---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote (to salyavin808):
1. Remember Gould's phrase, nonoverlapping magisteria?
2. What do you mean by real? Define it, please.
Perhaps you should also define 'real' and see if the definitions match up
first. In science, real is
Perhaps Xeno doesn't recall, but real was Salyavin's term, not mine, so
obviously he has to go first. But of course his definition will just be a
restatement of his metaphysical assertion that only what's measurable is real
(the fundamental premise of scientism). IOW, he can't object if my
On 4/17/2014 9:49 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
*Perhaps Xeno doesn't recall, but real was Salyavin's term, not
mine, so obviously he has to go first. But of course his definition
will just be a restatement of his metaphysical assertion that only
what's measurable is real (the fundamental
On 4/16/2014 9:56 AM, Share Long wrote:
Richard, Wilbur's book was published 21 years ago. I think
neuroscience has added greatly to our understanding of consciousness
since then.
Maybe so, Share I mentioned Wilber because in his books there is an
affinity with the POV of some TMers,
Richard, maybe the eye can't see itself but only consciousness can know
consciousness (-:
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:06 AM, pundits...@gmail.com
pundits...@gmail.com wrote:
In Eye to Eye, Ken Wilber applies his spectrum of consciousness model to
epistemology. Epistemology is the
. :-)
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:52 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
I see you are reduced to your usual nitpicking in order to mask the fact you
have no argument
salyavin, it stopped me in my tracks here at the end when you say ...if it
isn't measurable it isn't real. How about atoms? Were they unreal when they
weren't measurable? Did they only become real when we became able to measure
them? Of course these are rhetorical questions meant to make the
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :
salyavin, it stopped me in my tracks here at the end when you say ...if it
isn't measurable it isn't real. How about atoms? Were they unreal when they
weren't measurable?
No, they were always measurable, we just didn't have
...if it isn't measurable it isn't real. How about atoms?
There are to my knowledge no scientists on this discussion group, so what you
are reading Share is about metaphysics, not about science. In Indian
metaphysics, if some proposition or statement is found to be
self-contradictory, it
Try to imagine someone so desperate for attention that they settle for made-up
claims about witnessing their guru levitate hundreds of times. And, instead of
conversation, making even bolder claims about their guru being able to generate
golden light to fill a lecture hall filled with thousands
Actually Richard, I think you are speaking about 2 kinds of mistakes. The
phrase son of a barren woman represents a logical impossibility, a self
contradiction.
But mistaking the fence post for a thief is a mistake of perception. About this
you are correct in that the person truly perceived a
So salyavin, thinking of the atom which has always been real and measurable
except that we didn't have the instruments to do so, is it possible that there
exists right now, something else which is real and measurable but for which we
don't yet have the instruments for measuring?
On Wednesday,
I was with some children last night. I have no children myself, so it was
rather intriguing watching what interests them. One was about one year old, and
the other about three. The one year old seemed totally fascinated with an empty
aseptic package (Rice milk or something like that). Its whole
Richard, Wilbur's book was published 21 years ago. I think neuroscience has
added greatly to our understanding of consciousness since then.
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:50 AM, pundits...@gmail.com
pundits...@gmail.com wrote:
Ajax:
To find out if this is real or not, there is no
Knowledge is power, Share. It's like the analogy of the snake in the garden. At
night we see what appears to be a snake in the garden; in the daylight we see
that it was only a coiled up rope. The snake was real because it was
presented to our consciousness, but in reality it wasn't a real
In Eye to Eye, Ken Wilber applies his spectrum of consciousness model to
epistemology. Epistemology is the science of what can be known - knowledge, and
how we get it. Attempting to investigate the realm of spirit, for example, with
the eye of flesh, that is, the eye that perceives only
From: anartax...@yahoo.com anartax...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
I was with some children last night. I have no children myself, so it was
rather intriguing watching what
But, can she levitate like Rama?
I won't comment on the deeper aspects of your post, just pass along a wonderful
moment having to do with children.
Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful!
On Wed, 4/16/14, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote:
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2014, 3:09
:53 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
I was with some children last night. I have no children myself, so it was
rather intriguing watching what interests them. One was about one year old, and
the other about three. The one year old seemed totally fascinated
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :
So salyavin, thinking of the atom which has always been real and measurable
except that we didn't have the instruments to do so, is it possible that there
exists right now, something else which is real and measurable but for
salyavin, you read my mind! That's exactly what I was thinking of! Go figure (-:
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 12:26 PM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :
So salyavin, thinking of the atom which has always been
On 4/16/2014 12:37 PM, salyavin808 wrote:
But I'd leave the junkyard dog act here, they seem like a civilised
bunch and I didn't notice any sneering, badmouthing or withering insults.
It looks like this is about the time for this thread to turn to crap. It
looks like somebody is having
You mean, the post where I pointed out to Salyavin that he was hanging his hat
on metaphysics rather than science?
BTW, I haven't noticed that Salyavin has any hesitation about paying attention
to me. He did start this discussion, after all, and he sure doesn't seem as
though he's ready to
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
You mean, the post where I pointed out to Salyavin that he was hanging his hat
on metaphysics rather than science?
I was impressed, it was a damn good way of getting out of answering the
question. Again. And laden with your
On 4/16/2014 1:37 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
But boy, you freak out when you're challenged.
He was speechless when I reminded him that TM was based on thinking, and
he couldn't provide an example of a thought causing a physical change.
Maybe he believes Barry saw Rama levitate hundreds
On 4/16/2014 1:24 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
Wow, finding out that you've been espousing a metaphysical theory has
really discombobulated you, has it not?
It won't be the first time somebody on this list used metaphysics when
they were trying to talk about science. Barry writes science
Which question? You asked a bunch of them. All of them were irrelevant, though.
You seem to believe that classical theism and science are in competition--but
they aren't, couldn't be. Classical theism doesn't pretend to improve on
science. That would be silly. Remember Gould's phrase,
On 4/16/2014 11:05 AM, Michael Jackson wrote:
Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful!
Thank you.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
believer in the dumbfuck idea. :-)
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:45 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Either tell us where the laws of physics are inadequate
on principle, not
because she's a fanatical believer in the dumbfuck idea. :-)
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:45 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Either tell us where the laws of physics
. :-)
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:45 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Either tell us where the laws of physics are inadequate compared to theism
or shut the fuck up.
We're waiting.
Tell you what, I'll take a stab at it after you've made a post here giving a
complete explanation of quantum mechanics.
As I pointed out to Barry just now, I've already given you the core principle
of the argument--many times, in fact: Classical theists hold that what they
call God is not a
...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Yo, Oopsie Boy, starting out on the blooper trail pretty early this
morning, ain'cha? Remember, the lurking reporters are watching.
You dimwit, you can't
...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:40 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
Are you drunk??
What the fuck makes you imagine I think the laws of physics are inadequate
On 4/15/2014 8:42 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:
What is happening? Is Bawwy catching? Sal, you need to take your
temperature and get into bed. I think you've caught something vicious
- you sound just like Bawwy.
You are not the first person on this discussion group to point out that
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
And Ann can't tell the difference between a post in which Judy is replying to
Salyavin and Anartaxius and one in which she's addressing me. It seems that
*someone* in this scenario might be drunk after all. :-)
It all changes
: awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@...
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:40 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
Are you drunk??
What the fuck makes you imagine I think the laws
On 4/15/2014 10:38 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:
And Ann can't tell the difference between a post in which Judy is
replying to Salyavin and Anartaxius and one in which she's addressing
me. It seems that *someone* in this scenario might be drunk after all. :-)
Drunk, or just nerdy, to try
On 4/15/2014 7:31 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
But thanks for admitting that you can't even make an argument for
Being Itself, much less any other form of the dumbfuck God idea. :-)
Just speaking for myself, I'd be more inclined to believe a dumbfuck God
idea than to believe Fredy Lenz could
beautiful, deep clarity, thank you, Xeno
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 2:33 PM, anartax...@yahoo.com
anartax...@yahoo.com wrote:
This reply is specifically for Judy, not Turq or Salyavin. Alas she cannot
honestly reply, as it would break her word. That is not saying she is
dishonest, please
From: anartax...@yahoo.com anartax...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:32 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
This reply is specifically for Judy, not Turq or Salyavin. Alas she cannot
honestly reply, as it would break her word
Xeno's fine in this post. I'll just respond to Barry, because what he says
requires correction. (What else is new?)
This reply is also specifically for Anartaxius, and is *not* to be used as a
springboard for Judy Stein to use it as an opportunity to reply to him while
still pretending to
What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is
the exact opposite. ~ Bertrand Russell
I do believe you've quoted this from the FFL home page approvingly a number of
times here. Doesn't really seem to describe your attitude toward theism, I'm
afraid.
I
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 8:32 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
The experience she [Barbara Ehrenreich] had is quite interesting though, and
proof that we have an inner world that can go
salyavin, your mystical experience sounds quite wonderful and you say it stayed
with you. In light of your scientific leanings, how do you access it now?
Hormonal changes as you say?
Also I find it interesting that the continuum you suggest has mental illness at
one end and mystical experience
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :
salyavin, your mystical experience sounds quite wonderful and you say it
stayed with you. In light of your scientific leanings, how do you access it
now? Hormonal changes as you say?
I don't access it now, it happened when I
I'm guessing she meant assess, not access.
salyavin, your mystical experience sounds quite wonderful and you say it
stayed with you. In light of your scientific leanings, how do you access it
now? Hormonal changes as you say?
I don't access it now, it happened when I was young but the
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 5:53 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to flaunt
your ignorance.
See, here's the thing: If you want to make a credible argument against
oneself about that which does not exist? :-)
From: authfriend@... authfriend@...
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 5:53 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to
flaunt your
salyavin, yes, I like your last paragraph about depth recognition getting
crossed with reward center for pleasure. Now here's the next important step I
think: does that have lasting value for life? Because if it does, then for me
it doesn't matter how it came about, as long as it didn't involve
: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to
flaunt your ignorance.
See, here's the thing: If you want to make a credible argument against an idea
(any idea), you need to address the strongest argument for that idea. That's
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :
salyavin, yes, I like your last paragraph about depth recognition getting
crossed with reward center for pleasure. Now here's the next important step I
think: does that have lasting value for life? Because if it does, then for me
Maybe there's only one world and you usually see only part of it?
Ah, I still get that stunned feeling that hits you in your gut and that sense
of wonder about just...how? How there can be two worlds when I only usually see
one...?
In a way that's what everyone does, the world we see is in our heads but our
senses are only capable of revealing a small part of the electromagnetic
spectrum and our ears only a small part of the auditory.
In order to perform the clever trick of us thinking there is a theatre in our
On 4/14/2014 10:58 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
How can one inform oneself about that which does not exist? :-)
There are several ways a person can inform oneself about that which
does not exist. First, you need to understand the basic laws of gravity.
Then, you need to understand the effects of
You're explaining why there can't be two worlds when what I suggested is that
there is only one world, but we see only part of it. ???
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
In a way that's what everyone does, the world we see is in our heads but our
senses
On 4/14/2014 12:47 PM, salyavin808 wrote:
In a way that's what everyone does, the world we see is in our heads
but our senses are only capable of revealing a small part of the
electromagnetic spectrum and our ears only a small part of the auditory.
Translation: Everyone thinks, therefore
I explained that as well. Pay attention at the back!
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
You're explaining why there can't be two worlds when what I suggested is that
there is only one world, but we see only part of it. ???
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 8:06 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Oh god, not Ed Fess again. No, that isn't a good place to start. I read his
blog once and had a laugh at a few errors about
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 8:31 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
LOL. So lets get this straight, I've got to have an argument against every
ancient Greek or philosopher you can think
On 4/14/2014 12:47 PM, salyavin808 wrote:
Wouldn't it be funny if TM researchers undermined the whole
philosophical fabric of their own beliefs. That's be true science!
That's sort of what has become of the internet. The goal was to have
everything connected, networked, so we could all
Third Opsie! for Barry today. He seems to have missed the fact that I've
referred Salyavin to sources that do explain what I mean, but that Salyavin has
refused to read. Which one of us is feeble-minded, again?
Pretty funny charge coming from a person who lacks the intellect to
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 8:31 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
LOL. So lets get this straight, I've got to have
salyavin, ok, here's a comment and question for you: you mention that there's
all these addictive chemicals in our brain. Fascinating! Do they have survival
value? And if they increase with certain experiences, why? More survival
value?
Previously you mentioned something about several brain
Uh, what?? You're waiting on a treatise from me on why scientific methods are
inadequate compared to classical theism?
That's sort of like waiting for a treatise on why a pregnancy test is
inadequate compared to the Pythagorean Theorem.
I'm going to stay optimistic and wait for a
On 4/14/2014 1:46 PM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
You don't get it, Salyavin. The whole POINT is that people like Fess
and Judy can complain that other people don't know as much about
_LEVITATION_ fill in the blanks as they do. :-)
god gave this job to the birds, let them fly around while you use
67 matches
Mail list logo
