--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote:
>
> Judy, I read the links and like Penrose's idea that
> gravity collapses the wave function and results in a
> solid and fairly stable world. I had even wondered if
> some huge Consciousness kept things solid - somehow
> trying to merge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote:
>
> > > > What part of I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT YOU BELIEVE
> > > > or I AM NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU ANYTHING do
> > > > you not get?
> > >
> > > The part where you feel the need to USE CAPITAL
> > > LETTERS REPEATEDLY to insist that what Lurk
Judy, I read the links and like Penrose's idea that gravity collapses the wave
function and results in a solid and fairly stable world. I had even wondered
if some huge Consciousness kept things solid - somehow trying to merge the info
from our sense with the idea that we create the universe i
carde:
> So, Yogic Flying could be an ultrarapid series
> of Quantum ""Dislocations""?? :D
>
Or, parallel planes of existence, simultaneously.
Maybe what you experience as moving objects are
just momentary thought-instants. I mean, why should
we be able to affect the future and not be able t
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
>
> On Apr 4, 2010, at 4:20 AM, cardemaister wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > >
> > > http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=
> >
> > So, Yogic Flying could be an ult
On Apr 4, 2010, at 4:20 AM, cardemaister wrote:
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> >
> > http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=
>
> So, Yogic Flying could be an ultrarapid series
> of Quantum ""Dislocations""?? :D
It's m
Thanks for the references Tex. Strip away the deaming parts, and it's
nearly a perfect post!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote:
>
>
>
> > > It WOULD be a shock, although a pretty short one,
> > > if if all fades to black at the end...
> > >
> TurquoiseB:
> > Tibetan rebirt
Judy:
> FWIW, there's an erroneous assumption that because
> many of the early (and some of the current) quantum
> physicists were into mysticism, they must have
> connected quantum physics and mysticism...
>
"One thing is certain: if the human mind has an effect
on even so much as a single p
TurquoiseB:
> One of the points I was trying to make about quantum
> physicists talking about God or astrophysicists merely
> *assuming* that the universe had a starting point or a
> moment of "creation" is what I'd term "the persistence
> of early conditioning..."
>
"The Big Bang is the cos
> > It WOULD be a shock, although a pretty short one,
> > if if all fades to black at the end...
> >
TurquoiseB:
> Tibetan rebirth cycle matches with my subjective
> memories of past lives and the transit through
> the Bardo...
>
So, Turq is a 'TB' (True Believer).
Upon death, the individual so
Thanks. I've enjoyed it very much as well. Just for the record, I also
find it of little benefit to dwell on the possiblity of past or future
lifetimes. It's nothing I think about except when I try to make sense
of the big picture. Otherwise it's just the here and now that I keep my
attention.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
>
> http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=
So, Yogic Flying could be an ultrarapid series
of Quantum ""Dislocations""?? :D
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yhyeptg
>
> He incorporates gravity into quantu
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> >
> > I'm hoping I get to surf the Bardo and play the game
> > again. If I'm wrong and the world just goes black
> > along with any self or self-identity, big deal.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote:
> > > But as I understand it (and I
> > > could be wrong but this is what scientists are saying) just
> > > ha
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote:
>
> > I just finished reading Biocentrism by Robert Lanza. MD. He
> > cites the idea that human awareness of an experiement
> > actually changes the result - an oft-cited ide
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> I'm hoping I get to surf the Bardo and play the game
> again. If I'm wrong and the world just goes black
> along with any self or self-identity, big deal. I
> won't even be there to know about it, much less be
> there to be disappointed.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote:
> I just finished reading Biocentrism by Robert Lanza. MD. He
> cites the idea that human awareness of an experiement
> actually changes the result - an oft-cited idea by New Agers
> and spiritual folk of many types. In reading a critque
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
wrote:
>
> In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> > "Intervention" would obviate and invalidate the whole
> > idea of karma, which IMO is that *you* are supposed to
> > learn from the results of your own actions. You ste
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> >
> > ne of the points I was trying to make about
> > quantum physicists talking about God
>
> FWIW, there's an erroneous assumption that because
> many of the early (and som
I was a little rushed in my initial reply, and did not intend to bring
in reincarnation as a forgone conclusion. But, I must say that in my
system of belief, I cannot make sense of the idea of karma without
reincarnation. A few other comments below
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
But before you get all excited and start pointing your puja in her
direction Hold it right there. Just got my minimum daily requirement of
LOL. I gotta warn you, one night and you'll be getting drunk-texts in
the middle of the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
wrote:
>
> Okay, thanks for elaborating on that. I follow along pretty
> well, and see the point you are trying to make. Apart from
> this consideration, however, when you introduce "karma" into
> the equation, then I think things g
Okay, thanks for elaborating on that. I follow along pretty well, and
see the point you are trying to make. Apart from this consideration,
however, when you introduce "karma" into the equation, then I think
things get more personal. Like, you die. You are reborn. You have a
period of reflectio
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
>
> ne of the points I was trying to make about
> quantum physicists talking about God
FWIW, there's an erroneous assumption that because
many of the early (and some of the current) quantum
physicists were into mysticism, they must have
conn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> Yes, pitiable indeed.
> Om, 'Forgive them father, for they know not what they are doing'.
Identifying with Jesus are you? I saw this on the Simpsons when they visited
Jerusalem and Homer got Jerusalem Syndrome and thought he was the messia
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback
Thanks for perceiving it *as* feedback, and nothing
more. One of the points I was trying to make about
quantum physicists talking about God or astrophys-
icists merely *assuming* that the universe had
Thanks for the feedback
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
steve.sundur@ wrote:
> >
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> > > My idea of the universe is an enormous, eternal operating
>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
> >
> > Well if being condescending makes you feel better about
> > yourself...
> >
> > You seem to have a pretty strong opinion yourself about my
> > subjective experience. An
>
>
> Yes, pitiable indeed.
> Om, 'Forgive them father, for they know not what they are doing'. Ignorant
> in spiritual experience they are lost in their contending mentation. An one,
> he even traded his immortal soul for a guitar. Consider the source. These
> people are like modern day p
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
>
> > Yep unitary is my experience. I feel sorry in a human way for Shirmer, Sam
> > Harris, Gina, Curtis and Turqs, the doubting Thomas' full with lots of
> > opinion, an
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> > My idea of the universe is an enormous, eternal operating
> > system. It was never created, and it never ends, thus
> > there is no need to postulate a "creator." It
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
>
> > My idea of the universe is an enormous, eternal operating
> > system. It was never created, and it never ends, thus
> > there is no need to postulate a "creator.
Evolution is such a powerful mechanism and framework that explains incredible
complexity through trial an error, through adaptation. I speculate (worth a
spatoon contents of value) that something could plausible unfolded on the
physical, geological, and cosmological level -- awesome mind bending
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> My idea of the universe is an enormous, eternal operating
> system. It was never created, and it never ends, thus
> there is no need to postulate a "creator." It just is.
> I see no need to postulate an "intelligence" behind the
> functioni
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> My idea of the universe is an enormous, eternal operating
> system. It was never created, and it never ends, thus
> there is no need to postulate a "creator." It just is. A mystery
then.
> I see no need to postulate an "intelligence" be
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
>
>
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > The interest of many of the early quantum theorists in
> > > mysticism isn't at all surprising.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wr
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
wrote:
>
> Hoo boy. I've been away from the conversation till now, so I am
> sorry if my comments don't quite fit in, but First
> thanks for your reply. Some comments below:
And thanks for yours. I don't have time to d
Thanks Curtis, Those are some nice compliments. You know I do feel
fortunate that I can sometimes discuss things without feeling that
someone has to buy into my viewpoint. And I'd like to think that I am
also fortunate when someone pushes my buttons. I remember Turq one time
admonishing Rudra
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
wrote:
That was a great rap Lurk. I consider the fact that you are willing to take a
position and then start a discussion with zero defensiveness a model for
discussions here.
I don't know if anyone has performed sidhis and I cert
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
> This is a technical term for a non-sensory level of life. It may sound
analogous to sensory experiences but why would you use it? It's use in
science is highly specific. Slapping it on our sensory experience
without the context of
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
> That many things are a mystery does not make mysterious explanations for
> everything valid.
>
Isn't this how science started?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 31, 2010, at 11:25 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> >
> > > Are you saying that you have not had experiences that would be
best described as opera
Tart, do you happen to belive the twain will ever meet, or are the subjective
world, and the objective world two seperate realities?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
>
> A physicist, albeit a famous one, prescribed to a basic tenet of his
> religious beliefs and speculatio
Sal Sunshine wrote:
> Do you really believe all that, lurk? You really
> believe that there's some alternate reality going
> on that you can't see (and that nobody
> else can either) but can feel or tap into
> every now and then, kind of like beyond the
> looking-glass type of thing?
But ther
Hoo boy. I've been away from the conversation till now, so I am sorry
if my comments don't quite fit in, but First thanks for
your reply. Some comments below:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
[snip]
> > The interest of many of the early quantum theorists in
> > mysticism isn't at all surprising.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote:
> But luckily there are many new ways of interpreting it
> without any of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote:
>
>
>
> TurquoiseB:
> > I have *no earthly idea* how or why these things occurred.
> >
> Well, that pretty much sums it up: Turq has no idea
> what 'quantum mechanics' is, or even the general laws
> of physics!
>
> But, Turq sure does
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
> > >
> > > A physicist, albeit a famous one, prescribed to a basic
> > > tenet of his religious beliefs and speculati
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
> > >
> > > A physicist, albeit a famous one, prescribed to a basic
> > > tenet of his religious beliefs and specula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
> >
> > A physicist, albeit a famous one, prescribed to a basic
> > tenet of his religious beliefs and speculations -- and
> > that proves consciousness is a quantum phenomenon.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
> >
> > A physicist, albeit a famous one, prescribed to a basic
> > tenet of his religious beliefs and speculations -- and
> > that proves consciousness is a quantum phenomenon.
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> Yep unitary is my experience. I feel sorry in a human way for Shirmer, Sam
> Harris, Gina, Curtis and Turqs, the doubting Thomas' full with lots of
> opinion, and denial, that It is not more of their experience too. They
> wrestle working
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> It seems to me that there are three options available
> to someone who has in the past plunked his or her money
> down to learn the TM siddhis:
>
> 1. Assume that they work (or will eventually, Real Soon
> Now), and that there is no "reas
> > > What part of I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT YOU BELIEVE
> > > or I AM NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU ANYTHING do
> > > you not get?
> >
> > The part where you feel the need to USE CAPITAL
> > LETTERS REPEATEDLY to insist that what Lurk
> > believes doesn't affect you in any way?
> >
TurquoiseB:
> fuck you,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> wrote:
> > > > And as reluctant as I am to use this example, if Rama
> > > > levitated, (and I have no reason to believe he didn't),
> > > > would this not be due to manip
TurquoiseB:
> I have *no earthly idea* how or why these things occurred.
>
Well, that pretty much sums it up: Turq has no idea
what 'quantum mechanics' is, or even the general laws
of physics!
But, Turq sure does seem fond of those metaphysical
terms like 'selves', 'spiritual', and 'enlighte
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote:
> >
> > IMO, one of the best "proofs" of the fact that individual
> > consciousness is subjective experience of some quantum
> > mechanical (or possibly "deeper") phenomena is that Er
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
>
> A physicist, albeit a famous one, prescribed to a basic
> tenet of his religious beliefs and speculations -- and
> that proves consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. May I
> suggest someone has been sipping a bit too much Bushmills?
Espec
TurquoiseB:
> It makes more sense to me to spend more of my time being
> open to *more* such mysteries than sitting around trying
> to ponder the old ones and come up with some bogus
> "explanation" for them...
>
This post of Turq's is a classic case of metaphysical
obsfucation! I wonder if T
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote:
>
>
>
>
> IMO, one of the best "proofs" of the fact that individual
> consciousness is subjective experience of some quantum
> mechanical (or possibly "deeper") phenomena is that Erwin thought so?
>
> Wiki:
>
> Schrödinger stayed in
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
ME Using the language of a non sensory world to sensory ones is a good way to
conflate terms that shouldn't be together.
>
Tart> Sex and Love?
Excellent! IMO these words should not be separated! But the difficulties that
arise between
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> > I specifically asked her what she and her
> > > fellow scientists thought of the New Age attem
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> > I specifically asked her what she and her
> > > fellow scientists thought of the New
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> I specifically asked her what she and her
> > fellow scientists thought of the New Age attempt to
> > co-opt her field, and was greeted by a level of disdain
> > a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> wrote:
> >
> > > > (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be
> > > > due to manipulating laws at a quantum level.
> > >
> > > Absolutely not. He jus
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2010, at 11:25 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
>
> > Are you saying that you have not had experiences that would be best
> > described as operating at a subtler, or quantum level of awareness? If a
> > true siddhi has e
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
wrote:
>
> > > (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), would this not be
> > > due to manipulating laws at a quantum level.
> >
> > Absolutely not. He just fucking levitated, that's all. I see.
>It's
> the ol', "the universe
A physicist, albeit a famous one, prescribed to a basic tenet of his religious
beliefs and speculations -- and that proves consciousness is a quantum
phenomenon. May I suggest someone has been sipping a bit too much Bushmills?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
>
> --- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
>
> > What part of I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT YOU BELIEVE
> > or I AM NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU ANYTHING do
> > you not get?
>
> The part where you feel the need to USE CAPITAL
> LETT
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> *I* don't give a shit whether anyone agrees with
> my POV or not; other do, and are emotionally attached
> to people agreeing with them.
> The second is that *I am not trying to sell you anything*.
> I DON'T GIVE A SHIT what you believe.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote:
>
> IMO, one of the best "proofs" of the fact that individual
> consciousness is subjective experience of some quantum
> mechanical (or possibly "deeper") phenomena is that Erwin thought so?
>
> Wiki:
>
> Schrödinger stayed in Dublin unt
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> steve.sundur@ wrote:
> > >
> > > If a true siddhi has ever been performed in the history of
> > >
On Mar 31, 2010, at 11:25 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> Are you saying that you have not had experiences that would be best described
> as operating at a subtler, or quantum level of awareness? If a true siddhi
> has ever been performed in the history of human kind, would this not be an
>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
steve.sundur@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> > I specifically asked her what she and her
> > > fellow scientists thought of the New
IMO, one of the best "proofs" of the fact that individual
consciousness is subjective experience of some quantum
mechanical (or possibly "deeper") phenomena is that Erwin thought so?
Wiki:
Schrödinger stayed in Dublin until retiring in 1955. During this time he
remained committed to his parti
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
wrote:
> What is the hang up between trying to make a connection between
> these two, and using the terms consciousness and quantum mechannics
> in doing so?
Yes!
No, wait a minute... no?
Thinking about this (and what,say Curtis b
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> I specifically asked her what she and her
> > fellow scientists thought of the New Age attempt to
> > co-opt her field, and was greeted by a level of disdain
> > a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
I specifically asked her what she and her
> fellow scientists thought of the New Age attempt to
> co-opt her field, and was greeted by a level of disdain
> and scorn I have rarely encountered before.
Are you saying that you have not had e
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
> >
> Hagelin is not a one-off.
>
> As far as I know he is the only one who has tried
> to justify his beliefs with a scientific paper, "Is
> consciousness the unified field?" which
The realm of possibilities and implications of QM, relativity, string theory,
cosmology, can be huge mind benders. Far more out there than new-age stuff. But
non- physicists or old/not current physicists who try to establish solid
parallels using cliches without understanding -- using good buzz
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" wrote:
>
Hagelin is not a one-off.
As far as I know he is the only one who has tried
to justify his beliefs with a scientific paper, "Is
consciousness the unified field?" which was roundly
rejected.
> Just take Josephson for
> example (Nobel
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
>
>
> What if M was going on and on about the vacuum state or
> quantum field of all possibilities as PC and Max Plank appearing
> and saying, "What you say is preposterous. You know nothing of
> my work."
Or perhaps something quite diffe
From: tartbrain
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 30 March, 2010 9:17:02 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer debate Deepak and
Jean Houston
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "curtisdeltablues&qu
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
> > >
> > > >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote:
An extreme POV like scientific materialism is an easy straw man to knock over.
And characterizing POVs as insane seem a bit much. But Wilbur is a fan of
using physics poetry to make his ideas sound more concrete so I really don't
know w
Curtis:
> His understanding that there are many states of mind
> experienced by meditators or people doing traditional
> spiritual practices that we don't understand and
> should study...
>
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages
the world over, any crazier than the scientific
The "audience comment" by a guy who turns out to actually be a
theoretical physicist (!), who's working a on a book with Stephen
Hawking is another show-stopper worth seeing.
Hint to Deepak: have someone scan the audience BEFOREHAND for actual
physicists! Duh!
On Mar 30, 2010, at 11:40 AM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
> >
> > > Was it Max Fliescher?
> >
> > Yes, thanks! Although the seance with Max Planck version so
Sorry for the link omission!
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5306
I don't find Sam as prickly as Dawkins which is one of the reason I like him
more. But the underlying condescension of some of Chopra's claims for special
knowledge might rub me the wrong way in person too. Although Dawkins i
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
>
> > Was it Max Fliescher?
>
> Yes, thanks! Although the seance with Max Planck version sounds a lot more
> interesting.
>
> Many great points in your post furthering
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4
> > A cute little interview with Deepak and Richard : )
>
> That was excellent. Here is a longer debate with Sam Harr
On Mar 30, 2010, at 11:06 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 30, 2010, at 9:23 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
>
> > Chopra learned from the Master well.
>
>
> He also fell flat on his face at the hands of Shermer and Harris.
> While you knew
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 30, 2010, at 9:23 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
>
> > Chopra learned from the Master well.
>
>
> He also fell flat on his face at the hands of Shermer and Harris.
> While you knew of one time when Ole M. suffered similarly, it seems
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
> Was it Max Fliescher?
Yes, thanks! Although the seance with Max Planck version sounds a lot more
interesting.
Many great points in your post furthering the discussion. I'm not sure what I
would ascribe your perception about yagyas, bu
On Mar 30, 2010, at 10:01 AM, tartbrain wrote:
"How many have had that experience (of the Quantum Field -- at the
core of Creation)? See almost everyone"
LOL, this is so right on.
On Mar 30, 2010, at 9:23 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
Chopra learned from the Master well.
He also fell flat on his face at the hands of Shermer and Harris.
While you knew of one time when Ole M. suffered similarly, it seems
M. learned to simply surround himself with "yes men" thereafter:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> wrote:
> >
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4
> > > A cute little interview with Deepak
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4
> > A cute little interview with Deepak and Richard : )
>
> That was excellent. Here is a longer debate with Sam Harr
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4
> > A cute little interview with Deepak and Richard : )
>
> That was excellent. Here is a longer debate with Sam Ha
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
