior and a new pathway is strengthened. I think people feel safer when they feel that their belief is right, that their scheme is an accurate map of reality, etc. Once I said something about survival value to a teacher. He said, "We're not here to survive." That was a mind stopping koan for sure! ________________________________ From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius <anartax...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:08 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Race and the blues. to Curtis and Xeno --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Curtis this and previous posts made me realize that we all, even scientists, > have meta beliefs about beliefs and these are the ones that at least need to > be recognized. Why do they need to be recognized? Well, for sure that's > another belief. It got me thinking that in Western cultures there's a > deeply buried meta belief that optimal human development is always good. In > the spirit of questioning ALL beliefs, I ask: is it. Is optimal human > growth always good? And with that we have to ask: good for what? > > Xeno, what do you think? Are there meta beliefs? How can they be dealt > with? And why should we even bother with that? Thank you.  > We are saddled with beliefs from our parents, our culture, beliefs that result from mistaken interpretation of experiences. All these beliefs entangle with each other. There are lots of beliefs, how you catagorise them and put them in relationships, put them in levels, probably is not nearly as important as finding a way to see through them. Input from the senses is raw, but it is not necessarily reliable as signal processing goes on and re-patterns it, throws away some of it, even before it gets to the brain. This is a distortion that we cannot undo. But the mind, which is basically another form that consciousness takes, is not direct at all, it is a running commentary on the rest, attempting to organise all that information in some kind of useful way. Because it is indirect, it is at least one step away from whatever 'truth' might be. The simple observation that very few people fundamentally agree about anything seems to show the mind is not a source of truth. There was a recent paper from the National Institutes of Health. The authors were dealing with rats (an appropriate model for us here on FFL). Neurons that store information, during a state of rest, reverse the electrical flow, basically erasing some of the state previously encoded in the neuron. This is why we forget. However if a similar pattern is experienced next, the partly erased neurons seem primed to make an even stronger connexion the second time around, and subsequent times. This may have to do with why certain kinds of repetitive and intense experiences like PTSD get locked into the system. This might have something to do with why beliefs get locked into our systems. http://www.nichd.nih.gov/news/releases/Pages/031813-backwards-neurons.aspx Why is it they everyone, me included, thinks that what they believe is correct, and what others believe is usually wrong? Taking all of us in concert, it should be obvious that this could not possibly be correct. How often are we really right about anything? > ________________________________ > From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltablues@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:23 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Race and the blues. > > >  > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > I really appreciate what you wrote Ann. I know you have a deep appreciation > for the arts and people who try to live by their art. > > As I'm sure you know every artist just has to follow their own inner muse. I > play music the way I like it, to please my own tastes. It can only be that > way for the kind of blues I play. So I am really not too vulnerable to > anyone expressing something here. I have put in too much time in front of > people actually listening to my music without some agenda, so I know I am not > the only one who hears the music as I do. And musical taste is so personal. > I would never hold it against anyone who hated my musical style. There are > some I don't like. > > And it is the same with philosophy. I don't care if someone doesn't share my > beliefs or lack of beliefs here. I seek out people who see the world > differently. Good intellectual boundaries means that I can accept that we > can agree to disagree about our beliefs and not feel threatened if someone > thinks I am crazy for my choices. > > Your points wer a sensitive ones and it was very cool of you to lay it out in > such detail. > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Or maybe, shock horror, Nabby just doesn't like Curtis because > > > > of his opinions about Marshy and so tries to insult him whenever > > > > he can in whatever way he can. > > > > > > > > Perhaps you want to quiz him about the term Hillbilly why you're > > > > about it? > > > > > > > > > Very funny. Nabbie has never heard my two CDs so he is basing his > > > opinion on a few random videos on the Web. > > > > > > And of course he is welcome to not liking what I do for any reason. > > > > > > I just objected to the racist term he used in his latest putdown so that > > > was what my post was about. His previous insistence that I am not > > > playing black music but instead "hillbilly" music showed how deeply he > > > has thought about the whole thing. > > > > > > He obviously does resent that I think his whole gullibility routine > > > concerning how crop circles are actually mating beds for bigfoot is very > > > silly. Or is it aliens or Maitreya running around sideways on the ground > > > like Curly in the Three Stooges? It is so hard to keep up with all his > > > foolishness. > > > > > > It is funny that people think that saying they don't like your art is > > > going to hurt an artist. As if everyone is a pop star who needs to be > > > "liked" by millions for their income. I just need to be liked by the > > > person who signs my check for my next gig or who buys my CDs. That is > > > the freedom of Indie music. > > > > Well, I would like to say a couple of things here. I do not think that > > others should criticize the art of another because of something they do not > > like about the artist unrelated to his art. I think the mere fact of making > > art, and music is definitely in this category, is something that, among > > other things, can bring out the vulnerability of someone. I believe that if > > one is willing to stand up in front of a group of one or one thousand then > > that person has opened themselves up to those people in the very act of > > making their art/music. I feel that it is a very poorly-aimed punch to go > > after Curtis, or anyone, by targeting what they do as their passion, as > > their creative thrust and as their "gift" to the outside world. And because > > of the passion and the love behind your desire to make and share music you > > obviously put yourself out there and it gets heard. > > > > No matter how much I may agree or disagree with your position on various > > subjects or how we may jibe at each other I would never attack you by > > belittling your music, Curtis. I respect you for what you do on the streets > > and in your paid gigs. It is not easy. I have seen some video of you > > performing and you are givin' 'er. You give your body and your voice and > > you exude the knowledge and love you have for your genre of music. I > > applaud you in this. You add something good to this planet with your art. > > When someone attacks that they attack some of the most sensitive part of a > > human being and they should have a care. As far as I am concerned that area > > of your life is off bounds unless it is relevant to what is being discussed > > or explored. > > > > > > > > > > I appreciate the intention behind your post. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Issues concerning race and the history of the blues is > > > > > > one of my favorite topics, personally and professionally. > > > > > > Thanks for the writing prompt Nabbie. > > > > > > > > > > Translation: Thanks, Nabby, for providing something I can > > > > > use to get back at you (by shifting the context) for > > > > > insulting me. > > > > > > > > > > > Nabbie's use of the them "wannabe Negro" joins a long > > > > > > dark history of racist terms > > > > > > > > > > Unless, of course, it's not a racist term. > > > > > > > > > > > disparages not only black people, but the whole human > > > > > > endeavor of the arts. If we identify any form of art by > > > > > > the race of the person who invented it, we are denying > > > > > > their brilliant artistic ability to express feelings > > > > > > common to all races. > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Renaissance > > > > > > > > > > > If we ridicule a person who performs a style of music as > > > > > > being a "wannabe" of the race who invented the style, we > > > > > > are saying two things. That only the people of the race > > > > > > who invented it can legitimately express themselves in > > > > > > that art form, and that races are simultaneously shut > > > > > > out of certain art forms because of their race. > > > > > > > > > > Or maybe "we" are saying the person so designated isn't > > > > > very good at performing that style, that they don't meet > > > > > the standard established by the folks who invented it. > > > > > > > > > > Whether accurately or not, that seems to have been what > > > > > Nabby was saying: > > > > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/338208 > > > > > > > > > > So how about it, Nabby, are there some white performers > > > > > you would consider "genuine negroes" in this sense, who > > > > > *do* meet the standard? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or maybe, shock horror, Nabby just doesn't like Curtis because > > > > of his opinions about Marshy and so tries to insult him whenever > > > > he can in whatever way he can. > > > > > > > > Perhaps you want to quiz him about the term Hillbilly why you're > > > > about it? > > > > > > > > > >
